Here is the "REAL" tenth planet of Solar System

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hi ANDREA,

Many, if not most of Minor planets are double, as is the other just discovered TNO, 2003 EL61. The big one has captured the smaller one. So why not the same for the Pluto-Charon system?

Apparently Pluto-Charon and 2003 EL61 plus little friend have dynamics that contradict simple capture dynamics. I read that in passing in the draft paper giving the 2003 EL61 moon's orbital elements, for example. All the other TNO moons could have been captured though.

It's not evidence, it's only a theory. Anyhow, Oort's cloud is not Solar System, or is it? In the first case if coming from there it would be of extrasolar origin, in the second would be not. :confused:

Ah, I see. I think the Oort cloud is part of the solar system, or at least it formed from the solar nebula. Things move so slowly and so far apart out there that that they didn't converge into a plane. I think these protoplanetary disks imaged around stars can be several thousand A.U. wide as well. Since there's nothing beyond that for comets to form from, some astronomers think Oort comets are from planetesimals that were scattered randomly by Jupiter or Saturn.

It would be interesting to find a serious consideration of extrasolar bodies captured in our system - Sedna is an oddball!

Anyhow we are speaking of Angel's sex,

Yes! An angel won't take his/her clothes off for us like these TNO's won't leap into our telescopes view!

Spiff.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Actually, I just thought... If the IAU does commend 2003 UB313 as the tenth planet, and gives it a name, what will the astrologers do:

a) bewail the horror of having to do all those horoscopes again.
b) rejoice at having an excuse why those horrible skeptical unbelievers were able to prove horoscopes weren't accurate. Astrology has a chance again!
c) sue NASA* for trauma in the nearest available Russian court.

Spiff.

* No, I think a certain Russian astrologer wouldn't be able to tell between NASA and CalTech, and Keck and Gemini observatories....

[maxim]

Is there a name for this new body yet?

Yes!

They decided to stop calling planets after roman gods. Instead they will call them after comic-characters from now on (well, fact is, the started already with Pluto). As of the '313' this planet will be called 'Donald' because this number is connected to Donald for over 25 years now!

maxim

[d.m.falk]

Actually, I just thought... If the IAU does commend 2003 UB313 as the tenth planet, and gives it a name, what will the astrologers do:

Many have already incorporated Sedna. Some already have Ceres, Pallas and Vesta. Even a few have already incorporated Cruinthe into their celestial pantheon.

d.m.f.

[d.m.falk]

Is there a name for this new body yet?

Yes!

They decided to stop calling planets after roman gods. Instead they will call them after comic-characters from now on (well, fact is, the started already with Pluto). As of the '313' this planet will be called 'Donald' because this number is connected to Donald for over 25 years now!

Pluto is the Roman god of the Underworld, the equivalent to the Greek Hades, boatsman of the river Styx.

Minor planets have followed the Greek, whereas the principle planets followed the Roman. The change started with Quaoar and Sedna, both native American deity names, for "minor planetsa".

d.m.f.

[Spaceman Spiff]

That definition, however, would immediately discard many of the exosolar substellar companions as planets, ...

Er, was that post made under the right topic...?

Spiff.

[d.m.falk]

That definition, however, would immediately discard many of the exosolar substellar companions as planets, ...

Er, was that post made under the right topic...?

Spiff.

Yes- Go back to page one of this thread, second-to-last, from Andrea, of which I quote:

A bootstrap approach to Pluto's origin
Vic Patrangenaru and Kanti V. Mardia

Journal of Applied Statistics, 2002, vol. 29, issue 6, pages 935-943

Abstract: The solar nebula theory hypothesizes that planets are formed from an accretion disk of material that, over time, condenses into dust, small planetesimals, and that the planets should have, on average, coplanar, nearly circular orbits..... We test here the nebula theory for Pluto, using both parametric and non-parametric methods. We first develop asymptotic distributions of extrinsic means on a manifold, and then derive bootstrap and large sample distributions of the sample mean direction. Our parametric and non-parametric analyses provide very strong evidence that the solar nebula theory does not hold for Pluto.

d.m.f.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Ah yes, now the context is clear. For a while, I couldn't tell if your post went astray from the current 'planet definition' topic.

Also, now I see your point is with merit. It seems to me that what the two statisticians have done is develop a statistical technique to tell if Pluto's orbit is concordant or discordant with the population of the other eight planets' inclinations and eccentricities, and therefore that Pluto's inclination and eccentricity as is is not predicted by a Solar Nebula/Disk Formation theory. However, that technique would need to be applied on a case by case basis, reflecting less ordered planetary systems like Upsilon Andromedae for instance.

I think that conclusion is correct, but it does not address that fact that Pluto could have formed with low inclination and eccentricity as a planetesimal within the Solar Nebula/Disk and later been scattered by any of the gas giants migrating in or out through the disk.

So, Pluto's current orbit is perhaps not its original one.

Spiff.

[d.m.falk]

Or that it could have, but being so far away from the greater influence of the Sun, it was able to attain some influence from the Galactic Plane, perhaps, but still locked into orbit with the Sun.

It's a fair bet we'll see Solar influence out to at least 1000 AU- None of the new worlds are that far out! (We're still in the 100 AU range, at the moment.)

d.m.f.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I read about about Galactic Tides. It doesn't mean planets' orbits try and align with the Galactic Plane or Centre. There's a lovely co-incidence that the ecliptic passes a few degrees from the Galactic Centre yet is inclined at 60?° to the Plane. I read a proposal that the ecliptic actually precesses and slews so that the whole solar system tips over every 250 million years to keep this alignment... Trouble is that planets' polar alignments stay the same (gyroscopic effect), and the Earth's polar tilt would have done a 360?° rollover twice since Cambrian times, yet there's no evidence to contradict a fairly constant axial tilt. Or is that the Moon at work?

Also, there's no possibility of Pluto's orbit being singled out for tilting over Neptune's, etc. Most likely, Pluto's orbit was changed by one of our own gas giants. I would like to read more about Galactic Tide stuff, but it's rare. The only context I know of is Oort cloud perturbations. Got any refs.?

Spiff.

[Juan Marino]

UPDATE Fri Jul 29 23:22:39 2005 UTC by granthutchison -> celestia/celestia/data/outersys.ssc:





[/img]

___________________
Thanks!!!
Marino wrote since....
Avatar The Aztec Sun

[ANDREA]

Now we are at the ridicolous side of this discovery.
This is an abstract of today's English (London?) Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objecti ... _page.html

"1 August 2005
XENA IS 10TH NEW PLANET
By Stephen White
ASTRONOMERS have named the solar system's 10th planet Xena - like the warrior princess in the 90s cult TV show.
It is nine billion miles from the sun and each orbit takes 560 years.
Scientist Michael Brown said: "This will rewrite the history of astronomy text books"

Being NOT Xena a mytological hero or god, this actualkly should rule-out this name for such an object.
Moreover, there is the Minor Planet 625 Xenia, and names with the same
sounding are not allowed.
Let's only hope that CSBN (Committee on Small Body Nomenclature) or WGPSN (Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature), depending on how it will be classified, will not accept it, otherwise we'll have the possibility that the eleventh planet (if any) will be named Batman or Terminator.
Bye

Andrea

[PlutonianEmpire]

Now we are at the ridicolous side of this discovery.
This is an abstract of today's English (London?) Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objecti ... _page.html

"1 August 2005
XENA IS 10TH NEW PLANET
By Stephen White
ASTRONOMERS have named the solar system's 10th planet Xena - like the warrior princess in the 90s cult TV show.
It is nine billion miles from the sun and each orbit takes 560 years.
Scientist Michael Brown said: "This will rewrite the history of astronomy text books"

Being NOT Xena a mytological hero or god, this actualkly should rule-out this name for such an object.
Moreover, there is the Minor Planet 625 Xenia, and names with the same
sounding are not allowed.
Let's only hope that the CSBN will not accept it, otherwise we'll have the possibility that the eleventh planet (if any) will be named Batman or Terminator.
Bye

Andrea

Actually, Terminator may be a good name, especially if we discover a planet that has man-eating carnivorous plants and over-active volcanoes and is too close to its sun.

[selden]

There already are lots of asteroids with, umm, silly names.

[buggs_moran]

Agreed Selden. The Ministry of Silly Names is just a short distance from the Ministry of Silly Walks, which, no doubt, most of you have heard of... We might as well call 2003 UB313, "Bruce", Personally, I like "Bob", yup Bob the Planet. If we took 2003UB313 and used the modern computer number/letter translation (cant remember the term i.e. hello becomes h3110) has such a nice ring to it, welcome to planet ZOOEUBEIE (pronounced ZOO-y-ewe-b).

Seriously though, with a potential 1000 Pluto sized objects in our solar system and even a few possible lurking Mars sized objects, I think all of this conjecture over naming is bunk. I didn't even understand naming Sedna and Quorar, but oh well.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Now we are at the ridicolous side of this discovery.
This is an abstract of today's English (London?) Mirror:

...

"1 August 2005
XENA IS 10TH NEW PLANET

<dilbert>Gaahh!</dilbert>

Actually, I'm hoping this is either the Mirror being totally unreliable (it's a tabloid), or that Brown and Co. don't seriously consider 2003 UB313 to be a planet...

Spiff.

[ANDREA]

Actually, I'm hoping this is either the Mirror being totally unreliable (it's a tabloid), or that Brown and Co. don't seriously consider 2003 UB313 to be a planet...
Spiff.

I fear neither, i.e. I fear that this time the Mirror is reliable and that Brown & Co consider (or try to convinct the other people on this) that it's a planet.
I'm following an incredible series of email in various lists, from which I can point out these facts:
1- behind astronomy research (and ALL types of researches, obviously) there is a lot of money, available only for those scientists that are clever enough to take care at the same time of both research and media follow-up;
2- the importance of naming an object as a planet versus any other definition, gives the possibility to be known and remembered, cited in school texts, and so on, and this can be very important for a scientist that wishes to gain funds for his reserches;
3- regarding 2003 EL61, there has been a lot of strange power games among the MPC (Minor Planet Center), the Brown Team and the J86 Sierra Nevada Obs. discoverers (Aceituno, Santos-Sanz, Ortiz), with incredible announces through media, regarding a possible hackering of one Team on the other Team observations, and so on.
IMHO this will surely pull out of the job a lot of amateur astronomers that spend their money, free time and their sleep time to work unpaid, and street men will have a disappointing consideration on science in general.
Bad times!
This is my last message on this topic, I'm absolutely disgusted by these facts.
Bye

Andrea

[buggs_moran]

[quote="ANDREA1- behind astronomy research (and ALL types of researches, obviously) there is a lot of money, available only for those scientists that are clever enough to take care at the same time of both research and media follow-up;
2- the importance of naming an object as a planet versus any other definition, gives the possibility to be known and remembered, cited in school texts, and so on, and this can be very important for a scientist that wishes to gain funds for his reserches;[/quote]

Heh,

(Reuters) Astronomers that discovered so called 10th planet received an astonishing $1.2 billion grant today from the Sony Corporation. In an equitable gesture the planet was named after it's parent corporation. Sony is visible with telescopes, but you have to pay a premium for viewing and any published photo or use of the name is subject to royalty payments.

In related news, palentologists under the Toyota grant have named their first discovery the Toyotasaurus... Just Kidding...

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm following an incredible series of email in various lists, from which I can point out these facts:

I read this after posting my comment about vanity being a motive to have 2003 UB313 labelled as the 10th planet. Maybe I underestimate.

Hmmm, I feel a conspiracy theory coming on... What evidence is that that Brown's teams servers were actually cracked? Is there a co-incidence between 2003 EL61 being announced by a Spanish team the day before, and that Brown's team had held back on 2003 EL61? Was the first announcement of 2003 UB313 seen as threatened? Looks like a job for... Tracer Bullet!

Spiff.

[Michael Kilderry]

Do you think somebody could have found an even bigger object by now, but are just waiting for it to be properly confirmed?

- Michael