POLL: Should Pluto's Planet Status Be Revisited?

[MeteorWayne]

As an history major, I feel that pluto should retain it's "planet" Status. For thousands of years, it has been considered a planet. Just because modern science didn't find it until 1930, doesn't mean that it was unknown. The ancient peoples of Central America, Egypt, China, India, and many more places knew of it's existance as much as 3000 years ago. These peoples accurately mapped it's position in relation to the other planetary bodies, and took it into account in their astronomy and religion. The International Planet Police (International Astronomical Union) didn't exist 3000 years ago, so why should they have a say about something that did and has been regarded as a planet every since. Clyde W. Tombaugh wasn't the first person to discover Pluto, he was just the first person in the modern era to discover Pluto. So should we strip him of the honors recieved for his discovery, and give it to some nameless person from thousands of years ago? No, so don't go stripping Pluto of it's honors as a planet either. So we have recently discovered that there are other nearly plantary sized object in near orbits. SO WHAT!!? We also only recently learned that the Earth wasn't flat, that the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth, that some Sea Monsters (Giant Squid) are real. So what now? Do we change the history books like good little revisionists and go back and say Pluto is no longer a planet because the Grand High Pooh-bahs in the International Astronomical Union say so? Who gave a bunch of self elected eggheads the right to decide what the rest of the world calls our ninth planet. Scientists still know that it's a Kuiper Belt object, and can treat it that way, but the rest of us want to continue calling it the ninth PLANET. If they want to call it something else, then they should ask the rest of the world's opinion, not just scientists and astronomers, but all of us. After all, it's our solar system too!!!

Your claim that Pluto has been known for thousands of years is patently absurd. It is not visible to the human eye no matter how dark the sky is. Therefore, you know surprisingly little for a self proclaimed history major. Maybe learn a little astronomy?

 

[StoneEagle]

I votes Yes. Not because of the new data though. Being the largest body in the Keiper Belt, Pluto will naturally absorb the surrounding bodies in it's "neighborhood" over time. This may take a very long time but the resulting body will fit the newly defined description of a planet. Maybe a new category is in order like Infant Planet - the early stages of a forming planet. I am not a scientist or anything but this seems to make more sense than labeling it a dwarf planet.

 

[TinmanII1]

I would waite and see...gather more info. We are learning more and more about our universe every day. To be honest we are still in the baby stage of understanding. Weather Pluto is or isn't a planet will all be sorted out when we unlock the universe, untill then we learn.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I votes Yes. Not because of the new data though. Being the largest body in the Keiper Belt, Pluto will naturally absorb the surrounding bodies in it's "neighborhood" over time. This may take a very long time but the resulting body will fit the newly defined description of a planet. Maybe a new category is in order like Infant Planet - the early stages of a forming planet. I am not a scientist or anything but this seems to make more sense than labeling it a dwarf planet.

No it won't. Pluto is currently the largest, but it's quite likely we'll discover many larger ones. And it's already not the most massive (Eris is so far). It also is locked into a resonant orbit with Neptune (along with dozens of known Plutinos) so it never approaches any of the other ones. And objects are VERY far apart from each other out there. It's much less dense than the asteroid belt, which has half a million asteroids in a much smaller space that have lasted the entire age of the solar system...and in fact will outlast the sun.

 

[KenD]

This is not a question that should be decided by popular vote. It's a matter of science. Scientists should define the terms and make the decision.

 

[bdewoody]

This is not a question that should be decided by popular vote. It's a matter of science. Scientists should define the terms and make the decision.

No it's just a matter of definition. Pluto is what it is regardless of what we decide to call it. The important thing here is that a decision is made that can be used to define objects around other stars and to be consistant.

 

[Vacuumhead]

Pluto hasn't been "demoted." It's been reclassified. The new classification is useful because it sets Pluto apart from the eight planets as being a somewhat different object. Its orbit is eccentric and is tilted far from the orbits of the planets, and Pluto's composition appears to be consistent with a Kuiper Belt Object.

That said, I think that "dwarf planet" is possibly not as descriptive a term as something like "MKBO" (Major Kuiper Belt Object) might be.

 

[Skyskimmer]

This is not a question that should be decided by popular vote. It's a matter of science. Scientists should define the terms and make the decision.

No it's just a matter of definition. Pluto is what it is regardless of what we decide to call it. The important thing here is that a decision is made that can be used to define objects around other stars and to be consistant.

I think it's the decision impact on education that matters most. People as I've said before learn the 8 planet model, like it's the only thing out there (as it pretty much was for a while.)

Regardless, as I've said before do you call a polar bear a penguin because it's only found in polar regions? That would be nonsense. As was said clearing orbits is nonsense, It's simply a matter of position. Also FYI it's not automatic that the moon orbits the earth technically we both orbit our center of mass it just happens to be that were so much more massive than the moon, that it's still within our equator. Again which goes to proove how these labeling terms really mess up the publics basic understanding of things.

 

[adrenalynn]

If it orbits the sun it is a planet. Plain and simple. I learned that back in the 50's and if it was good enough then why is it not good enough now?

Not very well, it seems.

Comets are planets? I don't remember reading that in text books.
Asteroids are planets? I don't remember reading that either.

 

[StoneEagle]

I votes Yes. Not because of the new data though. Being the largest body in the Keiper Belt, Pluto will naturally absorb the surrounding bodies in it's "neighborhood" over time. This may take a very long time but the resulting body will fit the newly defined description of a planet. Maybe a new category is in order like Infant Planet - the early stages of a forming planet. I am not a scientist or anything but this seems to make more sense than labeling it a dwarf planet.

No it won't. Pluto is currently the largest, but it's quite likely we'll discover many larger ones. And it's already not the most massive (Eris is so far). It also is locked into a resonant orbit with Neptune (along with dozens of known Plutinos) so it never approaches any of the other ones. And objects are VERY far apart from each other out there. It's much less dense than the asteroid belt, which has half a million asteroids in a much smaller space that have lasted the entire age of the solar system...and in fact will outlast the sun.

If that is the case, it meets all criteria to be considered a planet. When I read the description, it seemed the only one that disqualified it was the presence of other objects within it's neighborhood. I suppose the technical amount of space considered within a "neighborhood" is unclear. I had pictured the Keiper Belt to be more densely populated so thank you for the correction.

Here is the definition I read: "A body that circles the sun without being some other object's satellite, is large enough to be rounded by its own gravity (but not so big that it begins to undergo nuclear fusion, like a star) and has "cleared its neighborhood" of most other orbiting bodies."

 

[Skyskimmer]

If it orbits the sun it is a planet. Plain and simple. I learned that back in the 50's and if it was good enough then why is it not good enough now?

Not very well, it seems.

Comets are planets? I don't remember reading that in text books.
Asteroids are planets? I don't remember reading that either.

I think it's interesting that he says he learned that way back in the 50's it just proove my point. That the model we show kids it creates the outlook the whole world has as adults. Could you imagine telling people that there are only 8 different animals because that's all that's within your back yard it creates, a load of baggage that isn't needed. There's load of different planets.

It's be far more logical too teach kids about different types of objects in the space.

There are jovials(show them about jupiter) dwarf planets(pluto) terrestials(venus/mars) asteriods(explain the belts not rocks), and exoplanets(your choice again),

 

[stcoleridge]

Discussion and debate create knowledge

Continued investigation is always the right path, even though it weas the least popular response.
The original debate at least led to a lot of education about the planets, the makeup of them and the solar system; and this was far better than what it seems kids were getting in school which was sometimes only 'My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas' (or whatever), and that was it. Now everyone has been exposed to the facts of rocky inner planets, gas giants, the weird outer planet, the Kuiper belt (and sometimes going on to even the Oort cloud). Now we know a lot more about our solar system than we did before, thanks to the Pluto debate(s).

 

[stcoleridge]

Do we now have to make up another mnemonic: 'MVEMC(for Ceres)JSUNPE(for Eris)' ? Have at it.

 

[ibb]

Anyone who says Pluto is not a planet has never been to Pluto

 

[MeteorWayne]

Do we now have to make up another mnemonic: 'MVEMC(for Ceres)JSUNPE(for Eris)' ? Have at it.

You forgot two it's MVEMCJSUNPHME

(Haumea and Makemake before Eris)

 

[Skyskimmer]

Re: Discussion and debate create knowledge

Continued investigation is always the right path, even though it weas the least popular response.
The original debate at least led to a lot of education about the planets, the makeup of them and the solar system; and this was far better than what it seems kids were getting in school which was sometimes only 'My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas' (or whatever), and that was it. Now everyone has been exposed to the facts of rocky inner planets, gas giants, the weird outer planet, the Kuiper belt (and sometimes going on to even the Oort cloud). Now we know a lot more about our solar system than we did before, thanks to the Pluto debate(s).

Solid point.

 

[MeteorWayne]

For those that do more than the half who post and run in this poll, here's some clarification on "clearing the neighbourhood". I read the whole article, and it's a good summary of the arguments.

"In the end stages of planet formation, a planet will have "cleared the neighbourhood" of its own orbital zone, meaning it has become gravitationally dominant, and there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence. A large body which meets the other criteria for a planet but has not cleared its neighbourhood is classified as a dwarf planet. This includes Pluto, which shares its orbital neighbourhood with Kuiper belt objects such as the plutinos. The IAU's definition does not attach specific numbers or equations to this term, but all the planets have cleared their neighbourhoods to a much greater extent than any dwarf planet, or any candidate for dwarf planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

 

[Skyskimmer]

For those that do more than the half who post and run in this poll, here's some clarification on "clearing the neighbourhood". I read the whole article, and it's a good summary of the arguments.

"In the end stages of planet formation, a planet will have "cleared the neighbourhood" of its own orbital zone, meaning it has become gravitationally dominant, and there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence. A large body which meets the other criteria for a planet but has not cleared its neighbourhood is classified as a dwarf planet. This includes Pluto, which shares its orbital neighbourhood with Kuiper belt objects such as the plutinos. The IAU's definition does not attach specific numbers or equations to this term, but all the planets have cleared their neighbourhoods to a much greater extent than any dwarf planet, or any candidate for dwarf planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

I get what your saying but that's still a product of location and orbit. I'm still holding strong on my would call a whale a fish arguement, just because it hangs out with the sharks.

Also don't the jovials and terrestials greatly different in Helium and hydrogen. I mean don't the gas giants gather up gas's and the tetterials lose it more often then they gain like gases. I thought this is what seperated gas giants from terrestials?

 

[MeteorWayne]

But a whale isn't a fish, it's a mammal.

And the rest of what you mention is not included in the definition, which is a valid one.

There is no jovial (sic) and terrestrial category...only planet and dwarf planet.

 

[adrenalynn]

But he'd be happy if there was...

As I mentioned before: The system is there for a reason. Having started my physics life, really, at Lowell, I'm not overwhelmingly happy about Pluto getting "disrespected" - but I get the point.

 

[Mark03]

The vote that "demoted" Pluto was bogus to begin with, snuck in at the end of a conference when most of the members had already left, and I expect the topic will come up much earlier at the next conference.

 

[MeteorWayne]

An awe inspiring stop on my Nevada-Arizona vacation a few years back

 

[adrenalynn]

If you'd have stopped by thirty years ago, I could have shown you the blink microscope in operation!

 

[OmegaOm]

I do not mind calling pluto a dwarf planet. But it is still a planet. The definition of what a planet is is flawed. I think the only criteria, should be a spherical shape. Anything that is not spherical is an asteroid. The definition they have, (clearing its orbit and such) raises to many questions, keep it simple. There has to be many classes of planets, and pluto is a planet in the dwarf icy class.

 

[DannyD72]

Your claim that Pluto has been known for thousands of years is patently absurd. It is not visible to the human eye no matter how dark the sky is. Therefore, you know surprisingly little for a self proclaimed history major. Maybe learn a little astronomy?[/quote]

So maybe you should learn some ancient history. The planetary layouts of some early civilizations show a planet in the orbit of Pluto. If they didn't know about it, then they couldn't have put a planet there now could they. These people knew things about the sky that we are only just finding out. Take a few moments, and look at the astronomical maps that peoples like the ancient Maya, or the Inca, or the ancient Hindi's of India, or the ancient Chinese and then tell me that they didn't, because they couldn't. Because they did know, and you obviously know nothing.