Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

New Tenth Planet Has a Moon 223

Posted by CmdrTaco from the everybody's-doin'-it dept.
starexplorer writes "SPACE.com is reporting that the recently discovered 10th planet of our solar system has a neighbor - a moon. The discovery team also have nicknamed the planet 'Xena' and the moon 'Gabrielle'. Many scientists are objecting to whether the new planet really is a new planet - so what do you call a moon with no planet?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Tenth Planet Has a Moon More

New Tenth Planet Has a Moon

Comments Filter:

  • Smaller object orbiting a larger... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Caine ( 784 ) * on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:13AM (#13697950)
    so what do you call a moon with no planet?


    Do people never think about why the flimsy pieces of metal flying about above us are called what they are? The answer to your question is: A satellite.

  • so... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rhinobird ( 151521 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:13AM (#13697952) Homepage
    That's no moon?

    what is it? Some kind of giant space station?

  • heres a thought... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phil246 ( 803464 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:14AM (#13697954)
    so what do you call a moon with no planet?
    a space station?

  • A Satellite? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:14AM (#13697956) Journal
    A body that orbits another body is a satellite in all cases. It is a moon if the body it orbits is a planet. Either "Xena" is a planet, or Pluto isn't (in which case Charon isn't a moon, either). The really interesting question for me is whether there are a lot more planet-sized bodies so far outside the ecliptic.

    • Re:A Satellite? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
      ``The really interesting question for me is whether there are a lot more planet-sized bodies so far outside the ecliptic.''

      Probably not. Otherwise, they would probably have found them sooner; if not because of the more measurable gravitational effect, then simply because there were more of them.

      • Re:A Satellite? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:32AM (#13698024) Journal
        I'm not so sure. "Xena" is pretty far out, so its gravitational effect is probably negligible. And look at all the KBOs they've found at least a quarter the size of Pluto. (On your other posting, to ignore the joke and pretend it's serious - I don't know enough about extrasolar systems to know if they've found that the "ecliptic" arrangement is the norm, but I imagine it is - so extrasolar planets outside their local ecliptic are interesting, too.)
      • There may well be planets far out enough. There could even be a companion brown dwarf that we haven't detected so far.

        • Re:A Satellite? (Score:3, Informative)

          by niktemadur ( 793971 )
          There could even be a companion brown dwarf that we haven't detected so far.

          A name has been proposed for just such a sister star: Nemesis. First time I read about it was in Carl Sagan's book "Comet", and Mr. Sagan expounds a theory that would explain the cyclical mass extintions Earth seems to be prone to. In a nutshell, Nemesis swings close by once every 22 million years or so, close enough to penetrate the Oort Cloud, hurtling countless comets towards the inner solar system, and at least one of those i
    • ``The really interesting question for me is whether there are a lot more planet-sized bodies so far outside the ecliptic.''

      You mean you haven't heard about all those other solar systems yet? ;-)
    • "A body that orbits another body is a satellite in all cases. It is a moon if the body it orbits is a planet."

      This statement needs further qualification. As it stand's this would imply anything orbiting a planet is a moon.

      "It is a moon if the body it orbits is a planet", ok then, take the space shuttle. The body it orbits...oh wait.... (ducks).... anyway, you get the idea. The shuttle used to orbit a planet but it wasn't a moon.

      I guess you really need to start talking about the size/compostiion/origin o

    • Either "Xena" is a planet, or Pluto isn't

      I could say "Either Ceres is a planet, or Pluto isn't." Astronomers are weird about these things.

    • Either "Xena" is a planet, or Pluto isn't

      Not at all. Right now, there is no complete agreement on what a "planet" is, but it's not necessarily just a question of size. It's conceivable that between two objects, the smaller one is a planet while the bigger one is not.

  • What do you call a moon with no planet? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:15AM (#13697959)
    An endless barrage of tired Death Star jokes?

  • Name calling (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hydrogenoid ( 410979 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:16AM (#13697960)
    so what do you call a moon with no planet?

    Easy, you call it Gabrielle.

  • Xena? Gabrielle? (Score:5, Funny)

    by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:17AM (#13697965) Homepage Journal
    Callisto
    Words: (C) 1997 by Tom Smith
    Music: "Calypso" by John Denver

    To surf on the net, or to surf TV channels,
    Over and over, there's been one request:
    It's Xena we want, the Warrior Princess,
    At least Gabrielle, and we want them undressed.
    Now, I have to admit, they're not unattractive,
    But if we're talking fantasies, I want the best.

    Aye, Callisto, I think that I love you,
    You psycho bitch leather queen killer bombshell.
    Hai, Callisto, I sing to your spirit,
    I'm doing it now, 'cause you're going to Hell.

    Ai-yi-yi!
    Whoh-ooh-ohh...
    Ai-yi-yi!
    Whoh-ooh-ohh...

    I've noticed a trend in the Xena fan-fiction:
    Our heroes are lesbians, friendly and more...
    Meanwhile, on the show, they're all into bondage,
    Shackles, and leather, and sex on the floor.
    If these two trends combine, we'll get... Mistress Callisto...
    Enslaving our heroes...
    ... the ratings will soar!

    Aye, Callisto, put Xena in irons,
    I hope you take Gabrielle over your knee,
    But, why, Callisto, does Xena obsess you?
    You do it to her, but I wish it was me.

    Aye, Callisto, I think that I love you,
    You psycho bitch leather queen killer bombshell.
    Hai, Callisto, I sing to your spirit,
    An hour with you would be worth any Hell.

    Ai-yi-yi!
    I-I-olous -- wait, that's the other show...
    Ai-yi-yi!
    Whoh-ooh-ohh...

    --
    Evan

  • hhhmmm,,, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mad_Rain ( 674268 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:18AM (#13697970) Journal
    so what do you call a moon with no planet?

    I don't know, but I've got a lot of names to call scientists who want to name a planet and moon after tv characters. :) Nerds!

  • What is a planet? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Starker_Kull ( 896770 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:22AM (#13697985)
    For some reason, there has been a bit of a dispute about what constitutes a planet vs. an asteroid, comet, other thing orbiting the sun, etc. Some astronomers have said the origin of the object should decide, others give maximum orbital eccentricities and size, etc.

    Here is an easy idea for what should be called a planet, that is a somewhat "natural" definition. We first noticed planets were different from stars because we could resolve them into DISCS, not merely points of light - in other words, (aside from being close) planets are ROUND. This is not just an accident, but an indication that they had sufficient gravity to pull themselves into such a shape; thus their surfaces at some point were probably molten, there was a chance for various elements to sort into layers, etc. So why not just say if it's big enough to have pulled itself into a spherodial shape, and it's orbiting the sun, it's a planet?

    • Re:What is a planet? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )
      How close to a perfect sphere must it be? When you're getting into classification, items like that cause major problems.

      Personally, I favour 1) Must orbit a star 2) Must have sufficient mass to maintain an atmosphere (ignoring effects of solar wind) 3) If partnered with another body, the center of orbit must be within its diameter. I think requirement 2 probably covers 'spherical' well enough.

      Of course, I'm not an astronomer.

      • Re:What is a planet? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Gabrill ( 556503 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @09:25AM (#13698222)
        Oh quit being complicated. Pluto and Charon are big enough to be called planets. A binary pair in this case, because they co-orbit a central point. They're no more different from Earth than the gas giants are. We're actually closer in scale to Pluto and Xena than we are to the gas giants.

        Since we already classify the rocky planets and the gas giants together, there is absolutely no reason not to combine the third group of large (read gravitationally spherical) objects. For those of you who insist on a degree of perfectness, show it to a kid. If he says it's a round ball, then quit griping about it.

        Incedentally, moons should be gravitationally spherical, too. I hate the way scientist are still discovering rocks the size of my house and calling them moons of Jupiter or Saturn. Yes, this would reclassify Phobos and Diemos to mere satellites. Alternatively, a moon could be an object that doesn't look like a star from the surface of the host planet. Kinda hard to nail that down for the gas giants, though.

        Just out of curiousity, someone up the thread mentioned moons with moons of their own. Can you post a reference on that?

    • Re:What is a planet? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hattig ( 47930 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:39AM (#13698045) Journal
      Don't try to bring sense into this debate.

      Because someone will reply "if it is not part of an orbiting belt of material" to try and cut out Ceres and this new planet, to keep the status quo.

      Never mind the fact that the asteroid belt is in fact very sparsely populated, and merely a bunch of bodies in space in a reasonably common orbit, possibly created from the destruction of a single larger body or two.

      I'm happy with our solar system having 5 rocky planets, 4 gas planets and 2+ remote ice planets.
      • I'm happy with our solar system having 5 rocky planets, 4 gas planets and 2+ remote ice planets.

        Umm... I'm not. I think you've another rock to turn over. These folks are talking about the discovery of a candidate for TENTH planet. 5+4+2=11... or are you counting Earth-Luna as a double planet system?

    • Re:What is a planet? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @09:43PM (#13701409) Journal

      We first noticed planets were different from stars because we could resolve them into DISCS, not merely points of light

      Umm, no we didn't. We first noticed planets were different from stars because planets don't move in the same orbit as stars. They move in one direction, then they zig zag back in the other direction. The word planet comes from the Greek word plants, which means "wanderer". The actual phases of the planets weren't discovered until much much much later.

  • Fanfic (Score:5, Funny)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:30AM (#13698015) Homepage Journal
    Why do I have this suspicion that if we google the discovering astronomer and Xena and Gabrielle we'll find some 10 chapter epic slash involving the two amazons meeting Catwoman and Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

    "Gabrielle, this armor... chafes!"

    "Oh look, Xena! A hot spring! Here, let me help you off with that..."

    *Shudder*

    • Re:Fanfic (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:35AM (#13698033)
      Don't stop! I was just getting into it ...
    • I find your ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    • "Gabrielle, this armor... chafes!"
      "Oh look, Xena! A hot spring! Here, let me help you off with that..."
      *Shudder*

      I think there's supposed to be a line of asterisks denoting the off-stage activities between "let me help you off with that" and "*shudder*".

  • No accepted definition of "moon" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:31AM (#13698019)
    Different astronomers have different concepts of what constitutes a moon. For instance, many respectable astronomers consider asteroids can have moons [space.com].

    Probably, we need to have a lot more terminology to describe satellites orbiting other objects. The terms "irregular moon", "regular moon" and "outcast moon" already exist. There are satellites of moons and also binary systems where objects sort of orbit each other. It will probably be another decade before concensus develops on all this.

  • so what do you call a moon with no planet? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Unit

  • What do I call it? (Score:3, Funny)

    by qw(name) ( 718245 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:47AM (#13698083) Journal
    what do you call a moon with no planet?
    My senator, Ted Kennedy. He doesn't seem to represent anyone.

  • Not a planet Yet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:49AM (#13698087)
    As far as I known, Xena (2003 UB313) is not a planet yet.

    Mike Brown, who discovered it said "If Pluto is a planet, so is 2003 UB313". (And he said 6 months earlier that Pluto should not be considered a planet !)

    But in fact, they are both transneptunian objects. Along with some big ones we discovered earlier like Quaoar and Sedna. So what's the difference with Xena ? It's that Xena is the first transneptunian object larger than Pluto. But note that it's possible to have transneptunian objects the size of Mars. Size don't matter as they are still transneptunian objects, part of the Kuiper Belt.

    But you say "Xena has a moon". So what ? Even asteroids can have moons. No big deal.

    So the true question is "Is Pluto still a planet ?".

    A lot can be said, but I'd say Xena and other transneptunian objects aren't planets while Pluto is.

    Why Pluto ? Only because from an historical and cultural point of view, it's a planet.

    • Re:Not a planet Yet (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hattig ( 47930 )

      Why Pluto ? Only because from an historical and cultural point of view, it's a planet.

      Are we going to be scientific about this, or are we stopping the planetary count because most people can't count in the double digits?

      So what if it is in a belt? Does the fact that it is in a belt (with bodies in the belt being many millions of miles apart) somehow stop a massive body being a planet?

      Either: Pluto is a planet, alongside Xena (and Quaaarorora and Sedna, if they meet other planetary requirement) (and Ceres),

    • Why Pluto ? Only because from an historical and cultural point of view, it's a planet.

      We shouldn't be afraid to change the status quo. Objects have been misclassified before (distant galaxies thought of as stars, for example) and it's better to give it what we think is the best definition. Personally I go with the natural "sphericality" definition. Pluto is a planet as are all these new ones. So are Ceres and Vesta, but I don't see why so many people seem to object to that.

    • Re:Not a planet Yet (Score:5, Funny)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @10:18AM (#13698414)
      "Mike Brown, who discovered it"

      Brownie is doing a heck of a job!

    • All this big hoo-hoo noise among the astronomers about whether this or that should be called a planet. Or not. I think it is pathetic.

      This is a decision concerning celestial nomenclature and ontology that is better left by the astronomers to the philosophical experts in these matters: the astrologers. In particular, the tropical astrologers (or "western" astrologers) have been working on relevant material for about 50 years already. I do not believe that the vedic astrologers (or "eastern" astrologers) ha

    • So the true question is "Is Pluto still a planet ?".

      If it comes to that, the true question may be "Are Earth and Jupiter both planets?"

      There is historical precedent for deciding something that was considered a planet not to be one. The asteroid Ceres was considered a Planet for about fifty years [navy.mil], until it became obvious that it was merely the largest member of a numerous class of smaller bodies. So, it might well be that we will end up with the period from 1930 to the present being another such period,

  • Zero Gravitas (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FhnuZoag ( 875558 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:52AM (#13698098)
    Gee, can these name choosers at least give a minimum of coolness? Huge continent-sized lumps of rock in space should at least have some weighty, dignified name. I mean, think of what we would be doing in the future. Will people ever be able say 'Invaders from planet Buffy' with a straight face?

    And what if we find life? I'd assume the inhabitants of a planet named after characters in a TV show can be quite offended. I propose we go back to good old fashioned Gods and Goddesses.
    • So naming stuff after characters of contemporary stories is bad, but naming stuff after characters of ancient stories is okay? ... Right. Double standards. :-P

  • Auctioning off the names (Score:4, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:52AM (#13698100) Homepage Journal
    I think the scientists could have auctioned off the names of the new objects to pay for further space exploration, better telescopes, etc.

    Here's an example: a species named after goldenpalace.com (an online casino):

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7493711/ [msn.com]

  • Rupert (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Sunday October 02, 2005 @08:53AM (#13698104) Journal
    Come on, don't any of these guys read Douglas Adams books? At least one of these objects has to be named Rupert!

    • Yes, we do. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 )
      And a lot of us really didn't like "Mostly Harmless". Even Adams admits it was a bleak book due to some problems in his life, and wanted to write a more upbeat sixth book, but he didn't get the chance.
    • This new moon will really wreak havoc on astrological charts.

  • Why Xena and Gabrielle? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Whispers_in_the_dark ( 560817 ) <rich...harkins@@@gmail...com> on Sunday October 02, 2005 @09:05AM (#13698139)
    Am I to assume from the naming that the new planets having nothing more going for them than huge ... tracts of land?

  • KITH (Score:3, Funny)

    by CaffeineAddict2001 ( 518485 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @09:42AM (#13698270)
    Mark: Hey, see that moon? No that one there.

    Dave and Bruce: Ahh.

    Mark: I think that moon is a bit of a spy. Yes I do. There was a moon like that on the summer of my sixteenth year. Some say I was sixteen but [sigh] I don't know. And there was a girl, too; her name was Marie. At night together we would walk down by the sea and oh my god if you could see the body on this woman. The way at night her long legs would stick into the moist night sand like gods own barge poles, you know. And I longed to tell her the feeling I had in my heart for her but the words would not come, they would not come through my spotty adolescent face, they would not come through my angry hair or my sweaty feet or any other part on this body that I know call a man. So the words je t'aime were never passed between us but the moon, yes, that moon spied on us.

    [He takes a drink of wine then passes the bottle to Bruce]

    Bruce: The moon is bright over Lebanon tonight! The Lebanese moon looks down shim! sham! shikam!!! Cattle Explodes! Cow shrapnel drips off a tree cascades into a mothers tear. Poor little boy who goes into battle and comes back dead or worse comes back a man. Why don't you warn them moon? Why don't you say duck or scram? But the moon will not. The moon just sits there grinning like a corpse at a Dean Martin roast. What are you laughing at moon? Why don't you share it with the whole class moon? The moon laughs knowingly, the moon laughs, the moon, the.

    [He takes a drink of wine and passes the bottle to Dave]

    [Dave looks nervous]

    Dave: Gee , I wonder who owns that moon?

    [Dave sighs disappointedly]

    Mark and Bruce: Yes...yes...yes...yes.
  • This is Brown and the Caltech guys, not Santos-Sanz and Ortiz, who stole their work [caltech.edu].

    Anyway, this was already announced a while back. The story about the moon has been on the linked webpage since at least the last Slashdot story.

    Consider, for example, the instantaneous Ortiz et al. announcement of the existence of 2003 EL61. Headlines in places like the BBC web site breathlessly exclaimed "new object may be twice the size of Pluto." But even at the time we knew that 2003 EL61 had a satellite and was only


    • The story about the moon has been on the linked webpage since at least the last Slashdot story

      No- that was a different object (2003EL61) which has a moon- it is new news that 2003UB313 has one, and the prospect of using the moon to accurately weigh 2003UB313 is huge.

  • Dominatrix Moon - Rated PG (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @09:54AM (#13698319) Homepage Journal
    Honestly, can we get a name that doesn't reek of pop culture? But then again, why not I guess. It's either name it after a long string of numbers, some obscure historical diety or a show about lesbian dominatrix warrior women in leather. Hmmm, I guess that's not such a tough choice after all. That, and I just wanted to use "lesbian dominatrix warrior women" in a sentance.

  • This is stupid (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RobinH ( 124750 )
    This is all stupid, and it all falls out of our need to categorize everything, usually on the wrong criteria.

    So, you have stars, and they're easy to identify because there's this whole fusion reaction that gives off a lot of radiated energy. Everything that is too small to start the reaction is just in a different category - "not a star".

    Falling into the "not a star" category within our solar system, all of the observed objects have parameters that are continuous variables, not categorical. Earth and Mars
    • "So, you have stars, and they're easy to identify because there's this whole fusion reaction that gives off a lot of radiated energy. Everything that is too small to start the reaction is just in a different category - "not a star"."

      White dwarfs and neutron stars don't have fusion...
  • OK, I am going to sue whomever is responsible for this discovery. They are messing with my horoscope and now my fate will be influenced by Xena.
    I better hurry too before some Russian lady beats me to it.
  • Aww c'mon! It's bad enought that my old planets mneumonic has become useless currency in the last few months, now they're making it impossible to come up with a new one.
  • There's a moon in the sky
    It's called the moon
    And everybody is there, including,
    Saturn, Mercury
    Saturn, Venus
    Saturn, Mars
    Saturn, Jupiter
    The Van Allen Belt

  • From the horse's mouth... (Score:5, Informative)

    by call -151 ( 230520 ) * on Sunday October 02, 2005 @11:17AM (#13698689) Homepage
    Michael Brown [caltech.edu], one of the scientists on the team that discovered the planet and now its moon, has an excellent website about 2003UB313 [caltech.edu] and has been keeping it current. I've been checking it out to see if there are any interesting developments about the team that apparently claimed the discovery of 2003UB313 without mentioning the fact that they at least visited the logs of the telescope Brown's team was using, if not outright deducing its existence from those logs. It's great to see this kind of rapid dissemination from the principals. By the way, he also has an extensive website about his newborn daughter's sleep patterns [caltech.edu] which is pretty impressive too...
    • I've been checking it out to see if there are any interesting developments about the team that apparently claimed the discovery of 2003UB313 without mentioning the fact that they at least visited the logs of the telescope Brown's team was using, if not outright deducing its existence from those logs.

      "The fact"? Where has that "fact" been established? So far, all we have in an accusation and a claim from one party.

      And, assuming Brown's claims are true, why should they mention that fact? It is Brown's asse
  • IMHO, since we are having such a debate as what is a planet and what is not, then the notion of a planet has outlived its usefulness. Out of all of the large rocks orbiting the sun, why select some to be called planets and others not? Is there a need to draw such a distinction? Labelling some objects as planets and others as not is as ridiculous as deciding upon "x" meters of string to be known as a standard long or short piece.

    If you say we need "planets" so that objects may be easily classified, then I
    • There's this persistent idea that you can't do science(and even communication in general) unless everything is frozen into precise definitions. Sure you can.

      You use the word 'planet' when its meaning is clear in the context of a specific communication. In other instances when the word generates confusion, you avoid the word and use another one. If on occasion more clarification is needed, you add clarification. Usage doesn't even have to be consistent. If you start from the idea that planets are big, what's

  • ...wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by Pu'be ( 618443 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @11:45AM (#13698848)
    "The discovery team also have nicknamed the planet 'Xena' and the moon 'Gabrielle'." Wow....any bets on the discovery team being nothing but virgins?

  • There is no such thing as a planet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RhettLivingston ( 544140 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @12:02PM (#13698931) Journal

    The problem here is not one of underclassification, its one of overclassification. We are classifying things to a level beyond which our theories are solid enough to prove. Thus, as we discover and understand more, we face the problem of having wrongly taught generations of people who now protect what they "know" because, after all, they never teach anything wrong in school.

    Unless they can come up with a concise definition that doesn't sound like someone is simply trying to justify their historical bias, perhaps we should just solve this by dropping the word "planet". We could just make everything a satellite and perhaps go the one step further of including the largest body it orbits. So, all of the planets become solar satellites and our moon becomes a mere Earth satellite.

  • What happened to Sedna or EL61? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Billy Ray Cyrus ( 919668 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @12:10PM (#13698976)
    I thought they had already found the "10th" planet. Wasn't it called Sedna? And what ever happened to that other object that had a moon they found called EL61? Here is a reference to the story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8756128/ [msn.com]
  • Were I Dave Matthews I'd have to go with Satellite. Too bad the damn song is so hard to play.
  • I shall call him... *pinky to corner of mouth* Mini-Moon!

  • ANOTHER tenth planet? (Score:3, Informative)

    by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Sunday October 02, 2005 @02:44PM (#13699748)
    How many tenth planets does our system have? I thought that in 2003, it was already named Sedna. (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/sedna/ [caltech.edu])

    They can't BOTH be the tenth planet, can they?
    • Explanation 1: The X in Planet X stands for unknown, not for 10. Some reporter got confused and thought it was a Roman numeral.
      Explanation 2: Because of their eccentricities, the orbits of the outer planets interweave with each other. Sometimes Pluto is the eighth planet out and Nepute ninth. Perhaps the outer planets do the same thing.
      Explanation 3: Sedna is not considered a planet.
      Explanation 4: Astronomers can't count.

Slashdot Top Deals

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Close