|
Top Document: [sci.astro] Solar System (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (5/9) Previous Document: E.10 Could Jupiter become a star? Next Document: E.12 Additional planets: See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge While on the face of it, this seems a reasonably easy question with a simple answer, like the "When does the 21st Century begin?" question there is no hard and fast rule, no committee of astronomers who decide these things. The best rule of thumb is that if people think something's a planet, it is. Common criteria include orbiting the Sun rather than another body (although sticklers find this troublesome) and being "large". Some have suggested using "world" as a neutral term for an interesting solar system body. The word "planet" originally meant "wanderer", so using a strict definition, everything in the solar system is a planet! When Pluto was discovered in 1930, there was no question as to whether it was a planet. The predictions made at the time imagined it to be at least the size of the Earth. As better data became available with the discovery of Pluto's moon Charon allowing the determination of a mass for Pluto, and with Pluto and Charon eclipsing each other in the late 1980's--early 1990's, it was found that Pluto is much smaller than the Earth, with a diameter of roughly 2300 km (or about 1400 mi.). In the last several years, a number of small bodies at about the same distance from the Sun as Pluto have been discovered, prompting some to call Pluto the "King of the Kuiper Belt" (the Kuiper Belt is a postulated population of comets beyond Neptune's orbit) and rally for its demotion from bona-fide planet to overgrown comet. Is Pluto a planet? It depends on what one thinks is necessary to bestow planetary status. Pluto has an atmosphere and a satellite. Of course, Titan has a much larger atmosphere, and the tiny asteroid Ida has a satellite. Most astronomers would probably consider stripping Pluto of its status akin to stripping [the U.S. states of] Connecticut or Vermont of statehood because Texas and Alaska later joined. Is Ceres a planet? Like Pluto, when it was first discovered there was no doubt that it was. Within a few years, however, Pallas, Vesta and Juno were discovered. While Ceres is the largest asteroid, the second, third and fourth largest asteroids are roughly half its size, compared to Pluto, which is about ten times larger than the Kuiper Belt objects found so far. Ceres is also not thought to have undergone large-scale geological processes such as vulcanism, although Vesta has. The consensus is probably that neither Ceres nor any other asteroid is a "planet", though they are interesting bodies in their own right. Is Titan a planet? In the 1940's a methane atmosphere was discovered around Titan, making it the only satellite with a substantial atmosphere. This atmosphere has long prevented observations of the surface, frustrating the attempts of Voyager 1 and 2 and leading theorists to suggest a Titan-wide global ocean of carbon compounds. Recent observations have been able to penetrate to the surface of Titan, showing tantalizing glimpses of what may be continents on the surface. The atmosphere combined with Titan's large size have led some to consider Titan a "planet", but what about Ganymede, which is larger, or Mercury which is smaller and has no atmosphere? Again, the general consensus is that satellites are not planets. User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:Top Document: [sci.astro] Solar System (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (5/9) Previous Document: E.10 Could Jupiter become a star? Next Document: E.12 Additional planets: Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|

with stars, then every direction you looked would eventually end on
the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the
surface of the Sun.
Why would anyone assume this? Certainly, we have directions where we look that are dark because something that does not emit light (is not a star) is between us and the light. A close example is in our own solar system. When we look at the Sun (a star) during a solar eclipse the Moon blocks the light. When we look at the inner planets of our solar system (Mercury and Venus) as they pass between us and the Sun, do we not get the same effect, i.e. in the direction of the planet we see no light from the Sun? Those planets simply look like dark spots on the Sun.
Olbers' paradox seems to assume that only stars exist in the universe, but what about the planets? Aren't there more planets than stars, thus more obstructions to light than sources of light?
What may be more interesting is why can we see certain stars seemingly continuously. Are there no planets or other obstructions between them and us? Or is the twinkle in stars just caused by the movement of obstructions across the path of light between the stars and us? I was always told the twinkle defines a star while the steady light reflected by our planets defines a planet. Is that because the planets of our solar system don't have the obstructions between Earth and them to cause a twinkle effect?
9-14-2024 KP