Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Pluto gone?

  1. #1 Pluto gone? 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    309
    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


    I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it

    the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    309
    Quote 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?
    I don't suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it

    the road to succes is never paved or clearly marked
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    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.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Scientists and politics don't mix.
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Quote 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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Robert M. Blevins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Washington State, USA
    Posts
    25
    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. :?
    'Don't give up reaching for the stars...
    just build yourself a bigger ladder.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman starry_eyed_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    26
    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.
    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    Any ideas as to what we should reclassify/downgrade the IAU to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Idiots Associated Universally
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    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.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    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 am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman starry_eyed_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    26
    Quote 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
    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Transmission:
    We are the borg, you will be assimilated, resistence is futile
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore kingjacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    between time and timbuktu
    Posts
    131
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    [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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    I've just quoted my own comment, that's smart!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore kingjacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    between time and timbuktu
    Posts
    131
    [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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman starry_eyed_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    26
    Quote 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.
    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    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.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    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 am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    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 demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    Quote 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:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I like your general idea, but there are complications.
    Quote 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.
    Quote 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.
    Quote 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?
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Delta - Atmosphere
    Even the moon has an atmosphere. You need to define some limit, in terms of pressure (?).

    Interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    that solves my system sicne it is numreric
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I like your general idea, but there are complications.
    Quote 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.
    Quote 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.
    Quote 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?
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: Pluto gone? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote 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
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    New Member infrared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    4
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    134340? Catchy.
    I like it!

    Take that you jumped-up dirty snowball!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •