Demote The IAU!!!!

derekmcd · Aug 31, 2006

Good luck finding 'facts'. Truth is we really don't know. There are some knowledgable estimates out there, but nothing solid, written in stone, facts. We know their approx. total mass by observing their orbits, but estimates are that Charon is anywhere from 8-16 percent the mass and slightly over 1/2 the size in diamter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

vidar · Aug 31, 2006

Consider this illustration; http://www.solarviews.com/browse/misc/plntmoon.jpg Pluto could be the ninth dwarf planet, in size. ---------------------------------------- MeteorWayne And they are free to pursue that goal. I will argue the opposite --------------------------------------- I think there are several dwarf planets in our known solar system, and I think it’s about time to recognise that. Introducing the category dwarf planets has not only forced us to re-consider ancient perceptions of planets, but also caused not-so-rational arguments about it. I am puzzled that going through all that work at a global level to define dwarf planets ends up in excluding all all. Not even Pluto seemed to be recognized as a dwarf planet. But there are several magnificent dwarf planets right out there in our known space, no matter motives and definitions. I cannot quite express how silly I think this is. It seems like planets still will be perceived as some flying mythological creatures. I think it’s obvious that we have about 9 known dwarf planets in our known solar system. Some irrational obstacle about ‘clearing neighbourhood’ and ‘not being a satellite’ keeps scientists from getting a step further in the debate and common realisation. MeteorWayne, I think you argue pretty well and respect your conservative stand. I would however be more convinced if you could at least name a couple of possibly dwarf planets in our known solar system, as well as argue the opposite.

alokmohan · Aug 31, 2006

There shall be more dwarf planets in future no doubt.

jaxtraw · Aug 31, 2006

MeteorWayne: I meant that Charon's mass is about 11% of Pluto's i.e. it's 1/9th or so (approximately); an approximately 9:1 ratio of the masses of primary and secondary in the system.

MeteorWayne · Aug 31, 2006

Gotcha. I'm still fishing about for the latest available data. Thanx <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

jakethesnake · Aug 31, 2006

You keep getting lost in the statistics but tackle this one! Come on…. what is at issue here is that there now appears to be more celestial bodies out there which are the size and/or mass of Pluto or greater. The IAU could have come up with something more definitive than a planet “clearing its neighbourhood” to annex Pluto! This is just a classification to limit the planet count in our solar system, due to the worries that there might be too many planets to remember! To use a logical set of scientific parameters to define a planet is barely known at this time especially when we don’t quite know the upper mass limit of when a planet becomes a “Brown dwarf” although, we do know the lower mass limit in which a planet becomes spherical but this is used to define a “Dwarf Planet” not a “Planet”, what a bunch of CRAP! Also, if I here KBO one more time I’m going to throw up, mass is mass regardless of where the planet resides!!! I think we should have just waited a few years with what’s coming on-line with the Spitzer Space Telescope and the New Horizons probe along with other up and coming technologies to get a better idea of what is fact and what is not! If you want to use science to define what is right in front of your face then I agree but, this is not science, this is the declassification of a planet due to the fear that there might be to many. P.S. The IAU spells neighborhood “neighbourhood” in their definition of a planet “clearing its neighbourhood”, what’s up with that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

adman69 · Sep 1, 2006

For God's sake everyone...why can't everyone understand that Pluto has been a planet since it's discovery...who cares if it was an accident, or if it is like a hundred different objects in it's vicinity? It still marked an acheivement in science for it's time. We never thought it possible at the turn of the century to find something that far out...but Tombaugh did. It's historical significance alone should preserve it's identity as a planet. For once science doesn't have to be a kill joy. Why should Pluto suffer just because we've advanced technologically? I really believe science and sentimentallity can co-exist just this once. Uniqueness, mass, cleared zones, satellites or similarities don't have to mean squat. Just because man has advanced doesn't mean we can't still marvel at our past accomplishments. Demoting Pluto to me is like disavowing a great discovery and acheivement of our species.

Saiph · Sep 1, 2006

its the proper british (european?) spelling of the word. Another example is color spelled as colour. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

adman69 · Sep 1, 2006

So, Meteorwayne, all the planets are like Pluto...we all travel around the Sun with our bretheren...some brothers are just slower than others. After all what's 200+ years to a solar system? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

doubletruncation · Sep 1, 2006

I don't think it's a demotion, there's nothing inferior about being called a planet vs. a dwarf planet or whatever else (Pluto of course, as a big chunk of ice, has no feelings on the subject anyway). It's just a refinement of the nomenclature. Whether or not the IAU's choice of categories really best reflects any natural distinction among the various bodies in the solar system is debateable, but either way I don't think it should be viewed as a popularity contest. Many of the people who are strongly in favor of reclassifying Pluto as something different from the 8 "planets" are also incredibly interested in objects like Pluto and may know and care more about Pluto and its friends then about the other "planets." You can feel free to call Pluto whatever you want to, it's not like if you publish a paper in which you refer to Pluto as a "planet" without tacking on dwarf the IAU is going to come down on you. From the IAU's point of view what it really amounts to, I think, is what procedure you would have to go through to name new objects that are found, and who keeps track of the data for the object (e.g. the Minor Planet Center if it isn't a "planet"). But of course the reason why people care so much about the debate is that in practice it will determine how the solar system is presented in textbooks. Personally, what I would like to see is a more complete diagram than you usually see - i.e. one that shows all the orbits for all planets (and what would now be called dwarf planets) plus the various populations of objects including KBOs, asteroids, trojans, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vidar · Sep 1, 2006

Take up the cry!!! Demote The IAU!!!! I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!! Give Me Nine Planets Or Give Me Death!!! Harumph!!!! --------------------------------- Is this debate also a struggle of astronomists vs. astrologists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology I wonder if the introduction of a new planet altered horoscopes. If so, in what way did it change them, when the new planet came out of the dark and was named Death or Pluto or Hades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto_%28mythology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_in_astrology#Pluto. In 1930 powerful people used astrology to foresee the future and act upon the predictions. If astrologists made horoscopes including Pluto, it would certainly be hard to see it demoted now, making the horoscopes and the determining predictions false. What is the astrologists stand in planet debates, and can astrologists influence decisions of astronomy? ------------------- (johns805, I do not think you are such an astrologist.)

jakethesnake · Sep 1, 2006

I thought it was something like that, thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 1, 2006

The public would not have allowed the few years to accurately define the problem, IMO. The few who care were demanding a definition. Something had to be stated and it was. If it invigorates discussion of the issue, then that's great! I do think that the "clearing the neighborhood" definition (which is NOT in the IAU resolution) is contrived. However, i do believe that pluto is but one of many dozens of similar objects, and therefore should be considered the prototype of the plutinos. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 1, 2006

No that's the point. All the planets are NOT like Pluto. Pluto is one of dozens of objects that are in similar orbits. All the 8 "classical" planets are by themselves, except Neptune. It gets a pass because it controls all the tiny bits that are the Plutinos. And if any other KBO comes close, it will be 1.ejected from the solar system 2. Driven toward the sun (not great for residents of the 3rd planet) 3. Trapped in to a 2:3 Neptune resonance, thereby becoming a plutino. 4. have it's orbit tweaked; likely resulting in 1,2,or3 above eventually. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

jakethesnake · Sep 1, 2006

First off “clearing the neighbourhood" is part of the IAU resolution and that alone will continue to kick your butt because it’s idiotic, we don’t even know how many NEO’s there are let alone if a planet has "clearing the neighborhood"!!! Below is a link to the IAU website so take a look for yourself. http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0602/iau0602_resolution.html Plus this is copied from their website and pasted it below, notice Resolution 5A (1) & (2) Does “cleared the neighbourhood” kind of stand out to you? It does to me! I also notice that this IAU page continues to add resolutions and now there up to resolution 6B and now you are technically correct in using the terminology “plutonian” hmmmm …. Why all the resolution? I also agree that the invigorating discussion of this issue is great, all be it not well thought out! And once again to use a logical set of scientific parameters to define a planet is barely known at this time especially when we don’t quite know the upper mass limit of when a planet becomes a “Brown dwarf” and, even though, we do know the lower mass limit in which a planet becomes spherical and is used to define a “Dwarf Planet” not a “Planet”! I think we should have just waited a few years with what’s coming on-line with the Spitzer Telescope and the new Horizons probe to get a better idea of what is fact and what is not! You want to use science to define what is right in front of your face then I agree but, this is not science, this is the classification of a planet due to the fear that there might be to many. RESOLUTION 5A The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites,be defined into three distinct categories in the following way: (1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that ( <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kheider · Sep 1, 2006

Hi MeteorWayne. You missed #4 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> If any non-resonance KBO comes too close to Neptune, it will either be: 1. Ejected from the solar system 2. Driven toward the sun (not great for residents of the 3rd Major Planet) 3. Trapped into a 2:3 Neptune resonance, thereby becoming a plutino. 4. Crashed into Neptune!<img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> Thus helping Neptune clear its orbit and become even a little more dominate! 5. Orbitally tweaked; likely resulting in one of the above eventually. -- Kevin Heider

serak_the_preparer · Sep 1, 2006

I think this was an incredibly silly decision. It wasn't a scientific definition, it was engineered entirely to include 8 very dissimilar objects and exclude some others, for the entirely arbitrary reason that people want an exclusive club called "The planets" which has only those 8 members. On what scientific basis should "planets" be few in number? JaXtraw, here you go: Astronomers plot to overturn planet definition by David Shiga (New Scientist) 31 August 2006 Pluto's status could shift yet again, as astronomers are mounting a grassroots campaign to readdress the definition of a planet. More than 300 researchers have signed a statement denouncing the recently adopted definition that relegates Pluto to "dwarf planet" status, and some are planning a conference in 2007 to hash out an alternative definition. Last week, scientists at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague, Czech Republic, voted to approve a new planet definition that recognises only eight planets. But many astronomers find fault with the new definition's criteria – which state a planet must have cleared out the neighbourhood around its orbit. There have also been complaints about the small number of scientists allowed to vote on the issue (see New planet definition sparks furore). Categorical imperative Now, disgruntled astronomers are planning a conference to fix what they see as a flawed definition...

MeteorWayne · Sep 2, 2006

Sorry, I got confused. Dominating it's orbit (which has been referred to in these threads is not in the resolution. You are correct "clearing the neighborhood (whatever that exactly means,) is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 2, 2006

Yep, forgot about that one. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> D'oh! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

johns805 · Sep 3, 2006

Hi: CNN covers the rising public outcry to support Pluto! Enjoy!: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/09/02/pluto.protest.ap/index.html Best Regards! ~JBK

Demote The IAU!!!!

derekmcd

Guest

vidar

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

jaxtraw

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

adman69

Guest

Saiph

Guest

adman69

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

vidar

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

kheider

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

johns805

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page