Pluto defines a Planet as being a Planet!

[Philotas]

The fact that a dwarf planet is not a planet, ruins the whole defintion of a planet. It's make no sense.<br /><br />Now let's say, you find a huge bee. It gets named monsterbee; but DNA tests reveals it's a fly. Now you most likely don't rename monsterfly, but keep it's original name. <br /><br />In the case of dwarf planets on the other hand, they had never existed before! Why not give a "new" name, something in Latin that suits this group of objects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogelbek]

Maybe we should think about it differently: Pluto is a member of the Kuiper Belt Objects, a super-cool orbital curiousity that (I think) may one day become a critical resourse for icy materials for future generations of space travelers.<br /><br />What we should do is think in terms of utility: Rocky bodies for building spacecraft, gaseous bodies for propellants, and icy bodies for life support and such.<br /><br />Lets just not go teaching future generations of space explorers there are 9 planets: we have 4 major rocky bodies (+some moons and a bunch of asteroids), 4 gasseous bodies, several hundred KBO's, and probably millions of Ort Cloud objects. The kids are smart, they'll come up with new memmory schemes to remember them all.

 

[wonky]

Good point, Philotas.<br /><br />The thing is, even many professional astronomers aren't currently in agreement about the new definitions. The arguement is far from over.

 

[alokmohan]

We dont know much about planet earth.

 

[kheider]

<font color="yellow">Why do astronomers get so much to do with the planetary defintion; since it's really the geologist's field. Most science done</font><font color="orange">at a planetary object</font><font color="yellow">is geology, not orbital measurements. Yet orbit counts so much when defining?</font><br /><br />Exactly! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />1. Astronomers locate planetary contenders, not geologists.<br /><br />2. Astronomers currently do ALL of the observations of the Dwarf Planets and exo-planets because no space crafts have been up close to do intense geological investigating of any of them.<br /><br />It would be nice if we could have geologists do all the work, but in practice they can't! Astronomers have a hard time just figuring out the mass of a possible 'Dwarf Planet', not to even mention whether they are in hydrostatic equilibrium. <font color="orange">The diameter of these objects is frequently just a best guess based on the objects albedo. Get the albedo wrong and you get the diameter and density wrong.</font> With most of these TNOs they assume an albedo of 0.09 until they know otherwise. This assumption automatically leads to gross errors when an object has not been studied by the finest equipment such as HST and Keck.<br /><br />When we are lucky we can use combined optical and thermal observations, dynamical fits with assumed densities for binaries, or direct imagery of a disk to determine the diameter of an object.<br /><br />Do we want to wait until a space craft has visited any given KBO or exo-planet before calling an object a Planet? I sure hope not.<br /><br />Before we sent space crafts to the Planets, we didn't know much about them either. They had to increase Neptune's mass by 1% when Voyager went by it. Just imagine if we had to figure out everything about Uranus and the best information we had looked like: http://www.quantumhyperspace.com/Uran</safety_wrapper

 

[MeteorWayne]

<i>"They had to increase Neptune's mass by 1% when Voyager went by it" </i><br /><br />So what. You're complaining about a 1% adjustment in mass to Neptune?<br />The best way to get an accurate estimate of a planet's mass is to send an object with known mass past it.<br />That was the idea of the Voyagers.<br />So why is that a problem? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kheider]

<font color="yellow">You're complaining about a 1% adjustment in mass to Neptune?</font><br /><br />No. I was just using it as a recent example to explain that even when we think we know how something works and have fairly accurate information (Neptune's orbit, mass, etc.) there is always room for improvement.<br /><br />When dealing with TNOs their estimates vary by up to 50%. ie: Some claim that Orcus is 1600km in diameter and others prefer (Brown's private e-mail stating) 1000km in diameter.<br /><br />There is A LOT of room for improvement.<br /><br />-- Kevin Heider

 

[jakethesnake]

Was just wondering were is "Pluto Perspectives- Part 4"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Was busy all wekend with the major patio project I spoke of. Man am I sore!!! Carted 1.5 tons of wall stones from street to back yard.<br /><br />I should post it today, just fiddling with format, and adding up to the minute planetary data to my master chart for easier analysis.<br />Also, adding "Jake " <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Yes there are four rocky planets and four gas giants.A question has arisen on dwarf plnets .I am astonished .If we can call our sun a yellow dwarf star,we have so many Mtype dwarf stars,why cant there be dwarf planet?White dwarf is much bigger body than pluto or not?Brown dwarfs are called dwarf,why not pluto.?TOO MANY DWARFS IN ASTRONOMY.DONT GET UPSET.

 

[kheider]

<font color="yellow">>Brown Dwarfs are called dwarf, so why not pluto?</font><br /><br />I think they should have been called "Planetoids", thus avoiding the whole modifying adjective issue.<br /><br />But since the IAU did not know if resolution 5B would pass, they had to use a somewhat lame term like 'Dwarf Planet', not knowing if 'Dwarf Planet' would be considered a subset of Planet or not.<br /><br />It's not perfect, but I like it.<br /><br />Pluto is a "Primitive Ice Belt Dwarf Planet".<br /><br />-- Kevin Heider

 

[jakethesnake]

Nothing like a little exercise to keep the body fit and the wife happy, the wife is an intuitive guess due to all the hard work also, I find that some Advil helps too.<br /><br />Looking forward to “Pluto Perspectives- Part 4” and where Planet Jake falls in on your analysis.<br /><br />Jake/ aka Wayne.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes this was a big project on the Honey-Do list <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I am adding Jake now, just going back to see exactly what you defined it as.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jakethesnake]

That has been my point of contention from the very beginning of this post and although many types of measurement scales including all that are used to try and quantify Pluto started out as completely arbitrary and have since been highly refined through progressive leaps in technology and are now very well established!<br /> <br />Some types of measurement systems are less arbitrary than others such as what you have mentioned; “Celsius” and is a temperature that is scalable to the properties of water in that 0 degrees Celsius is scaled to the freezing point of water and 100 degrees Celsius is scalable to when water begins to boiling which are very well understood points of reference.<br /><br />The point I have been trying to get across is that you can’t just change something that is so firmly embedded and used such as the metric system and although the metric system has been refined over time to a well established and to a well understood set of references Pluto is not!<br /><br />What differentiates a “Dwarf Planet” from a “Planet” is most certainly neither well established nor is it well understood. The cost of rewriting not only text books but all forms of publications is nothing short of staggering not to mention all the documentaries that are now worthless.<br /><br />This post alone shows the difficulties in explaining this new IAU definition let alone trying to reeducate and educate everyone to our new 8 “Planet” solar system.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[kheider]

<font color="yellow">>The cost of rewriting not only text books but all forms of publications is nothing short of staggering not to mention all the documentaries that are now worthless.</font><br /><br />Jake, with all due respect, this is a lame argument for not changing something.<br /><br />Scientific books, articles, and documentaries are generally obsolete (not worthless, as you call it) soon after they are published. New information is always being presented and the world needs to move on.<br /><br />To claim documentaries are now worthless because pluto is now a 'Dwarf Planet', is ridiculous.<br /><br />-- Kevin Heider<br /><br />PS: You still have not replied to my post What might make a Planet in the Kuiper Belt

 

[wonky]

They would've had to "rewrite the textbooks" anyway. Originally they were going to make Charon, "Xena" and Ceres full-fledged planets, too, which would have required new books.<br /><br />Anyway...sorry Jake, Pluto got its asteroid number today. Go have a beer and try to drown your sorrows...

 

[jakethesnake]

Just to clarify something here and also with all due respect or at least a little, typically school textbooks in the US school systems are replaced on average every 6 to 8 years. As far as any documentary goes, I certainly wouldn’t want my daughter watching an old documentary saying that we have 9 planets just before test!<br /><br />If you would like to define “LAME” I’ll tell you what, I would like you to use your definition of a “Planet” or, the lack there of to a 9 year old:<br /><br />“Inclination and eccentricity are not necessarily that important. What really matters is ORBITAL DOMINANCE. Since Mercury is only 0.055 Earth masses, I would call it a Dwarf Planet IF Mercury were orbiting where Pluto is. <br /><br />Pluto is very small being only 0.0023 Earth masses. Mercury is 23 times more massive than Pluto. If we find an object the size and mass of Mars (0.11 Earth masses) orbiting out in the Kuiper Belt, we will have to revisit some of these questions of what exactly defines orbital dominance.”<br /><br />For God sakes you’re not even sure what a Planet is!!!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[kheider]

<font color="yellow">>If you would like to define “LAME” I’ll tell you what<br /> />with all due respect or at least a little</font><br /><br />Gee, thanks for the courtesy. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> I tried to give you an object that would be in the grey area of Soter's article depending on what else and how much junk we find in the Kuiper Belt.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">>For God sakes you’re not even sure what a Planet is!!!</font><br /><br />Yes, I do! Using Soter's article as a reference, go find me an object in the Kuiper Belt with 3 times the Earth's Mass!<br /><br />Math lesson over.<br /><br />-- Kevin Heider

 

[alokmohan]

Heider let us not remember pluto any more.It is just a dwarf planet.

 

[jakethesnake]

“Gee, thanks for the courtesy.” <br /><br />You used the words “Lame” and “Ridiculous” so the courtesy was kindly returned and are we a little temperamental or what?<br /><br />“I tried to give you an object that would be in the grey area of Soter's article depending on what else and how much junk we find in the Kuiper Belt.”<br /><br />The key words in this sentence is “tried” and “grey area” because that is what everyone in this post is doing “trying” to no avail to come up with, a definition of a “Planet” which is now a very “grey area” thanks to the IAU.<br /><br />If you can’t easily explain something you should wait until you have a better understanding of what you’re tiring to define and not just change a definition to soot the data sorting process! Unarguably that is exactly what the IAU did!<br /><br />So good luck and keep trying, remember the question is what is a “Planet” and let’s try and do it in less than a thousand words.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

If there may be Mtype dwarf stars,whats riculous about having dwarf planet?Brown dwarfs are much larger than Jupiters:hot and cold.Would be happy is I say pluto is like brown dwarf,both are dwarfs.My poor brown dwarf,none opens a thread for you.

 

[jakethesnake]

Wonky, even though I had that beer and it did taste very good, there are no sorrows to drown. I have learned a lot from the dialog I have had here with some very intelligent individuals and have only become more solidified in what aggravated me when I started this post.<br /><br />What it comes down to is the lack of a true clear describable reference point in which to separates a “Planet” from a “Dwarf Planet” and although most reference points or classifications are arbitrarily chosen Pluto was declassified in a manner that was hurried and not well thought out not to mention and to use the phraseology of someone else “LAME”.<br /><br />When referring to the different classifications of stars we either refer to them as being in a certain stage of development such as a “Red giant” or quantify them having so many solar masses due to what happens to them after they go nova.<br /><br />I think the best way to define a planet would be to better understand the mass of that object and how mass affects the celestial body being described. A good example is the difference between Earth and Mars and how mass effects the composition of these two celestial bodies. In Mars’s case it doesn’t have a magnetic field due to its core being inactive so there is something tangible to segregate these two planets.<br /><br />If a scientific organization i.e. the (IAU) is going to define the difference between “Planets” from “Dwarf Planets” then there should be something intrinsically substantial such as how their mass differentiates the two.<br /><br />In science we go through periods of confusion due to new discoveries which, causes a need to better understand what we are seeing hens the New Horizons Probe. So I submit that this decision to declassify Pluto as a planet was in haste and if this decision was made to divvy up the data process then Pluto should have been the cutoff and a reason should have been given as to why this wasn’t based on any scientific reasoning and was purely historical. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>

 

[kheider]

<font color="yellow">>everyone in this post is doing “trying” to no avail to come up with, a definition of a “Planet” which is now a very “grey area” thanks to the IAU.</font><br /><br />Pluto has been in the grey area since the 1960's. It's just that the general public did not know. Pluto's mass is 3,300x less than was assumed (based on Planet X theories) back in 1930.<br /><br />In science there are frequently many grey areas. Under the original 12-planet proposal, would Ixion and Huya (both Plutinos ESTIMATED at roughly 500km) been added to the list of Planets? If not, would Orcus, a 1000km Plutino have been massive enough to be in 'hydrostatic equilibrium' based on 'self-gravity' and not based on 'dumb luck'? Grey areas and more grey areas.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">>So good luck and keep trying, remember the question is what is a “Planet” and let’s try and do it in less than a thousand words. </font><br /><br />Easy. Using only a few words, The difference between a Planet and a 'Dwarf Planet' is: "<b>and (c) dominates the neighborhood around its orbit clearing it of comparable objects.</b>"<br /><br />The Kuiper Belt is full of many objects that are roughly 1/4 the size of Pluto.<br /><br />-- Kevin Heider

 

[Philotas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Exactly! <br /><br />1. Astronomers locate planetary contenders, not geologists. <br /><br />2. Astronomers currently do ALL of the observations of the Dwarf Planets and exo-planets because no space crafts have been up close to do intense geological investigating of any of them. <br /><br />It would be nice if we could have geologists do all the work, but in practice they can't! Astronomers have a hard time just figuring out the mass of a possible 'Dwarf Planet', not to even mention whether they are in hydrostatic equilibrium. The diameter of these objects is frequently just a best guess based on the objects albedo. Get the albedo wrong and you get the diameter and density wrong. With most of these TNOs they assume an albedo of 0.09 until they know otherwise. This assumption automatically leads to gross errors when an object has not been studied by the finest equipment such as HST and Keck. <br /><br />When we are lucky we can use combined optical and thermal observations, dynamical fits with assumed densities for binaries, or direct imagery of a disk to determine the diameter of an object. <br /><br />Do we want to wait until a space craft has visited any given KBO or exo-planet before calling an object a Planet? I sure hope not. <br /><br />Before we sent space crafts to the Planets, we didn't know much about them either. They had to increase Neptune's mass by 1% when Voyager went by it. Just imagine if we had to figure out everything about Uranus and the best information we had looked like: Uranus July 8, 2005. And it only gets worse when trying to figure out Neptune, Pluto, Xena, Orcus, Ixion, Huya, etc. <br /><br />-- Kevin Heider <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But stil; defining an object by it's surroundings is nonsense. I know it's the practice done at moons, and I'm not fond of it.<br />What really counts about an object is of course how that object is. Not how many objects it's surrounded by! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Philotas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We dont know much about planet earth. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not sure what you mean; in what context? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>