There are nine planets - I don't care what astronomers say

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

askold

Guest
What's the likelyhood that everybody will just ignore the astonomers if they reclassify the criteria for being a planet.<br /><br />It's all just rocks in space, anyway. I say - stick with tradition.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Actually, I came from the "there are only eight planets" camp Pluto's a KBO), but there is a certain logic to what they propose.<br />At least it's a written definition.<br />Give it a few days to see what other ideas pop up before the IAU vote. <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>
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
I agree with member <b>MeteorWayne</b> and align myself with the opinions of the esteemed astronomer, <b>Dr. Michael Brown.</b> He is the discoverer of the proposed new planet "Xena" and here's what he thinks about this proposal.<br /><br />Some other opinions on the internet:<br /><br /><i>"I think the IAU is screwing this up pretty badly. I prefer a definition that keeps the number small, and that guarantees it will be really big news if a new planet is found. My favorite definition takes Pluto off the list and leaves us with eight planets. ("The dominant member of its part of the solar system" would be the criterion.) Oh, one other little detail. They're wanting to call Pluto-like objects plutons. Apparently this is pissing off the geologists because they already use that word for something else."</i><br /><b>--unofischal on LiveJournal</b> <br /><br /><i>"The astronomers are going to figure this out, and hopefully declassify Pluto as a planet, since we know its geology and orbiting history do not match any of the other 8 planets."</i><br /><b>--Joeschmo's Gears and Grounds </b><br /><br /><i>"The only way to keep Pluto in is to create a definition that instantly makes a 12 planet system with 12 others up for consideration...and there's probably several hundred more that we haven't found yet. Lame."</i><br /><b>--laoldar on LiveJournal</b><br />
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Thanks for that link to Dr. Brown's comments.<br />I feel better now <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Since he would give up the title of most prolific "planet" discoverer ever, to me his opinion has even more weight.<br />Pluto always was a tiny rock/ice ball in an eccentric orbit, highly inclined to the planets. That was enough for me to clearly differentiate between the planets and the tinier rubble. ie KBO's. The fact that Charon was discovered really doesn't change that, in fact I would suspect that we will discover many more twin (and more) KBO's in the next few decades. It's an exciting time as we begin to flesh out the contents of the SS.<br />The more KBO's we discover, the more I think we will see that Pluto belongs to that population, not the planets.<br />Of course, if we discover 5 earth size objects in eccentric highly inclined orbits, maybe my opinion will change, if I live that long!<br /><br />MW <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>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Oh, I should also say, that Ceres has a case, since it originally had a planet merit badge, but sorry, just too tiny and in the wrong spot (being in the asteroid belt and all with all those other little chunks.) <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>
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
Herschel always argued that Ceres was an Asteriod, but astronomy texts from his era called Ceres a planet...
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I think Ceres is one of the most borderline cases.<br />To me, AT THE MOMENT, I'd lean toward lumping it in (as the most prominent member of) the asteroids in the asteroid belt.<br />I've gone back and forth over this during the last few days.<br />If I had a vote, I'd let you know on Thursday when the vote is to be taken. It never hurts to think about a decision until you go into (or more properly, leave )the voting booth.<br />It's a tough choice, not Green and Magenta, but rather 40% grey vs 60% grey.<br />That's what makes science fun!<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>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Classification is essential as it both expresses our understanding and provides a framework for deeper insights.<br /><br />Why shouldn't there be 10, of 20, or even 100 planets in orbit round a star? Saying there must only be 9 is a bit like the people who said there should only be 5.<br /><br />I am very happy with the shape. It recognises the fundamental difference between those bodies that have attain hydrostatic equilibrium (and the internal differentiation that does with it) and those which have not.<br /><br />I am less happy with the orbital definition, as orbits change change over time. But I can live with it.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Jon says:<br /><i>Classification is essential as it both expresses our understanding and provides a framework for deeper insights. </i><br /><br />I agree. Putting things in to a written, justifiable form reveals the challenges as you go through the process.<br />Everything is easy until you try to document it.<br /><br />Jon again:<br /><i>Why shouldn't there be 10, of 20, or even 100 planets in orbit round a star? Saying there must only be 9 is a bit like the people who said there should only be 5. </i><br />I think you're stretching for the 5, but I respect your opinion. To me, Pluto never belonged with the "plane of the solar system", i.e. planets. We have to agree to disagree on this point. I'm an 8 man.<br /><br />J:<br /><i>I am very happy with the shape. It recognises the fundamental difference between those bodies that have attain hydrostatic equilibrium (and the internal differentiation that does with it) and those which have not. </i><br /><br />. The shape is a valid point. I guess I'm an orbitalist <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />MW<br /><br /><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>
 
A

askold

Guest
What deeper insights? How will our insights be deepened by not calling Pluto a planet? Pluto will continue having the same mass, orbit, etc. Nothing will have changed.<br /><br />It's all just a definition. You could just as easily define the word planet to mean the first 9 big rocks discovered to be orbiting the sun. We still call Native Americans "Indians" even though we've known for a long time that Columbus was mistaken in thinking he had landed in India. I'm with Humpty Dumpty on this one:<br /><br />"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."<br /><br />Just think of all the children's songs that refer to "nine planets" - are we going to have to rewrite all of them? Isn't there some Hubble data astronomers could be reviewing instead of fiddling with definitions?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Yeah, I think the rhyme needs to be changed.<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>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
askhold:<br />Just think of all the children's songs that refer to "nine planets" - are we going to have to rewrite all of them?<br /><br />Me:<br />Text books are going to be changing as we make new discoveries and not just of planets. Todays children won't be children a decade or so from now. Textbook makers also should be with the desk top publishing revolution (If there actually was one) which makes books much easier to revise.<br /><br />Besides, as I understood it, subjects like astronomy are so little taught that what could the change involve...two pages? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Yes John ,there is nothing sacrosanct in number.No harm if 100 planets revolve around star.
 
S

search

Guest
9 or many more planets?!<br /><br />For too many years the notion of planet have been more romantic than reasonable and that is to me quite strange since scientistic minds tend to be more reasonable than romantic. <br /><br />I will refrain from either agreeing or disagreeing with the notion but by welcoming the fact that finally there is a definition of Planet and science can still change it as it as done before and as it will do it in the future for many other definitions based on the evolution of knowledge and experimentation.<br /><br />For those who still did not read the IAU new definition:<br /><br />"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.”<br /><br />For those who want to find out more about:<br /><br />http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_Q_A.html
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
No matter how we decide to define them, the objects in orbit around our sun will remain the same as they have been. For a long time there were only 6 planets (known to man), so much for tradition.<br /><br /> I can see the logic of defining Pluto/Charon as a binary planet sort of like a binary star.<br /><br />If we always decide in favor of "tradition" we will never move forward. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
while the facts about pluto won't change regardless of how we classify it, the act of classifing it can change how we think about it.<br /><br />For instance, how the "tree of life" was arranged drastically altered peoples thoughts on the subject. At one point it was very linear, another segmented, and today it's a branching arrangement. Even so, things are occassionally reclassified within it.<br /><br />By doing so you begin to consider different traits as a group, or in a different fashion. By grouping Pluto with other KBO's, we can begin to consider not only pluto's traits, but those of other KBO's when we think about either Pluto or the KBO's...it gives a larger wealth of correlated data. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Because taxonomy should be about how the world is related. The taxonomy of living things, which has undergone several revolutions in recent years) is based on the history of life and how different taxa are inter related. Rock classification is based on our understanding of how they form.<br /><br />A planetary taxonomy should therefore reflect both the linkages and differences between bodies that is a reflection of their evolution. Both the rejected and the accepted definitions are essentially a-historical using orbital parameters which do change over time as a primary definition.<br /><br />The alternate classification approach is to be completely arbitary. This does not inform anything.<br /><br />Even the term "classical planet" is wrong. There are not 8 clasical planets, there are only 5.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
E

efron_24

Guest
Well.. I could agree that Pluto is no longer with the other 8.. BUT !!!!! when you see a drawing of earth next to Jupiter, you see a LARGER difference in size than between Pluto and Earth. I therefor think there are more classes than only planets and dwarf planets.<br /><br />It would have been MUCH better if they had put the 4 Gas Giants in another 'class'. Besides it does not seem right that a tiny world like Mercurius is in the same "class" as Jupiter and Saturn as it is smaller than some moons !!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
umm...jupiter, saturn, uranus and neptune are a slightly different class than earth...they're "jovian planets" or colloqually called "gas giants". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Bill O? <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>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Thought it was a Gas Giant thread, sorry, too limited a joke audience.<br />I return the control of this thread to it's author.<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>
 
A

askold

Guest
I see the Pluto classification issue akin to the tomato classification issue - as I posted in another thread on this same topic. We have no trouble treating the tomato as a vegetable based on how it is used even though it is biologically a fruit. Similarly, we can consider Pluto a planet because of its historical position as such while astronomers call it anything they want.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Tomatoes are fruit and in a discussion about plant anatomy must be described as such. Taxonomy and terminology matters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
P

Philotas

Guest
<font color="yellow">I prefer a definition that keeps the number small, and that guarantees it will be really big news if a new planet is found.</font><br /><br />The ironi, the ironi. By todays definition, we won't find more planets in this solar system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I agree, CE.<br />Don't want to run into a dwarf on the street in my NASA jacket!! <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts