Distant object found orbiting Sun

[Knight-Dragon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4726733.stm

Astronomers have found a large object in the Solar System's outer reaches. It is being hailed as "a great discovery".
Details of the object are still sketchy. It never comes closer to the Sun than Neptune and spends most of its time much further out than Pluto.

It is one of the largest objects ever found in the outer Solar System and is almost certainly made of ice and rock.

It is at least 1,500km (930 miles) across and may be larger than Pluto, which is 2,274km (1,400 miles) across.

The uncertainty in estimates of its size is due to errors in its reflectivity.

It might be a large, dim object, or a smaller, brighter object. Whatever it is, astronomers consider it a major discovery.

In 2004 scientists discovered Sedna, a remote world that is 1,700 km across.

Frantic checking

Two groups of scientists will be claiming the latest discovery.

It was picked up by astronomers of the Institute of Astrophysics in Andalusia as part of a survey of the outer solar system for new objects that they have been carrying out since 2002.

"We found a bright, slow moving object while checking some older images of our survey for Trans-Neptunian Objects," Jose-Luis Ortiz, one of the objects co-discoverers, told the BBC News website.

It was subsequently designated 2003 EL61.

However, American astronomers also appear to have detected it.

The same team that found Sedna have designated it K40506A after it was picked up by the Gemini telescope and one of the twin Keck telescopes in Hawaii.

They are due to present their findings at a conference in Cambridge in September.

Because the object is relatively bright, astronomers are frantically checking other observations that may have picked it up, particularly robotic sky surveys.

The new object was discovered in the outer reaches of the Solar System

 

[aaglo]

I bet it's a sentinel - placed there by the inhabitants of the former fifth planet of our solar system (currently all that remains of their planet, is the asteroid belt).

They didn't sign the Kyoto treaty back then, and that was their pay

Yep, that's gotta be it.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Could it be .... ???

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Article says the object doesn't come nearer to the sun than Neptune...

 

[Rik Meleet]

The object in the orbit-picture I posted doesn't either 2

 

[aaglo]

The elliptical orbit comes close to the planet Mars's orbit.

The mysterious 10th planet's orbit doesn't come anywhere near Neptune's orbit (atleast the schematic doesn't seem like it does, but who knows).

Besides, when does an asteroid become a planet?

 

[Rik Meleet]

(..)Besides, when does an asteroid become a planet?

Where does the article say it has the size of an asteroid or planet? In the article I see in front of me it says:

It is at least 1,500km (930 miles) across and may be larger than Pluto, which is 2,274km (1,400 miles) across.

The uncertainty in estimates of its size is due to errors in its reflectivity.

 

[aaglo]

I think I wasn't clear enough: that "besides"-comment was not related to the article in question - it was just a generic question

That comment was about the pic you posted, and the 10th planet. I bet there are rocks of all sizes circling around the sun beyond the orbit of pluto, but when does such "rock" count as a planet.

 

[farting bob]

So if its a planet, how many does that make now? 11 right? If sedna is an official planet as well.

 

[kryszcztov]

It's all a matter of definition. I already talked about it regarding Sedna. I'd put every spherical object into the same group. Whether you want them to be called "planet" is up to debate. IIRC, "planet" comes from Ancient Greek and means "moving object" or something like that. The modern definition is more like "massive object evolving around the Sun". Until a few years ago, we knew 9 planets. But now we're finding more frozen worlds that could match this definition, and I don't know why they wouldn't be called planets whereas Pluto is. Or maybe set up 3 groups : the telluric planets (Mercury to Mars), the giant planets (Jupiter to Neptune), and the frozen planets (Pluto and the rest).

I guess that the system of 9 planets belongs to the past.


EDIT : Under a certain size, objects can't be spherical, so every object that would be greater than this critical size can claim to be a planet, whereas the rest is just... rocks, asteroids, comets, etc... And satellites evolve around planets of course.

 

[Rik Meleet]

I think I wasn't clear enough: that "besides"-comment was not related to the article in question - it was just a generic question

That comment was about the pic you posted, and the 10th planet. I bet there are rocks of all sizes circling around the sun beyond the orbit of pluto, but when does such "rock" count as a planet.

I take it you haven't heard the story of "Nibiru" then. Whether it is true or not, it actually is a good story and explains better the situation of 4000 BC than the bible does. Wikipedia link 1, Wikipedia link 2

Edit: Krys - you are wrong about size and sphere's. It actually is that above a certain size an object cannot be anything else but spherical.

 

[kryszcztov]

Edit: Krys - you are wrong about size and sphere's. It actually is that above a certain size an object cannot be anything else but spherical.

The only difference I see with my statement is that you say it's possible for a small object to be spherical... Maybe, maybe. I don't think there is a single example of that though. But always being spherical above a certain size is what I had in mind, my bad if I didn't say it better. I think that I'm confusing this with the Roche limit BTW, shame on me.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The only difference I see with my statement is that you say it's possible for a small object to be spherical... Maybe, maybe. I don't think there is a single example of that though. But always being spherical above a certain size is what I had in mind, my bad if I didn't say it better. I think that I'm confusing this with the Roche limit BTW, shame on me.

Sputnik was basically spherical.

If being big enough to force sphericality is the criterion, Ceres is a planet. It was discovered in 1801, ie before Neptune and Pluto.

Regarding whether this newfound object is a planet, I'd like to quote a haiku by Steve Mirsky:

Planet ten, you say?
Boy, do we have news for you;
Pluto got the shove.

 

[Perfection]

And it comes complete with a moon!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050729_large_object.html

 

[Bootstoots]

Another one has been discovered, and this one really is larger than Pluto!

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp

 

[The Last Conformist]

Another one has been discovered, and this one really is larger than Pluto!

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp

Cool!

Now, we just need to get a probe there ...

 

[Perfection]

Hot diggity damn! Now we get to hear a great arguement over whether or not Pluto is a planet! Finally I will be vindicated in my quest to have Pluto struck down from Planethood!

 

[Bootstoots]

Cool!

Now, we just need to get a probe there ...

Yeah, I agree. Somehow I doubt funding would come in though, given the trouble in getting the Pluto probe off the ground financially (I think it finally got it though).

 

[Bootstoots]

Hot diggity damn! Now we get to hear a great arguement over whether or not Pluto is a planet! Finally I will be vindicated in my quest to have Pluto struck down from Planethood!

Where do you think the line should be drawn as to what consitutes a planet? What if a Mercury-sized KBO were discovered?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Clearly all KBOs are the same class of objects, so either all or none should be considered planets.

"Planet" isn't really a useful label. Even without Pluto, the traditional set includes two very different categories of objects - jovians and terrestrials -, one of which has more in common with the Moon or Ceres than with the other, except for orbiting the Sun.