Looks like our solar system might get bigger. There (whoever they are lol) are thinking about finally giving some disputed space objects planet status. Read all about it here:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/planets-20060816.html
I think its about time seeing as Nasa has no actual Definition of a planet :-p which is strange. Some scientists dont even class Jupiter to be a planet they claim its either a failed star or just too damn big. So whats your views on this?

Interesting.

I remember there being talk of a potential 10th planet some years ago... probably in the late 80's. At the time, they were referring to it as planet X. I don't know whatever became of that. Perhaps it was deemed as not planet worthy? Or perhaps it was just a phantom spot in space that just looked like a planet for a while until they figured out there was some dust on the telescope lens.

I'm not sure asteroids should be classified as planets. If they are, that would be pretty bad. Think about it - the classic video game Asteroids would have to be renamed Planets... somehow that just doesn't flow well for a game title. Or at least it would be odd just spinning around blasting planets and the occasional UFO thingies.

I've always thought of planets of giant spheres of matter (very close to sphere in shape) orbiting a star. I've always thought of moons as giant spheres of matter orbiting a planet, but that were smaller in size than the planet itself that it orbits.

Irregularly shaped objects like asteroids and other large things don't strike me as planet-like.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with for a definition since I clearly remember learning the definition of a planet in science class a long, long time ago. Were our text books wrong?

This is interesting - from Wikipedia.com:

matter in orbit around a star. As yet there is no formal definition for the term, but based on a proposed resolution by the IAU, a planet is a body that directly orbits a star and is large enough for its gravitational forces to overcome rigid body forces to form a round or near-round shape. However, a body that is massive enough to undergo the fusion of hydrogen in its core is considered a star and not a planet, although there remains debate over those objects sustaining deuterium fusion. Based on historical consensus, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) lists nine planets in our solar system, though this number is likely to change to twelve should the IAU general assembly approve the proposed official definition in a vote scheduled for August 24th. Traditionally, a distinction has been drawn between planets proper, and large asteroids (which have been called minor planets). However, the dividing line between these bodies has become increasingly problematic due to the discovery of bodies in the outer solar system that approach, and in at least one case exceed, the size of the smallest traditional planets.

Maybe our text books didn't mention that planets had to be sphere-like in shape. Hmm.

I was looking at this topic before, I think that it's probable that the formation of objects in space should fit into different categories, for example, planets that formed in more direct contact with the early sun's huge electromagnetic radiation, which made those planets stick, and depending on how much interstallar material they were subject to (like tree rings indicating annual rainfall), and those that may have formed in a different phenomenon, such as "evaporated" materials, and "outflows" from planetary material that was moved in formation of the solar system. Then, the primordial objects which float in the gravity of the solar system, and all that phenomenon. I know all this stuff is explained, in formal terms, but I just say what I think. It doesn't seem to be contradictory, to call it what it is.

Traahn Wrote: Although I was taught there are 9 planets, I don't want to be stubborn for stubborn's sake and say there should always be 9 in our solar system -- and never 12 or 50 -- or that Pluto should always be a planet. Although it is a bit saddening that the foundation of what I know and what I was taught is about to crumble, I don't feel I'd be right to protest just so I can hold on to 'what we were taught in the olden days.'

See now thast whats wrong with science today, we assume we know everything I mean why cant there be more than 9 planets in the solar system? Just because every kid has been taught that there is 9?

I know asteriods shouldnt be classed as planets but you got to admit Ceres looks more like a planet than an Asteroid. I mean appart from the other 3 which they might add there are atleast 6 others awaiting planet status. Personally I think this is a good thing it shows that science is all about progress again. I mean we assume that relitivety is a known fact when actually it has only been proven to work on the small scale. Which is why nassa has spent millions on this probe to look for signs which prove relitivity.

I mean you get the same attitude from most scientists today which goes kind of like this:

You cant travel faster than light.
There are no more elements to descover in the nuiverse.
There is no life on other planets.

and so on all things which have not been proven or cannot be dissproven. Science today assumes that if no evidance exists to prove it then it must not be true.

What ever happened to descovery? in experimentation? if you ask me I am very worried that todays scientists are spending more time taking surveys on peoples sex lives than descovering a cure for cancer.abortion pills online abortion pill online purchase cytotec abortion

laphtiya Wrote: There is no life on other planets.

Hrm. I guess I always figured the general consensus on that one was that life probably DOES exist on other planets given the infinite number of planets that probably exist. However it does not exist in a form that would be able to contact or visit us.