10th Planet Discovered

[Amelia]

10th Planet Discovered

July 30, 2005

The Associated Press

It's icy, rocky and bigger than Pluto. And according to scientists who found it orbiting the sun, it's the newest planet on our solar system's block.

The planet - the farthest-known object in the solar system - is currently 9 billion miles away from the sun, or about three times Pluto's current distance from the sun.

"This is the first object to be confirmed to be larger than Pluto in the outer solar system," Michael Brown, a planetary scientist at the California Institute of Technology, said Friday in a telephone briefing announcing the discovery.

Brown labeled the object as a 10th planet, but there are scientists who dispute the classification of Pluto as such.

Astronomers do not know the new planet's exact size, but its brightness shows that it is at least as large as Pluto and could be up to 1½ times bigger. The research was funded by NASA.

Brown has submitted a name for the new planet to the International Astronomical Union, which has yet to act on the proposal, but he did not release the proposed name Friday.

The briefing was hastily arranged after Brown received word that a secure Web site containing the discovery was hacked and the hacker threatened to release the information.

Brown and colleagues Chad Trujillo of the Gemini Observatory and David Rabinowitz of Yale University first photographed the object in 2003 using a 48-inch telescope at the Palomar Observatory.

But it was so far away that its motion was not detected until data was analyzed again this past January. It will take at least six months before astronomers can determine its exact size.

It has taken scientists this long to find the planet because its orbit is at an angle compared to the orbits of most planets. The new planet is rocky and icy, similar to Pluto, Brown said.

Alan Stern of the Southwestern Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., said he was not surprised by the discovery since other objects around the size of Pluto have been found in the Kuiper belt, a disc of icy debris beyond the orbit of Neptune.

What's unique about the latest finding is that the object appears to be bigger than Pluto, he said.

"Unless they've made a grave mistake, this is for real," said Stern, who had no role in the discovery.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

there are scientists who dispute the classification of Pluto as such.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Pluto always gets picked on <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

[bevin]

So, there are three choices

(a) the new one is in - and there is now 10 planets

( pluto is out - and there are now 8 planets

© pluto is grand-fathered in, but new candidates must be much bigger to be allowed into the club

This could get heated...

/Bevin

[Gregory Matthews]

I suspect that the arguements that are made against Pluto being a planet will also apply to this 10th one.

[Ron Lambert]

Yes, Greg, especially since this new planet is said to be only one-third the mass and presumably the size of Pluto. Pluto is smaller than many moons in the solar system, and has an erratic orbit that regularly takes it inside the orbit of Neptune (where, I believe, it is now), so that technically at this time Neptune, not Pluto, is the ninth planet from the sun.

With no disrespect to the late Cyde Tombaugh and his place in history, I really think that Pluto and this new object or objects should not be counted as real planets.

[Guest]

Since eight is the perfect number of our Creator, it is reasonable to believe that He only created eight to be in orbit around our sun. With those counting Pluto as a planet, this never was sound reasoning.

[Ron Lambert]

Now if we could just figure out why God arranged the planets according to Bode's Law.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Since eight is the perfect number of our Creator

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I thought 7 was the number of God?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Now if we could just figure out why God arranged the planets according to Bode's Law.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

ROFL

[bevin]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jbstoneking/jbspage4.htm

/Bevin

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Amelia said:

Quote:

---

Since eight is the perfect number of our Creator

---

I thought 7 was the number of God?

Quote:

---

Now if we could just figure out why God arranged the planets according to Bode's Law.

---

ROFL

---

================================

Amelia why you have me ROFG[grinning]

========================

EIGHT IS THE DOMINICAL NUMBER,

for everywhere it has to do with the LORD. It is the number of His name,

IHSOUS, Jesus:-

I = 10

H = 8

S = 200

O = 70

U = 400

S = 200

888

[Ron Lambert]

Thanks Bevin, that was a good, informative page regarding Bode's Law and the spacing of the planets in the solar system. I would suggest that the slight imprecision is attributable to disruptions in the solar system about the time of the Genesis Flood, which more and more Creationists are seeing as being a solar system-wide catastrophe, and not limited just to earth.

I still think that mainstream science errs in dismissing Velikovsky. His theory of solar system-wide disruption is based on historical astronomical observations coming from dozens of different ancient cultures. Astrologers may not have been scientists in the modern sense, but they were certainly competent to record the positions of Venus accurately. And the reports of the earth changing its direction of rotation also come from many different cultures, and is not the kind of observation anyone could be mistaken about. In order for mainstream science to disregard Velikovsy, they also have to disregard the eyewitness testimony of many qualified ancient observers, who left records that survive today.

Reading Emmanuel Velikovsky is certainly a lot more fun than reading the pedantic, evolution-biased tomes of mainstream astrophysics.

[Doug]

Hey do you guys think there are people populated on the planets in our solar system? I heard from someone that they think God has hidden them so we won't contact them and corrupt them.

[Clio]

Not in our solar system I don't think. I think we're kinda in a 'sin' quarantine until the virus is eradicated.

I believe there are other worlds and other created beings. I plan on doing the "alien tour" with my angel as soon as time permits.

Clio

[Bravus]

Well, certainly not 'people' like us: the conditions on the other three solid planets (Mercury, Venus and Mars) would be fatal to us immediately. If there is life, and intelligent life, it is likely to be extremely different compared to us.

On the planets, there are a number of objects of similar size to Pluto out there, and it seems fairly certain that if it were discovered today Pluto would be called a planetoid rather than a planet. I suspect it will just stay at 9 on historical grounds and new satellites will not make it onto the official planet list...

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If there is life, and intelligent life, it is likely to be extremely different compared to us

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Why?

[Bravus]

OK, a few bits and pieces. This table (http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/lewis/mars/marstable.html) shows that there is virtually no oxygen in Mars' atmosphere, and that its atmosphere is only about 1/157 as thick as earth's. Anyone like us wouldn't be able to breathe there. It's gravity is a bit over 1/3 as much as ours, so it's likely people there would have thinner bones and be more delicately built than us.

The middle image on this panel (http://www.mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/MarsToday/marstotal.gif) shows surface temperatures on Mars ranging from 140 K to 240 K (that's -133 C to -33 C, or -207 to -27 F). We sometimes get to the top end of that range in Edmonton, and it's tough to survive. The bottom end is hard to imagine.

Venus has the opposite problem from Mars: too much atmosphere. Still no oxygen though - it's mostly carbon dioxide. Lots of greenhouse effect means a temperature range that's incredible: "Below the cloud tops the temperature continues to increase sharply through the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, reaching 733 K at the planet's surface. This temperature is higher than the melting point of lead." This Britannica story has the scoop: http://www.space.com/reference/brit/venus/climate.html Just to make it even more fun: "The dominant material that has been identified in the clouds is highly concentrated sulfuric acid, H2SO4."

Mercury combines extreme heat with extreme cold: High temperatures at "noon" may reach 675 K (402 C), while the "predawn" lowest temperatures are 100 K (-173 C). That's because it's so close to the sun and has a relatively thin atmosphere. Here's the Britannica article: http://www.space.com/reference/brit/mercury/climate.html

As for the 'gas giant' planets, they're made of gases (not much oxygen) and don't even really have a 'surface' for people to live on. It's hard for us to even imagine what creatures adapted to live in/on those planets might be like...

So if there are living things on the other planets, they would need to be extremely different in order to be well adapted to their environments.

[Amelia]

OK well DUH, I knew that. I thought you ment out in the universe, not just our solar system. (walks away muttering something about teachers picking on unprepaired students) <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/icon_smile_sick.gif" alt="" />

[Bravus]

LOL - oh, sorry! I was responding to cubensis' question about our solar system.

In terms of the rest of the universe, my best guess (and that's all it is) is that if there's life it's on planets very similar to ours, in terms of temperatures, atmospheric compositions and so on, and that it's carbon-based like us. I suspect people on other planets will still be pretty different anyway, though, because God clearly loves diversity so much here on earth (how many kinds of beetles are there?) Don't get me started on my Star-Trek-bumpy-foreheads rant!

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Don't get me started on my Star-Trek-bumpy-foreheads rant!

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

How about blue and green skin? hehehehe

[Dr. Shane]

Pluto doesn't orbit like the rest either. Sometimes it is the 8th from the sun but most of the time it is the 9th. Isn't that correct?

[Planey]

All of the planets have elliptical orbits, but Pluto's has the greatest eccentricity. And yes, when it is at that point in its orbit when it is closest to the sun (close to its perigee), it is within the orbit of Neptune.

It is also different in that the plane of its orbit is at an angle to that plane which contains the orbits of all the other eight planets. This gives some support to those who believe that perhaps Pluto was once a moon of Neptune which was eventually 'captured' into a solar orbit.

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

Answers In Genesis has a good article about this newest discovery.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

2003 UB313 takes 557 years to orbit the sun once—the longest period of any known planet. Pluto had the previous record at 248.5 years. The orbit of 2003 UB313 is also highly inclined; it is “tilted” 44 degrees relative to the other planets which orbit in nearly the same plane as the earth (the ecliptic). Pluto had the previous (planet) record with an inclination of 17 degrees. Such unusual orbital properties must seem a bit surprising to secular astronomers who believe the solar system collapsed from a cloud of gas and dust. In fact, the expectation that planets must lie in the ecliptic may explain why this “tenth planet” was not discovered previously; no one was looking there!

TNOs in general have been quite different from what secular astronomers were expecting.5 They are far more massive than the comet nuclei that were predicted to lie in the “Kuiper Belt.” Of course, 2003 UB313 sets the new record for TNO size, being almost as large as the moon. Moreover, a surprising number of TNOs are binary; they consist of two components that orbit each other as the pair orbits the sun.6

But such amazing worlds as the distant 2003 UB313 are consistent with the creative power of God. The Lord made all these things for His pleasure.7 In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising to a biblical creationist if more such objects with unusual orbits were discovered in the outskirts of the solar system. Discoveries such as this continue to support biblical creation and challenge secular scenarios for origins.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Discoveries such as this continue to support biblical creation and challenge secular scenarios for origins."

I don't think so.

Discoveries such as this are interesting. Yes, they do require explaination. But, I do not feel that they are a greater challenge for seccular theories.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, Brother Matthews, that was his opinion and you are free to disagree. To me it is refreshing to see there are scientists (Phds) that actually believe what the Bible says and are not afraid of critics. It kind of makes me want to break out singing.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Such unusual orbital properties must seem a bit surprising to secular astronomers who believe the solar system collapsed from a cloud of gas and dust. In fact, the expectation that planets must lie in the ecliptic may explain why this "tenth planet" was not discovered previously; no one was looking there!

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Now I am not a scientist nor do I have a Phd. Now this creationist's reasoning may be in error as stated above - but it may not be either. Is it true that this "planet" wasn't discovered because secular scientists were only looking in the ecliptic or is that just a cheap shot by this not-yet-perfect-but-forgiven creationist?