is there really any tenth planet in universe or solar system?
438002
Senda - smaller than pluto, not a planet.\n2003 UB313 - bigger than pluto, not a planet\n\nThere are lots of objects just like Pluto out there, but right now it is a "planet" and the others are not.  The IAU's Division of Planetary Science is currently working on the whole planet issue, and we are supposed to have some sort of resolution to this issue by august of this year.  It is actually quite a mess over at the IAU right now.\n\nAs far as the universe goes?  We have found almost 200 objects that we call planets, but they are orbiting other stars.
139598
Don't forget the tenth planet "Xena"\n\nSome info on the planets:\n\nhttp://beaker.atspace.org/spaceglossplanets.htm
572044
Yes UB313 (which was not discovered last year, but in 2003).\n\nBe careful calling it a planet, however.  Web sites and journalists love to talk about the "tenth planet" because it sounds more exciting that "yet another trans-neptunian object (TNO)."  However, astronomers (the International Astronomical Union, or IAU) do not officially recognize this as a "planet."  This may change later this year (in September) when the IAU is scheduled to come up with a more solid definition of what a "planet" is (how big, what orbit, etc.) ... but until then, you sound more like a real astronomer if you don't call it a "planet."
1071916
no, astronomers are trying to define what a planet is, but it isn't easy.  many astronomers favor the reclassification of the bodies in the solar system into three groups, the rocky terrestrials, the gas giants, and the ice dwarfs.  there are four rocky terrestrials and four gas giants, but there are hundreds of known ice dwarfs. this is called the kuiper belt.  kuiper belt objects are bodies like pluto, quaoar, sedna, 2003 UB313, and 2003 EL61.  2003 UB313 (the official name of xena) is about five percent bigger than pluto, but pluto was the first kuiper belt object discovered.\n\nread this page:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
179092
Speaking in strictly statistical terms, it is inevitable that at any given moment in the life of the universe as a whole there are at least 10 MILLION planets in this galaxy alone which are capable of supporting life.\nIt is statistically a sure bet that at least 10 of these planets are supporting intelligent life.\nStatistics cannot give a clue, however, about what these fellow sapient beings look like or think like.
1091585
You've awakened the starry-eyed dreamer in me at this late hour!  I should be sleeping, but can't resist your question.\n\nHow many other planets, do I think?  Actually my number is a lot higher than millions!  In fact, on this subject you get into numbers so large that most of us humans cannot relate them to anything in our experience.  So, sadly, I doubt we can appreciate the grandeur of the universe.  But let me try...\n\nOne fairly recent estimate says there are 70 sextillion *visible stars* in range of modern telescopes (70,000 million million million).\n\nTo help put that in perspective, I'll use a rather old but useful analogy.  Imagine scooping up a big handful of sand at the beach. Try counting the grains of sand.  You'll give up, most likely, in seconds, assuming you even bother to try.  Now look all around you on the beach, and think about *that* number.  Now think about all the grains of sand on *all the world's* beaches... and deserts.  Now multiply that total number by ten, and you get approximately the number above -- of stars in the *known* universe.  The stars not visible to us by even our most powerful telescopes may equal the visible figure -- or be multiples of it.  Mind-boggling, no?\n\nSo to your planet question:  One next has to wonder how many of those stars are actually a sun to one or more planets (hey, I just noticed that was your wording, too; I like it).  Does every star have at least one planet revolving about it?  \n\nWell let's just be very conservative and say that there are only 70 sextillion stars in the *entire* (not just known) universe.  Let's further say that only one tenth of those stars (7 sextillion) have a planet orbiting them.  If we assume merely one planet per sun, then there must be at least 7 sextillion planets in the universe.  Using our sand analogy, that's a planet per grain of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts!\n\nAnyone who believes that is a reasonable number must surely wonder, "How could there NOT be living beings somewhere other than the earth?"  \n\nOf course not all planets will have life on them.  Earth may be the only body in our solar system, for example, which does harbor life, though at least one of Jupiter's moons is also a tantalizing possibility.\n\nIf only one out of a *thousand* of those planets are earth-like -- in the sense that they are rocky, not gaseous, and contain liquid water -- there may be 7 quintillion earth-like planets in the universe.  That's 7,000 thousand trillion.  I've been very careful, but if my math or estimates are off by even a factor of a *billion* there could be 7,000 million earth-like planets in the universe, a figure I think is extremely low.\n\nThese figures seems to jibe fairly well with an estimate of the number of earth-like planets in our galaxy alone, found at space.com (the bottom link in my sources) -- 30 billion, from a 2002 article.\n\nMy personal belief, based on numbers such as this, and on the likelihood that any planet supporting life may contain (extremely conservatively!) a thousand species...  is that there are *billions* of intelligent species in the universe outside the earth.\n\nSince you were wise to point out that we reside in the Milky Way galaxy, which is only one of perhaps billions of galaxies, you might be fascinated by the Hubble photo in the references, below.  I liked it so much, myself, that I made it my new desktop wallpaper.\n\nFinally, on the specific subject of life, there is a well-known method of estimating the number of intelligent, communicating civilizations, called the Drake Equation.  In my references you can see how it works to condense all the possible stars down by multiple factors, leaving the fraction which we may be able to communicate with, or at least hear from!  \n\nHappy dreaming (for me, too), and I hope you are as inspired by all this as I am.   :-)
14964
Nine in our solar system - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.
541625
Not sure how you want this question answered, but here goes:\n\nThe solar system consists of the Sun, the 10 planets, the asteroid belt, The Kuiper belt, and the Oort cloud. The Sun is a main sequence G2 star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass. Its two largest orbiting bodies, Jupiter and Saturn, account for more than 90% of the remainder; the Oort Cloud might hold a substantial percentage, but as yet its existence is unconfirmed.\n\nIn broad terms, the charted regions of the solar system consist of the Sun and its planetary system: the eight bodies in relatively unique orbits commonly called planets or major planets and two belts of smaller objects, which can be called minor planets, planetoids, meteoroids, or planetesimals. Pluto, the ninth planet, is also considered a member of the outer belt, and its status is currently uncertain, particularly since the discovery of 2003 UB313 (see below). Most objects in orbit round the Sun all lie within the same shallow plane, called the ecliptic plane, and orbit in the same direction. Many are in turn orbited by moons, and the largest are encircled by planetary rings of dust and other particles.\n\nThe major planets are, in order, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Eight of the nine planets are named after or derived from gods and goddesses from Greco-Roman mythology.\n\nDistances within the solar system are measured most often in astronomical units, or AU. One AU is the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun, or 149 598 000 kilometres. Other units in common use include the gigametre (Gm, one million kilometres) and the terametre (Tm, one billion/milliard kilometres). Pluto is roughly 38 AU (5.9 Tm) from the Sun, while Jupiter lies at roughly 5.2 AU (778 Gm).\n\nUsing radiometric dating, scientists can estimate that the solar system is 4.6 billion years old. The oldest rocks on Earth are approximately 3.9 billion years old. Rocks this old are rare, as the Earth's surface is constantly being reshaped by erosion, vulcanism and plate tectonics. To estimate the age of the solar system scientists must use meteorites, which were formed during the early condensation of the solar nebula. The oldest meteorites (such as the Canyon Diablo meteorite) are found to have an age of 4.6 billion years, hence the solar system must be at least 4.6 billion years old.\n\nThe current theory of solar system formation is the nebular hypothesis, first proposed in 1755 by Immanuel Kant and independently formulated by Pierre-Simon Laplace. The nebular theory has been refined over many years and now has a great deal of evidence supporting it.\n\nTo briefly summarize, the nebular theory holds that the solar system was formed from the gravitational collapse of a gaseous cloud called the solar nebula. It had a diameter of 100 AU and was 2-3 times the mass of the Sun. Over time a disturbance (possibly a nearby supernova) squeezed the nebula, pushing matter inward until gravitational forces overcame the internal gas pressure and it began to collapse. As the nebula collapsed it began to spin faster to conserve angular momentum, and became warmer. As the competing forces associated with gravity, gas pressure, magnetic fields, and rotation acted on it the contracting nebula began to flatten into a spinning protoplanetary disk with a gradually contracting protostar at the center.\n\nGrains of dust (silicates and metals) and ice (hydrogen compounds) condensed from the gas, and began to accrete into larger and larger clumps, forming planetesimals. Inside the frost line, planetesimals were composed of rock and metal, because those are the only grains that can condense at those temperatures, and remained relatively small because they were only 0.6% the mass of the disk. The larger icy planetesimals beyond the frost line became massive enough to capture and hold onto helium and then hydrogen gases, which caused them to rapidly grow into jovian protoplanets.\n\nAft
1049105
Proof, so far there is none, however if you take into account that there are trillions of galaxies each with trillions of stars all of which may potentially have planets, then you have to consider that there is a good chance that there is at least one other planet out there with the potential for life.
30331
According to the authority of the IAU, there are nine planets in our solar system. In increasing distance from the Sun they are (with the astronomical symbol in brackets):\n\nMercury (☿) \nVenus (♀) \nEarth (♁) with one confirmed natural satellite, Luna (the Moon) \nMars (♂) with two confirmed natural satellites, Phobos and Deimos \nJupiter (♃) with sixty-three confirmed natural satellites \nSaturn (♄) with forty-six confirmed natural satellites \nUranus () with twenty-seven confirmed natural satellites \nNeptune (♆) with thirteen confirmed natural satellites \nPluto (♇) with three confirmed natural satellites, Charon, S/2005 P 1 and S/2005 P 2 \nHowever, there is some pressure for Pluto to be reclassified as a Kuiper Belt object, especially in light of the discovery of 2003 UB313. This object, however, has not yet received a definitive classification from the IAU.\n\nSedna was widely touted as a planet when it was discovered in 2003, as it was the largest object found since Pluto. However, mainly due to its size still being smaller than Pluto's, it did not achieve planetary status from the IAU. However, the discovery in 2005 of 2003 UB313 (nicknamed Xena), with a size and mass larger than Pluto seems to have forced the issue. As of January 2006 it has not yet been accepted as a planet, but the IAU is expected to announce a definition of a planet soon, which will likely either see 2003 UB313 become a planet, or have Pluto stripped of its status.
617459
Yes there is a tenth planet out there but they haven't named it yet, all we know is that its a kuiper belt object, and larger than pluto
500795
Over 2 years ago, scientists DID find a 10th planet beyond Pluto, and it's even larger than Pluto. The planet is a typical member of the Kuiper belt, but its sheer size in relation to the nine known planets means that it can only be classified as a planet. Currently about 97 times further from the sun than the Earth, the planet is the farthest-known object in the solar system, and the third brightest of the Kuiper belt objects. \n\nFor images and info, check the NASA web site: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905.html
307741
Right now there are officially 9.  Depending on what we decide in the next year or so that number will change to 8, stay 9, go to 10, or even larger.  An object larger than Pluto has been found, but we have not granted it official status as a planet.  Don't expect this issue to be resolved any time soon, we've more or less "tabled" the issue until our general meeting in August.
81858
The nine planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune(sometimes Pluto), and Pluto(sometimes Neptune).
186825
Yes there are nine in our solar system, and as someone else mentioned Pluto is not really meeting the requirements to be defined as a planet. But the problem is rewriting the history books which won't happen so they will leave it as a planet... a "historical planet".\n\nIf we are talking about all known planets we have discovered, there are many. Extra solar planets have been found around distant stars for several years now. Not actually seen but found by measuring that planets gravitational pull on it's star. Of course we can't get an accurate count of all planets in the universe but we can use the "Drake Equation" to get a good idea.\n\nThe Drake Equation is:\n\nN = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL\n\nN* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy \nAnswer: Current estimates are 100 billion.\n \nfp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them \nAnswer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.\n\nForget about the rest of the equation because it doesn't apply (looking for intelligent life)\nKeep in mind this equation is for our galaxy. They estimate 100 billion Galaxy's in our Universe (not to mention other planets that exist in other dimensions that we have discovered as a result of trying to solve the "unified theory" of everything) so…\n\nYou do the math!!!
1006929
Seriously, this is funny. Anyhow, there is absolutely no way of knowing how many planets exist in the entire universe as the universe as we know it is far to huge for any of our technology to fully explore. \n\nAnyhow, please stick with the topic. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with computers.\n\nThanks!
523525
UB-313 (also known as "Xena"). This is the only "tenth planet" that has a moon and is larger than Pluto.\n\nThere are several other "planetoids" or "plutinos" including Sedna, Quaoar, Ixion, Varuna, and Orcus.