Pluto defines a Planet as being a Planet!

jakethesnake · Aug 29, 2006

Pluto defines a Planet as being a Planet! For all you astronomers out there arguing amongst yourselves as to weather Pluto should be called a planet or not. You have been trying to come up with a new definition of what a planet is and, you have missed the boat completely, not to mention that only 300 of 10,000 astronomers worldwide voted Pluto out of our solar system. Since 1930 Pluto has been defined as a planet and, now you want to change what defines a planet to fit some new quantifiable set of rules, yet what you are using to define Pluto as not being a Planet is the very reason why it should be. Many types of measurements you use to define Pluto were arbitrarily chosen in the beginning and are now standardized. Here in lies your profound blunder; Planets have already had a yardstick in which to be compared to “Pluto” and it’s been that way for over 75 years. Anytime a new celestial body has been found in our solar system it has been compared to Pluto to be deemed a Planet or not. Until recently nothing has matched up or surpassed Pluto. This is of course until the discovery of object UB313 or informally known as Xena. Now everything must change, why? To me this is hysterical and let me explain why. Let’s start with all things that are quantifiable. They are quantified and/or measured by what began as an arbitrary unit of measurement that eventually became standardized. For instance what is an inch? The inch represents the width of a thumb; in fact, in many languages, the word for "inch" is also the word for “thumb”. The foot (12 inches) was originally the length of a human foot, although it has evolved to be longer than most people's feet. For all you astronomers, this one should hit you right in the “solar” plexus, how about an astronomical unit (AU) or the distance between the Earth and our Sun which, is approximately 93,000,000 miles or, how about a Solar Mass which, is the mass of our Sun. These are also randomly <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 29, 2006

Welcome to SDC. Sorry to disagree with you right off, but pluto is but one of many dozens (that we know of so far) of objects called plutinos, which are of similar size and in similar (locked to Neptune in a 2:3 resonance) orbits. It is not unique. Your definition of defining pluto's diameter and inclination as the minimum for a planet is at least as arbitrary, and probably even more so, than the IAU definition that was passed. I didn't get a vote, but to me pluto is a plutino, not a planet. Enjoy the discussion! <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>

kheider · Aug 29, 2006

> (c) only if it orbits tilts no more than an angle of 17 degrees away from the plane of Earth's orbit

Pluto orbits the sun, not the Earth. Talk about geocentric. Ceres was once thought to be a planet until astronomers came to realize that there were a lot of other objects in the asteroid belt (the gap between Mars & Jupiter.) Once astronomers knew that there were 15 asteroids and that they would be finding many more, they defined the asteroid belt and demoted Ceres from its planetary status. The discovery of Pluto led to many questions about the planet. One of the most puzzling was the fact that Lowell had predicted that Planet X would have a mass 6.6 times that of Earth. The tiny dot that was actually discovered could not possibly be that big, unless it was extraordinarily dark. Estimates of its diameter, for example, ranged from 6,000 to 14,000 kilometers. After the discovery of Charon in 1978, which permitted determination of the mass through a few simple calculations, the mass of the Pluto system was determined to be about 500 times smaller than that of the Earth. This was a huge long-term mistake and I am glad that it is now corrected. Cliff notes version: Pluto is over 3,000x less massive then was estimated in 1930. There are 7 moons in the solar system larger than Pluto.

MeteorWayne · Aug 29, 2006

The reason he used that is that the plane of the earth's orbit defines the ecliptic. (the plane of the solar system) I may not agree with his divining line, but it was correct usage. <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 29, 2006

To Klaatu Barada Nikto Sorry to disagree with you but the word “plutinos” was also rejected by the IAU so, check your facts and, there is only one object that is comparable in size to Pluto and that is UB313 or Xean! As far as minimums that’s a definitive and I’m also making a point but, I think you should also check out what angular plane these so called “similar size” object reside in. Keep in mind my premise and argument is “measurements that eventually became standardized” and Pluto has a long history as a vehicle for comparison and should definitely become a standard! For you information Pluto is a dwarf Planet according to IAU not a “plutinos”! My defining pluto's diameter and inclination as the minimum for a planet is at least as arbitrary as the metric system so think before you write please. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Aug 29, 2006

okay, lets make a few points here: First, prior to this definition there was NO official definition of planet. So we aren't making a new one, we're making the first one. 300 of 10,000 astronomers voted. Okay, and if other's had cared, they'd have stuck around. And if they continue to care, they'll attend and vote at the next conference. Pluto was not immediately labeled as a planet, and as I mentioned above, the actual definition of what a planet was didn't exist beyond the "i'll know it when I see it" stage. Now, here's one reason why any historical arguement for pluto remaining a planet is moot: This is science, not history, nor sentimentalism. Far to often is science accused of sticking to past precedents and refusing to look at new evidence. New evidence has come to light indicating that Pluto isn't a lone object, but is one of many simlar objects all sorta cluster around that distance. So basically, the discovery of UB313 and other large objects has forced the IAU to take an official position on the definition of a planet. <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>

jakethesnake · Aug 29, 2006

To kheider You did absolutely nothing to bolster your point except babble! Keep focused and remember the argument is “measurements that eventually became standardized” and Pluto has a long history as a vehicle for comparison and should definitely become a standard! Don’t get so impressed with yourself! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 29, 2006

I know what the IAU definitions are. I know they called Pluto a dwarf planet. None of that changes what the definition of a plutino is, although it's not official, as I have already described. A plutino is a class of KBO, locked into a 2:3 resonance with Neptune. Some are > 17 degrees, some are < 17 degrees. That's not the point. The point is it is but one of (and as you pointed out, not the largest) of a group of dozens (for now, soon to be hundreds) of similar objects. Your definition using pluto's charachteristics as the minimum to define a planet is MORE arbitrary than the (not very good) IAU definition. <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 29, 2006

Look standardize it however you want to minimize what you and others believe to be “hundreds” of new object coming into play although, I think this is unlikely and a guess at best. Please keep to the topic “measurements that eventually became standardized” and, Pluto has been there for seventy years without a challenger. Once again your knowledge of what is arbitrary and what is not is at best lacking. Please read what I first wrote about the measurement system and how it became standardized and for that matter I believe science is also in that ever changing realm! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 29, 2006

what does a measurement system have to do with the size of the objects being measured? Their size is the same, no matter what system you use to measure it. <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>

yevaud · Aug 29, 2006

Besides which, as noted in a prior post, if there are seven official Moons in the Solar System larger than Pluto, it would be a bit inconsistant for Pluto to retain Planet status, wouldn't it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

robnissen · Aug 29, 2006

The problem with your argument is that the word "planet" was not defined in terms of Pluto, but the other way around. It would be like after defining a foot as the length of a human foot, that someone then mistakenly thought that a human finger was the length of a human foot, and defined a "finger" as a "foot." Most would agree, that such an error should be corrected, and that a finger should not be referred to as a foot. That is exactly what happened with Pluto, the word planet long pre-dated Pluto, and Pluto was thought to be orders of magnitude larger than it was, so it was mistakenly called a planet. That error has now been corrected.

ittiz · Aug 29, 2006

I think people are forgetting that Pluto's size doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that it isn't considered to be a planet. It's because it's in the kuiper belt. If a Pluto sized object were sitting between Venus and Mercury people wouldn't be arguing, it would be considered a planet. The same with Ceres too, if it was sitting where it is now but there weren't any other objects there we'd be calling it a planet. The key part of the definition is that there can't be any similar objects near by (aka: cleared it's zone).

harmonicaman · Aug 29, 2006

Welcome aboard to JakeTheSnake and Kheider - I agree that size has little to do with anything. Every planet has unique features and the IAU just tried to disambiguate things by placing Pluto with other similar objects; just like when Ceres was demoted when more asteroids were discovered. Pluto is still a planet, but now it's just more clearly and correctly labeled as a "Dwarf Planet" -- just like Earth is labeled a Terrestrial planet and Uranus as a Jovian planet. This logical taxonomical categorization of the planets makes the Solar System a less ambiguous place. Using size alone to differentiate planetary status would be an exercise in futility -- the Solar System is just too complicated for such a simplistic approach.

yevaud · Aug 29, 2006

I think people are forgetting that Pluto's size doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that it isn't considered to be a planet. Not at all. But it does have some significance. At some definable point in time, something's definition as a planet must come into question if it's below a certain mass limit. It's not a solid rule, merely a starting point. Point: the Kuiper belt is a complicated and ever-changing region of space. Following through on some of the points made, it is difficult for a planet to clear it's local area as other objects keep moving into it. Well, suppose a Jovian sized gas-giant were discovered there, but due to the aforementioned, it never really clears it's area. Is it a planet then? Many would be hard-pressed to say "no it isn't" despite the fact that it has not cleared it's local area of objects. So it's a complicated issue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

kheider · Aug 29, 2006

I posted facts about the actual history of Pluto. Your reply wasn't an impressive rebuttal. Using Pluto as a standard? Why? History has proven over and over again that we known very little about Pluto and other KBOs. Re-read my first post.

I don't want science wasting time decideing if object 2006QA (and several others to be found) are better planets than Pluto. And then in 2015, New Horizons finds out our data on Pluto is 3% off and now 2006QA does or doesn't qualify as a Planet. Find me an object in the Kuiper Belt that is 10x more massive than Pluto (but still only 2% the mass of Earth) and we can at least re-open the issue of DOMINANT Planets in the Kuiper Belt. Of course this would require that (1) we do NOT find too many KBOs more massive than Pluto, (2) we can accurately estimate their masses, and (3) there are not as many KBOs in the 400+km diameter range as currently estimated, thus reducing the Dominance requirements. -- Kevin Heider

jakethesnake · Aug 30, 2006

You have completely missed the point of my argument and that is before the IAU ruling there was no set scientific definition for a planet. For over 70 years Pluto was accepted as a planet and for the last 30 years the size of Pluto has been known to be approximately 2,000 kilometers in diameter. All of a sudden it appears that there might be more celestial body as large or larger than Pluto and now it’s a problem. I use dimensional standardization as an analogy because to define and/or standardize anything including a Planet is exactly the same thing. To say that a Planet is this or that at this point is to select a set of parameters that until last week meant nothing. There have been no less than 200 solar systems found so far and gas giant Planets have been found toward the inner part of these solar systems so, to use the location of our Kepler belt or the placement of various types of Planets to reject or accept Pluto as a Planet is simply ridicules. As far a Planet clearing it’s own zone, all of the Planets have been in these orbits long enough that this argument makes no sense. Besides that’s not technically correct either and IAU has been highly criticized for using that as part of a Planet’s definition because there are many object in Earths orbital zone as well as the rest of the Planets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

observer7 · Aug 30, 2006

I think that part of the problem is that “planet” is one of those words that describe a class of objects. It’s like “truck”; do you mean a pick-up, 5 ton flat bed, or a tractor-trailer combination? When astronomers say planet, it can be a terrestrial planet, gas giant, ice giant, or ice dwarf. Except now for some reason the ice dwarf category seems to be bothering people. I think that this debate will continue until we have more than just our solar system as an example. We know that there are “planets” around other stars—mostly gas giants—but we don’t know if there are other types, what shapes and sizes they come in, and what limits this places on our definition. Let’s not forget about rogue planets and ones orbiting pulsars. The definition of a class often results in fuzzy areas near the edges. This is usually solved by precise definitions of sub-classes—i.e. gas giant, terrestrial, ice giant, etc.—that limit the members of the larger class. Even if there are 10,000 Pluto sized or larger objects waiting to be discovered, IMO they can all be planets, of the sub-class ice dwarf, or whatever other designation is suitable. As for Pluto, maybe we can satisfy everyone by keeping it on the list of “planets” that everyone learns in grade school, with the condition that they learn about sub-types and the history of planetary discovery that explains how Pluto became a planet. -- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" Albert Einstein </div>

jakethesnake · Aug 30, 2006

I know that this is a debate and issues can only be argued and not won but, aside from categorizing, quantifying, standardizing, and/or defining Pluto as a planet, one thing can not be refuted and that is Pluto has lasted the test of time through the most accelerated advancements in science and technological in the history of our species. I believe that Pluto should be the cutoff of any further planets being added to our solar system regardless of it size or mass unless some new classification of planet is found other than a KBO with greater mass and/or size. Pluto should remain the ninth planet if only as a dwarf plant/KBO defining a classification of planets. Pluto has earned its place in our solar system and deserves to stay! Thanks for participating all and, special thanks to MeteorWayne, Kheider, harmonicaman and Observer7 for the debate it was a lot of fun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

harmonicaman · Aug 30, 2006

It's never too late to rectify a mistake, and changing our view of things is a normal progression of science. 76 years is really a drop in the bucket; and the only reason Pluto was immediately named a planet in the first place was in deference to Percival Lowell! No matter how long the Earth was considered flat; when it was proved to spherical, it was time to change it's description.

robnissen · Aug 30, 2006

"the only reason Pluto was immediately named a planet in the first place was in deference to Percival Lowell!" In fact, the only reason this debate about declassifying Pluto as a planet didn't happen sooner, was also in deference to Percival Lowell. No one wanted to have this debate while he was alive, because they didn't want to take away an old man's cherished discovery. I agree with that sentiment, btw, but now is the time to correct the original error.

wonky · Aug 30, 2006

Jake, keeping Pluto as the only KBO with the designation of a full-fledged planet just for historical/sentimental reasons is just bad science. Maybe your opinion comes from all the media articles with headlines like "Bye Bye Pluto." Pluto is still there, it ain't going anywhere, and there's no reason for it to be excluded from kids' books about the solar system just because it has a slightly different designation now.

jaxtraw · Aug 31, 2006

Er, Percival Lowell died in 1916.

MeteorWayne · Aug 31, 2006

I would assume he actually meant Clyde Tombaugh. Both are so associated with pluto, it's easy to confuse. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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

There is most certainly a sentimental value to Pluto retaining its status as being the ninth planet and, that should be considered in light of the following. Many of you including the IAU are arguing that Pluto should not be defined as a planet and saying that it should be based on science but, that’s not what is happening. Science is not coming into play at all here. There is no definitive scientific point of reference in which a “planet” becomes a “dwarf planet” or visa versa, except to say that the difference between a “planet” and a “dwarf planet” is that it has or has not “cleared its neighborhood” which, the IAU spells it “neighbourhood”. OK, it has been said that being sentimental is “just bad science” (Wonky) or that 76 years of time tested status is just “a drop in the bucket” (harmonicaman) so, I would suggest that with something such as Pluto holding its sentimental status for 76 years during which time we have been to the moon and back several times and have had a space telescope “Hubble” in orbit since 1989 that someone i.e. the IAU could have come up with something more definitive than a planet clearing its “neighbourhood”! We could scientifically surmise that we are now left with specific gravity to determine weather a planet is a planet by which it is able to become spherical by its own mass but, no that doesn’t work either because that is also what classifies a “dwarf planet” on the lower end of mass. Come on what is at issue here is that there now appears to be more celestial objects out there that are Pluto’s size and mass or larger. A classification was come up with to limit the planet count in our solar system which, is not based on science but, on the worries that there might be too many planets to remember! We don’t know what the upper mass limit is in which a planet becomes a “Brown dwarf” and, the only lower mass limit that can be used scientifically to limit weather a planet is a planet is the lower mass limit in w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Pluto defines a Planet as being a Planet!

jakethesnake

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kheider

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

Saiph

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

yevaud

Guest

robnissen

Guest

ittiz

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

yevaud

Guest

kheider

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

observer7

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

robnissen

Guest

wonky

Guest

jaxtraw

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

jakethesnake

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page