Thread: Pluto gone?

i do not fully understand the new criteria for planets that pluto doesnt meet..... could some1 plz explain?










by the way, new website www.sciencetheories.tk

It has not cleared the area surrounding its orbit of 'rubble'. It does not gravitationally dominate its near environment.

Given that it comes inside the orbit of Neptune from time to time this, to me, means that Neptune cannot be a planet, since Neptune hasn't ejected or absorbed Pluto. Jupiter can't be a planet because of its Trojan asteroids, and the Earth can't be a planet because of the Near Earth Asteroids.

The whole redefinition is a botched job. It will either be ignored, or changed again in the near future.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It has not cleared the area surrounding its orbit of 'rubble'. It does not gravitationally dominate its near environment.

The whole redefinition is a botched job. It will either be ignored, or changed again in the near future.

i agree. how could any planet be a planet if it had any moons?

Right, there's trouble brewing in the IAU over this. Expect a new vote in the future, some unfortunate politics were played on the way to reaching this decision.

Scientists and politics don't mix.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It has not cleared the area surrounding its orbit of 'rubble'. It does not gravitationally dominate its near environment.

Given that it comes inside the orbit of Neptune from time to time this, to me, means that Neptune cannot be a planet, since Neptune hasn't ejected or absorbed Pluto. Jupiter can't be a planet because of its Trojan asteroids, and the Earth can't be a planet because of the Near Earth Asteroids.

The whole redefinition is a botched job. It will either be ignored, or changed again in the near future.

If the name has a 'U' in it let it remain a planet of class 'U' [Uninhabitable]

Otherwise if the letters 'AR' appear in that order and together, let it be designated as class "AR, there might be life on it."

The World Government of Pluto made the following announcement today:

The entry for Earth in the Interstellar Planetary Guide, used by most star travelers, has been downgraded to 'Z' classification.

Warning!
This planet is Class Z
Inhabitants are xenophobic and warlike
Do not attempt landing


Okay...that was part of the Foreword to a book I once wrote. However, just because we say something isn't valid, doesn't necessarily mean it is. :?

I love Pluto. I absolutely love it.

I don't care whether you call it a planet or not. As long as its there I am happy.

The IAU is nothing more than a bunch of idiots. They can't find enough extraterrestrial planets, so they kill their time by making the local solar system more complex.

Any ideas as to what we should reclassify/downgrade the IAU to?

Idiots Associated Universally

I've read several articles on this whole situation recently. They explain the issues at hand with the flawed democracy and the IAU.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

There are 2 other articles that do an excellent job at pointing out the issue, but I'm having trouble finding them.

Don't care about pluto. its just a big piece of ice. If its a planet or not it doesn't change the fact it is there and orbit our system. The loss of one planet won't effect the other planets. Don't let it effect is.

Its illogical. and resistence is futile

I agree that the new definition of planet is poorly thought out but I think the outcome (the demotion of pluto) is sensible. And this is not because of its inclined orbit or the fact that it occasionally is closer to the sun than neptune.

When pluto was discovered it was thought to be the only 'major' object beyond the orbit of neptune. It was also believed to be significantly larger than we now know it to be. By these criteria it was inevitable that we would think of it as a planet.

The discovery over the past three decades of dozens of kuiper belt objects (KBOs) show that pluto is not unique. Indeed there is likely to be 10s of thousands of KBOs. Only time will tell how similar these bodies are to one another but I would hazard a guess that geologically they will be close to identical. This is similar to the situation in the asteroid belt, ceres would be a significant object if it was alone in that orbit, but it isn't. It is merely a very large member of the asteroid belt. I would say that pluto too is just a large member of the kuiper belt.

I think this was the ultimate aim of the attempts to agree upon an astronomical definition of a planet. It is an issue of significance in the part of the solar system a particular body orbits. It's just difficult to define this in scientific terms.

To me, the fact that it 'crosses' neptune's orbit is irrelevent because the two orbits do not actually cross. The are like two linked rings which don't actually touch. So technically both objects HAVE cleared their orbits.

I know a few people have expressed sorry for Clyde Tombaugh's 'planet'
being demoted, but if you look at it another way, he is the first person to discover a KBO, roughly 70 years before the others. That I think is pretty amazing!

Originally Posted by Zelos

Don't care about pluto. its just a big piece of ice. If its a planet or not it doesn't change the fact it is there and orbit our system. The loss of one planet won't effect the other planets. Don't let it effect is.

Its illogical. and resistence is futile

Agreed. Mr Paris, set a course for Pluto-- maximum warp

Transmission:
We are the borg, you will be assimilated, resistence is futile

Personally I am against the entire fuss made over wether or not pluto gets to be called a planet, it truely does not matter. In current life, what benefit has anyone recieved from knowing all the "planets" of our solar system, none. And why is it neccessary to classify space objects or any object for that matter, I am againstt all the energy that humanity has spent putting names to things and placing them into specific boxes with things that appear similiar to humans.

[quote]And why is it neccessary to classify space objects or any object for that matter, I am againstt all the energy that humanity has spent putting names to things and placing them into specific boxes with things that appear similiar to humans.

Then why are you participating in a science forum? I'd say that the naming and classifying of things is the essence of science. If we cannot define things by their relationships to one another how are we ever to understand anything?

Maybe you're just happy to sit in ignorance while the thingy keeps doing the whatsit with the doodah?

I've just quoted my own comment, that's smart!

[quote="electricant"][quote]And why is it neccessary to classify space objects or any object for that matter, I am againstt all the energy that humanity has spent putting names to things and placing them into specific boxes with things that appear similiar to humans.

Then why are you participating in a science forum? I'd say that the naming and classifying of things is the essence of science. If we cannot define things by their relationships to one another how are we ever to understand anything?

Maybe you're just happy to sit in ignorance while the thingy keeps doing the whatsit with the doodah?

naming things is different from classification. You need to know what things are in order to communicate, but if you are a space traveler, how usefull is it to know that pluto is a planet, very little. I think I should clarify what exactly it is I have a problem with, Useless classification. Classifying pluto as a planet is useless but classifying it as inhabitable would not be useless.

Youre right about pluto: however we classify it it is still a relatively large lump of rock/ice orbiting our sun. And yes, by classifying objects as planets we are grouping together objects which are really diverse (Jupiter is certainly nothing like earth).

I think however when it comes to describing systems around other stars we really do need some word to use to highlight the most significant bodies in orbit. So why not the word planet?

I don't think anybody would argue that gas giants are significant objects, so yes I would call these planets. In our solar system at least, we also have a group of 4 'large' inner terrestrial objects, so I would argue that these too are significant and should be termed planets.

We also have an asteroid belt and a kuiper belt, and whilst there are certainly large objects, nothing in particular is so large as to dominate in these regions. So i would argue that logically we should think of the objects in the asteroid belt and kuiper belt collectively, rather than highlighting individual members on the basis of arbitrary criteria

Originally Posted by Zelos

Transmission:
We are the borg, you will be assimilated, resistence is futile

Don't you know any other quote from StarTrek? You keep posting the same quote.

It's true that in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter what we call Pluto, it will still be there either way, and that really this is just an arbitrary decision to be made of little consequence.

However, there are 2 things going on here that should concern everybody. 1) We apparenty haven't come to a decision on what precisely a "planet" is, and that's something we should probably sort out to help us describe things in the future. 2) The process by which this conclusion was reached was fundamentally flawed, and that needs to be addressed. This was one of the very few times in science where a decision was to be made democratically and not by the great dictator, nature, and unfortunately it ended up as poorly done as American democracy.

The only really sensible thing to do is call everything a planet, all of it.
Next you classify planets Alpha to omega then size

Classification

Alpha - Supporting life (native or seeded)
Beta - Geologically active
Gamma - Magnetic field
Delta - Atmosphere
Zeta - Omega (other characteristics )

Now you add a number that is calculated from acceleration due to gravity

Earth would be a 10 (9.8) rounded up

Thus we are Planet type ABGD10

THis will allow for all the othre types of planets we will find when we explore other solar systems.

Id rather use a numreric system.
maybe like:
int log(mass) - int log(magnetic field)*100 + int log(core temperature)*10^4

earth would then be 81157

and probebly grow a bit ore. life supporting is irrelevant since life can survive under the most harsh enviorments possible and once they are on a planet it will automaticly after sometime make it more hospital to itself

i dont care what anyone says, pluto is a big rock that means more than the other big rocks to me, and that keeps it a planet in my heart <3

Originally Posted by Vroomfondel

i dont care what anyone says, pluto is a big rock that means more than the other big rocks to me, and that keeps it a planet in my heart <3

I just think you are having an affair with Pluto. Now I see it is big and round, I expect we'll hear the pitter patter of tiny feeteorites soon... :wink:

I like your general idea, but there are complications.

Originally Posted by billco

Classification
Alpha - Supporting life (native or seeded)

We do not yet have a clear definition of what constitutes life. For example, ask one hundred biologists whether viruses are alive or not and you will not get a definitive answer.

Originally Posted by billco

Beta - Geologically active

How do you define geologically active? Where is the cut off? The moon still experiences moonquakes, but in comparison with the Earth it is dead.

Originally Posted by billco

Gamma - Magnetic field

Mars has residual, localised magnetic fields, yet is considered not to have a significant magnetic field. How do you classify that?

Originally Posted by billco

Delta - Atmosphere

Even the moon has an atmosphere. You need to define some limit, in terms of pressure (?).

Interesting.

that solves my system sicne it is numreric

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I like your general idea, but there are complications.

Originally Posted by billco

Classification
Alpha - Supporting life (native or seeded)

We do not yet have a clear definition of what constitutes life. For example, ask one hundred biologists whether viruses are alive or not and you will not get a definitive answer.

Originally Posted by billco

Beta - Geologically active

How do you define geologically active? Where is the cut off? The moon still experiences moonquakes, but in comparison with the Earth it is dead.

Originally Posted by billco

Gamma - Magnetic field

Mars has residual, localised magnetic fields, yet is considered not to have a significant magnetic field. How do you classify that?

Originally Posted by billco

Delta - Atmosphere

Even the moon has an atmosphere. You need to define some limit, in terms of pressure (?).

Interesting.

I was proposing a concept, not a final solution (is it safe to use those words again?) Hopefully one which could be used for the entire range of bodies - even if found in other systems. For Example you will know there will be a debate one day whether Jupiter is a planet or a dwarf failed star.
If it is then said "A star is at the centre of a sytem" - I will say "a significant portion of systems are binary..."

I leave the rest of the Greek Alphabet open to other classes.

And as for individual definitions I invite you to help formulate them.

Maybe Alpha, Beta, Gamma could be star types, - All up for grabs.

I've never really understood this concept of jupiter as a failed star. It is quite well established that an object needs to be at least 75 jupiter masses to support nuclear fusion reactions. It's not even close to a brown dwarf in mass (10+ jupiters). I expect that there isn't enough mass in the whole solar system (excluding the sun) to form another star. So in no sense was jupiter even close to becoming a 2nd star.

I agree completely. I have always put it down to the romantic notion that we were almost a binary system. The exotic nature of this (well exotic of you only have a single star to brighten your day) is attractive to many, and makes good copy.

Originally Posted by chamilton333

i do not fully understand the new criteria for planets that pluto doesnt meet..... could some1 plz explain

I think Pluto should have been catagorized as a 'medium' planet.
We have the minor planets and the major planets. So they could include the 'medium' catagory.

One major reason for the reclassification (IMO) is that Plutos orbit was an oddball for a major planet. Too much eccentricity that was out of line with the other planets.

I think it really did not belong as a regular planet.

NS

Ref Jupiter "Planet or failed star"

There is udoubtedly a long continuous line of bodies from the largest brightest stars right down to something a lot smaller than Jupiter.

My point was there will be a point where large planet/small failed star will merge. I have always called Jupiter a gas giant - that it is, I accept that although it's made of the same stuff as sol it is NOT a star, it is too small to start [let alone sustain] fusion. To put it another way there is as much logic to say Jupiter is a star, as there is to deny Pluto planetary status.
As for the criteria of 'having cleared it's neighbourhood' that really is laughable.

Pluto's name has been changed, Pluto's new name is 134340. First the scientists and astronomers said Pluto isn't a planet, then they changed Pluto's name. From now on Pluto is an ordinary meteor. Now Pluto and Pluto's old satellite in a same group. Pluto, Charon, Nix and Hydra = 134340 I, II and III.

134340? Catchy.
I like it!

Take that you jumped-up dirty snowball!