Should Pluto be a Planet?

[The Imperial Republic of New Kyoto]

The ruling against Pluto is specious at best.

Pluto has sufficient mass to hold a spherical shape due to its own gravity. It has its own satellites and it appears to have an atmosphere.

The cons: There are other bodies of similar size and a couple are actually apparently massive enough to hold shape through gravity. Also Pluto is not massive enough to clear its orbit of debris.

But...

Limiting the number of planetary bodies is nonsense.Arguing that a planetary system can only have an arbitrary fixed number of planets because we can't handle big numbers? If the numbers of dwarf planets really get that bad, teach the classical Planets first. ( All 9 of them.) and then introduce the rest of the family. I agree that third graders don't need lists of 50 planets to memorize but I handled 9 just fine. High school students can certainly handle knowing there is more to the story can't they?

Also let us consider the issue of overall size: If Mercury were the size of Pluto, would we disqualify Mercury as a planet? It would still meet ALL three of the IAU's requirements so no. So a definition that varies upon where in the solar system a body is located is spurious at best.

Further, this definition was approved not by the vast majority of space scientists but only a small group and virtually none of them were planetary scientists. Planetary scientists in general REJECT qualification 3 of the IAU definition.

And then there is the term "Dwarf Planet". Now in astronomy we DO have Dwarf STARS. They are a useful classification of star size and nature but no one tries to say a dwarf STAR is not a star. The term dwarf planet IS useful in describing these denizens of the solar system.

So YES! There is room for us to teach the 9 classical planets. There is ALSO room for the other dwarves in this planetary census: Ceres! Come on in! You are a complex body needing to be understood and explored, not an anonymous lump! Eris? Let us know you and cause us strife no more!

Pluto? Thank you for forcing this debate. Knowledge flourishes when ideas are challenged and tested.

[Utceforp]

The ruling against Pluto is specious at best.

Pluto has sufficient mass to hold a spherical shape due to its own gravity. It has its own satellites and it appears to have an atmosphere.

The cons: There are other bodies of similar size and a couple are actually apparently massive enough to hold shape through gravity. Also Pluto is not massive enough to clear its orbit of debris.

But...

Limiting the number of planetary bodies is nonsense.Arguing that a planetary system can only have an arbitrary fixed number of planets because we can't handle big numbers? If the numbers of dwarf planets really get that bad, teach the classical Planets first. ( All 9 of them.) and then introduce the rest of the family. I agree that third graders don't need lists of 50 planets to memorize but I handled 9 just fine. High school students can certainly handle knowing there is more to the story can't they?

Also let us consider the issue of overall size: If Mercury were the size of Pluto, would we disqualify Mercury as a planet? It would still meet ALL three of the IAU's requirements so no. So a definition that varies upon where in the solar system a body is located is spurious at best.

Further, this definition was approved not by the vast majority of space scientists but only a small group and virtually none of them were planetary scientists. Planetary scientists in general REJECT qualification 3 of the IAU definition.

And then there is the term "Dwarf Planet". Now in astronomy we DO have Dwarf STARS. They are a useful classification of star size and nature but no one tries to say a dwarf STAR is not a star. The term dwarf planet IS useful in describing these denizens of the solar system.

So YES! There is room for us to teach the 9 classical planets. There is ALSO room for the other dwarves in this planetary census: Ceres! Come on in! You are a complex body needing to be understood and explored, not an anonymous lump! Eris? Let us know you and cause us strife no more!

Pluto? Thank you for forcing this debate. Knowledge flourishes when ideas are challenged and tested.

Thank you. Pluto could be considered a planet, along with the other Dwarf Planets, if scientists agree to that. That I am fine with. Saying "Pluto is a planet because Pluto was always a planet" is just stupid. in short, the concept of there being more than the classical nine planets is an exciting one, but we can't ignore scientific consensus for the sake of nostalgia.

[Utopia FTW]

It IS a planet, it's a Dwarf planet.
Btw, Dwarf sex is hawt!

[Surfistan]

It doesn't work like that, based on sentiment, the system of planetary qualification is based on size and density, wich Pluto both lacks, that and it's basically a frickin ginormous icecube that actually has of little intrest except it's prepostrous long orbit.

[Cetacea]

The ruling against Pluto is specious at best.

Limiting the number of planetary bodies is nonsense.Arguing that a planetary system can only have an arbitrary fixed number of planets because we can't handle big numbers? If the numbers of dwarf planets really get that bad, teach the classical Planets first. ( All 9 of them.) and then introduce the rest of the family. .

Thank you. Pluto could be considered a planet, along with the other Dwarf Planets, if scientists agree to that. That I am fine with. Saying "Pluto is a planet because Pluto was always a planet" is just stupid. in short, the concept of there being more than the classical nine planets is an exciting one, but we can't ignore scientific consensus for the sake of nostalgia.

/quote]

There were only 7 'Classical planets' and that included the the Sun and Moon. So who needs 9 planets? Lets just go with the basic set of Mercury Venus Mars Saturn and Jupiter. And who needs Copernicus? Lets dump the Heliocentric model too

[Surfistan]

Thank you. Pluto could be considered a planet, along with the other Dwarf Planets, if scientists agree to that. That I am fine with. Saying "Pluto is a planet because Pluto was always a planet" is just stupid. in short, the concept of there being more than the classical nine planets is an exciting one, but we can't ignore scientific consensus for the sake of nostalgia.

Thank you. Pluto could be considered a planet, along with the other Dwarf Planets, if scientists agree to that. That I am fine with. Saying "Pluto is a planet because Pluto was always a planet" is just stupid. in short, the concept of there being more than the classical nine planets is an exciting one, but we can't ignore scientific consensus for the sake of nostalgia.

There were only 7 'Classical planets and that included the the Sun and Moon. So who needs 9 planets? Lets just go with the basic set of Mercury Venus Mars Saturn and Jupiter. And who needs Copernicus? Lets dump the Heliocentric model too[/quote]

It's only a 'theory', teach all models in school!

[The Imperial Republic of New Kyoto]

It doesn't work like that, based on sentiment, the system of planetary qualification is based on size and density, wich Pluto both lacks, that and it's basically a frickin ginormous icecube that actually has of little intrest except it's prepostrous long orbit.

Let's see: Sufficient mass to hold its shape, a layered composition, rocky core, moons, and an ATMOSPHERE is of little interest to you? Mass is much more important than density or size. Saturn's DENSITY is so little the planet would FLOAT in water. Size is also a red herring. Mercury is smaller than the Jovian moon Ganymede but we aren't about to strip Mercury of its status are we?

[Utceforp]

Thank you. Pluto could be considered a planet, along with the other Dwarf Planets, if scientists agree to that. That I am fine with. Saying "Pluto is a planet because Pluto was always a planet" is just stupid. in short, the concept of there being more than the classical nine planets is an exciting one, but we can't ignore scientific consensus for the sake of nostalgia.

/quote]

There were only 7 'Classical planets' and that included the the Sun and Moon. So who needs 9 planets? Lets just go with the basic set of Mercury Venus Mars Saturn and Jupiter. And who needs Copernicus? Lets dump the Heliocentric model too

"I agree with the current way scientists classify planets, and ignoring progress is stupid" (which is my position) is the exact opposite of "Let's go back to the "Sun orbits the Earth" days."

[Nationalist State of Knox]

No, because of its orbital path.

[Zokorias personal views]

Pluto is small enough to be a planet once again, and it's too far.

So definitely no.

[Surfistan]

It doesn't work like that, based on sentiment, the system of planetary qualification is based on size and density, wich Pluto both lacks, that and it's basically a frickin ginormous icecube that actually has of little intrest except it's prepostrous long orbit.

Let's see: Sufficient mass to hold its shape, a layered composition, rocky core, moons, and an ATMOSPHERE is of little interest to you? Mass is much more important than density or size. Saturn's DENSITY is so little the planet would FLOAT in water. Size is also a red herring. Mercury is smaller than the Jovian moon Ganymede but we aren't about to strip Mercury of its status are we?

Mercury has no moons, Venus has no moons, oh, and also the fact that Pluto lies near the Kuiper Belt, WICH HAS 70000 PIECES OF ICY ROCK THE SAME SIZE AS PLUTO, SHOULD WE ALL GIVE THEM NAMES? AND CLASSIFY THEM AS PLANETS? I MEAN ASTRONOMICS CLASS SURE IS GOING TO TAKE LONG.

Okay?

[Cetacea]

It doesn't work like that, based on sentiment, the system of planetary qualification is based on size and density, wich Pluto both lacks, that and it's basically a frickin ginormous icecube that actually has of little intrest except it's prepostrous long orbit.

Let's see: Sufficient mass to hold its shape, a layered composition, rocky core, moons, and an ATMOSPHERE is of little interest to you? Mass is much more important than density or size. Saturn's DENSITY is so little the planet would FLOAT in water. Size is also a red herring. Mercury is smaller than the Jovian moon Ganymede but we aren't about to strip Mercury of its status are we?

Mercury is still twice the size of Pluto. Its like saying if Jupiter was bigger it would be a star.

And technically the moon has an atmosphere too

[Utceforp]

Let's see: Sufficient mass to hold its shape, a layered composition, rocky core, moons, and an ATMOSPHERE is of little interest to you? Mass is much more important than density or size. Saturn's DENSITY is so little the planet would FLOAT in water. Size is also a red herring. Mercury is smaller than the Jovian moon Ganymede but we aren't about to strip Mercury of its status are we?

Mercury has no moons, Venus has no moons, oh, and also the fact that Pluto lies near the Kuiper Belt, WICH HAS 70000 PIECES OF ICY ROCK THE SAME SIZE AS PLUTO, SHOULD WE ALL GIVE THEM NAMES? AND CLASSIFY THEM AS PLANETS? I MEAN ASTRONOMICS CLASS SURE IS GOING TO TAKE LONG.

Okay?

To add to this, the center of mass of the Pluto-Charon system is actually outside either body. Pluto is as much orbiting Charon as it is the Sun. Doesn't sound much like a planet, does it?

[Surfistan]

Mercury has no moons, Venus has no moons, oh, and also the fact that Pluto lies near the Kuiper Belt, WICH HAS 70000 PIECES OF ICY ROCK THE SAME SIZE AS PLUTO, SHOULD WE ALL GIVE THEM NAMES? AND CLASSIFY THEM AS PLANETS? I MEAN ASTRONOMICS CLASS SURE IS GOING TO TAKE LONG.

Okay?

To add to this, the center of mass of the Pluto-Charon system is actually outside either body. Pluto is as much orbiting Charon as it is the Sun. Doesn't sound much like a planet, does it?

Well, I was trying to explain it, and since I'm not an astromancer -nomican, I don't know what truth is written in the stars really much about planets and stuff, what I do know is that if they kept Pluto as a planet, they'd have an highly impractible amount of planets, and also what you said sounds sane enough.

[Utceforp]

To add to this, the center of mass of the Pluto-Charon system is actually outside either body. Pluto is as much orbiting Charon as it is the Sun. Doesn't sound much like a planet, does it?

Well, I was trying to explain it, and since I'm not an astromancer -nomican, I don't know what truth is written in the stars really much about planets and stuff, what I do know is that if they kept Pluto as a planet, they'd have an highly impractible amount of planets, and also what you said sounds sane enough.

Neither am I. I just heard that fact about the Pluto-Charon system somewhere a few years ago, and I Wikipedia'd it to confirm it.

I am, however, an Astromancer, and I own a copy of the Astronomicon.

Ia! Ia! Make'make Fhtagn!

[The Imperial Republic of New Kyoto]

Let's see: Sufficient mass to hold its shape, a layered composition, rocky core, moons, and an ATMOSPHERE is of little interest to you? Mass is much more important than density or size. Saturn's DENSITY is so little the planet would FLOAT in water. Size is also a red herring. Mercury is smaller than the Jovian moon Ganymede but we aren't about to strip Mercury of its status are we?

Mercury has no moons, Venus has no moons, oh, and also the fact that Pluto lies near the Kuiper Belt, WICH HAS 70000 PIECES OF ICY ROCK THE SAME SIZE AS PLUTO, SHOULD WE ALL GIVE THEM NAMES? AND CLASSIFY THEM AS PLANETS? I MEAN ASTRONOMICS CLASS SURE IS GOING TO TAKE LONG.

Okay?

I did not use having a moon as a classification criteria. I used it as a point of interest. Same thing as having an atmosphere. Also currently there are only FIVE objects formally classified as Dwarf Planets not 70,000. Most of these 70,000 objects are not spherical by right of their lack of sufficient MASS and therefore fail the planet test long before we get to point three of the IAU definitions.

In referring Mercury vis a vis Ganymede, I was again noting that Mass (A product of size AND density) was the relevant criterion, not size.

Also, the center of gravity of the DOUBLE PLANET system of Pluto and Charon could just as easily happen with a pair of earth sized bodies. But Pluto has other moons also and that DOES sound like a planet although again cannot be used as the measure of one.

In the end, some will follow the rump parliament of the IAU because they find it more convenient that Pluto be disqualified. Science is not about convenience is it? The search for a comforting convenience is as much an emotional reaction as nostalgia. It cuts both ways folks.

I will continue to side with Planetary Scientists (Including the head of the New Horizons mission) on this issue.

Certainly Planetary Scientists are as qualified to judge this matter as astronomers.

[Rightful Revolution]

By referring to Pluto as a planet, you also confirm that Eris, a dwarf planet larger than Pluto is also a planet, and you also have Sedna, MakeMake, Huamea, etc.

We'd easily have 12+ planets.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Pluto will always be a planet in my eyes.

[The Imperial Republic of New Kyoto]

By referring to Pluto as a planet, you also confirm that Eris, a dwarf planet larger than Pluto is also a planet, and you also have Sedna, MakeMake, Huamea, etc.

We'd easily have 12+ planets.

I see no problem with that. Dwarf planets are planets just a group of planets that are smaller than the terrestrial planets or Gas Giants. That's not so hard is it?

[Utceforp]

Pluto will always be a planet in my eyes.

I love it when people are not only wrong, they know they're wrong and they are proud that they are wrong.

By referring to Pluto as a planet, you also confirm that Eris, a dwarf planet larger than Pluto is also a planet, and you also have Sedna, MakeMake, Huamea, etc.

We'd easily have 12+ planets.

While I am on the "Pluto is not a planet" side of the argument, because by current definition of the word "planet" Pluto is not a planet, I don't see the problem with having that many planets. It would be awesome, and it wouldn't affect Education, since children would probably just be taught the important/large planets at first, and then taught the other planets later.

[Tlaceceyaya]

By referring to Pluto as a planet, you also confirm that Eris, a dwarf planet larger than Pluto is also a planet, and you also have Sedna, MakeMake, Huamea, etc.

We'd easily have 12+ planets.

I see no problem with that. Dwarf planets are planets just a group of planets that are smaller than the terrestrial planets or Gas Giants. That's not so hard is it?

Except they don't meet the requirement of having cleared their neighbourhood.

[Utceforp]

I see no problem with that. Dwarf planets are planets just a group of planets that are smaller than the terrestrial planets or Gas Giants. That's not so hard is it?

Except they don't meet the requirement of having cleared their neighbourhood.

Exactly. That's why, currently, Pluto is not a planet. However, classifications can be changed, and the Dwarf planets could be considered planets, and there would be no problem with that.

[Elgomeria]

no

[Lemonius]

Mr Grey was kind enough to educate me, leading me to say: No.

[Surfistan]

By referring to Pluto as a planet, you also confirm that Eris, a dwarf planet larger than Pluto is also a planet, and you also have Sedna, MakeMake, Huamea, etc.

We'd easily have 12+ planets.

Sorry darling, we'd easily have 200+- planets.
In the solar system that is, with the objects from the Kuiper Belt, I'd be a slightly bigger number.