Should Pluto be a Planet?

[Dakini]

But it is so adorable...I think it should be considered a planet.

Neptune has NOT cleared its orbit because Pluto is still there. Is Neptune degraded to Untermensch Planet?

Neptune is fine because it's by far the biggest thing in its orbit. If you included space debris, then there are no planets since there are groups of asteroids that orbit with a few (possibly all) of the planets (in the Lagrange points).

[Fartsniffage]

Should Pluto still be a planet? A few years ago, Pluto was declassified from Planet status to Dwarf Planet status. What is your opinion Ns? I think they were right, Pluto is similar in size to several objects near it ,and is too small and similar in shape to all the to all the other things out at the fringe regions of the solars system. all those small planets, like Eris for example, are not classified as planets. Nor should Pluto be.

Technically those aren't why Pluto was declassified to dwarf Planet. Also, some of those aren't true (e.g. it's not similar in shape to all the other things out there... most other things out there aren't spherical).


It definitely shouldn't be a planet either.

Ah, if memory serves you're either an astro-physics or astronomy PHD.

Why shouldn't Pluto be a planet? I don't mean the IAU classification, I mean a legitimate reason for that classification.

[Dakini]

Yes, Pluto should be a planet. It's pulled itself into a sphere under its own gravity, it orbits a star, and it has moons*...

*Noting not all planets have moons

It orbits around a point between itself and Charon.

No, it orbits the Sun as well as its centre of mass with Charon.

If it wasn't orbiting the Sun, it wouldn't be a part of this solar system and this discussion would be moot.

[Galborg]

Neptune has NOT cleared its orbit because Pluto is still there. Is Neptune degraded to Untermensch Planet?

Neptune is fine because it's by far the biggest thing in its orbit. If you included space debris, then there are no planets since there are groups of asteroids that orbit with a few (possibly all) of the planets (in the Lagrange points).

Exactly, there are NO planets by Tyson's definition.

[Dakini]

Technically those aren't why Pluto was declassified to dwarf Planet. Also, some of those aren't true (e.g. it's not similar in shape to all the other things out there... most other things out there aren't spherical).


It definitely shouldn't be a planet either.

Ah, if memory serves you're either an astro-physics or astronomy PHD.

Why shouldn't Pluto be a planet? I don't mean the IAU classification, I mean a legitimate reason for that classification.

Because it's basically space junk like the rest of the Kuiper Belt objects. It's just more spherical than most of the space junk out there, but it's not even the biggest or most massive piece of space junk.

If you look at one of the proposed definitions of a planet that was suggested to the IAU, where you just let anything that's spherical and orbits a star (as opposed to orbiting another planet) be defined as a planet, we'd have at least 53 planets by now (probably more... since we keep finding more).

[Dakini]

Neptune is fine because it's by far the biggest thing in its orbit. If you included space debris, then there are no planets since there are groups of asteroids that orbit with a few (possibly all) of the planets (in the Lagrange points).

Exactly, there are NO planets by Tyson's definition.

If by Tyson, you mean Neil de Grasse Tyson, he didn't make up the definition, it was decided upon by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). And no, you're just not understanding the definition.

[Fartsniffage]

Ah, if memory serves you're either an astro-physics or astronomy PHD.

Why shouldn't Pluto be a planet? I don't mean the IAU classification, I mean a legitimate reason for that classification.

Because it's basically space junk like the rest of the Kuiper Belt objects. It's just more spherical than most of the space junk out there, but it's not even the biggest or most massive piece of space junk.

If you look at one of the proposed definitions of a planet that was suggested to the IAU, where you just let anything that's spherical and orbits a star (as opposed to orbiting another planet) be defined as a planet, we'd have at least 53 planets by now (probably more... since we keep finding more).

And why is that a bad thing?

[Ashihara no Nakatsukuni]

Because it's basically space junk like the rest of the Kuiper Belt objects. It's just more spherical than most of the space junk out there, but it's not even the biggest or most massive piece of space junk.

If you look at one of the proposed definitions of a planet that was suggested to the IAU, where you just let anything that's spherical and orbits a star (as opposed to orbiting another planet) be defined as a planet, we'd have at least 53 planets by now (probably more... since we keep finding more).

And why is that a bad thing?

Because panorama's of the space would take way to long in school, obviously.

[Dakini]

Because it's basically space junk like the rest of the Kuiper Belt objects. It's just more spherical than most of the space junk out there, but it's not even the biggest or most massive piece of space junk.

If you look at one of the proposed definitions of a planet that was suggested to the IAU, where you just let anything that's spherical and orbits a star (as opposed to orbiting another planet) be defined as a planet, we'd have at least 53 planets by now (probably more... since we keep finding more).

And why is that a bad thing?

Apart from the fact that it would make the definition basically meaningless?

Just because something is spherical doesn't mean it should be a planet, especially when the thing has the same orbital properties as a whole lotta space junk (e.g. high eccentricity and inclination) and is therefore more consistent with the space junk than with what we generally think of as planets.

The only reasons that people are upset about this is that they have a sentimental attachment to Pluto as a planet or they think it was an anti-American move that the only planet discovered by someone from the US is no longer a planet.

[Ashihara no Nakatsukuni]

And why is that a bad thing?

Apart from the fact that it would make the definition basically meaningless?

Just because something is spherical doesn't mean it should be a planet, especially when the thing has the same orbital properties as a whole lotta space junk (e.g. high eccentricity and inclination) and is therefore more consistent with the space junk than with what we generally think of as planets.

The only reasons that people are upset about this is that they have a sentimental attachment to Pluto as a planet or they think it was an anti-American move that the only planet discovered by someone from the US is no longer a planet.

I'll honestly admit that I didn't know Pluto was found by an American.

[New Israelia]

Pluto is a part of God's creation, and it is magnificent. There seems to be an agenda behind every major decision made, and this one was not based off of a moralistic agenda -- it was taking a part of God's creation and belittling it to something it is not. A dwarf planet? What? Pluto is just as much a planet as Earth!

Officially, New Israelia recognizes Pluto as a planet in reverence of God.

[Anachronous Rex]

Pluto is a part of God's creation, and it is magnificent. There seems to be an agenda behind every major decision made, and this one was not based off of a moralistic agenda -- it was taking a part of God's creation and belittling it to something it is not. A dwarf planet? What? Pluto is just as much a planet as Earth!

Officially, New Israelia recognizes Pluto as a planet in reverence of God.

Must be hard to see with all that persecution complex you're wearing.

[Dakini]

Apart from the fact that it would make the definition basically meaningless?

Just because something is spherical doesn't mean it should be a planet, especially when the thing has the same orbital properties as a whole lotta space junk (e.g. high eccentricity and inclination) and is therefore more consistent with the space junk than with what we generally think of as planets.

The only reasons that people are upset about this is that they have a sentimental attachment to Pluto as a planet or they think it was an anti-American move that the only planet discovered by someone from the US is no longer a planet.

I'll honestly admit that I didn't know Pluto was found by an American.

Yeah, this guy found it, but Lowell started the hunt and funded the whole thing.

Oh, granted, some people who study Pluto were also upset because they thought this would mean less funding (though really... they could just expand to the other KBOs so I'm not sure what their problem is).

[Fartsniffage]

Okay. Just to clarify my position in most of this thread. It's fun to argue with people who claim "but science says so" with no understanding of the actual science behind things and a reliance on what they see on TV and in news articles.

Apart from the fact that it would make the definition basically meaningless?

I don't understand how that's the case? Entomologists don't suddenly get upset because there are too many species of ants. They just study them separately.

Just because something is spherical doesn't mean it should be a planet, especially when the thing has the same orbital properties as a whole lotta space junk (e.g. high eccentricity and inclination) and is therefore more consistent with the space junk than with what we generally think of as planets.

This also confuses me. Pluto has far more in common with Earth than Jupiter does. Why not the separate definitions between rocky and gas?

The only reasons that people are upset about this is that they have a sentimental attachment to Pluto as a planet or they think it was an anti-American move that the only planet discovered by someone from the US is no longer a planet.

I'm not a Yank. This has nothing to do with my reticence to downgrade Pluto.

[Arcturus IV]

If Pluto isn't a planet, then neither is Jupiter. Why? Because 2M1207b, that's why. Jupiter is a sub-brown dwarf and/or a planetar. Additionally, I would challenge Mercury's status as well, seeing as how both Ganymede and Titan (moons/satellites, not planets) are larger than it, and I request evidence that Mercury is responsible for clearing its orbit, and not, in fact, the Sun.

Take that, you traitorous IAU jerks. Now you only have six planets.

[The Second Brotherhood of Planets]

If Pluto isn't a planet, then neither is Jupiter. Why? Because 2M1207b, that's why. Jupiter is a sub-brown dwarf and/or a planetar. Additionally, I would challenge Mercury's status as well, seeing as how both Ganymede and Titan (moons/satellites, not planets) are larger than it, and I request evidence that Mercury is responsible for clearing its orbit, and not, in fact, the Sun.

Take that, you traitorous IAU jerks. Now you only have six planets.

As well as a Binary Star System? Yaaaay.

[The Peoples of Alpha Centauri]

id consider pluto a planet if it had a more orthodox orbit

[Greater Beggnig]

Pluto should be a planet. And so should the other seven or so dwarf planets.

[Anachronous Rex]

id consider pluto a planet if it had a more orthodox orbit

Damn heretics...

[Dakini]

Okay. Just to clarify my position in most of this thread. It's fun to argue with people who claim "but science says so" with no understanding of the actual science behind things and a reliance on what they see on TV and in news articles.

lol. You know what I do for a living, right?

Apart from the fact that it would make the definition basically meaningless?

I don't understand how that's the case? Entomologists don't suddenly get upset because there are too many species of ants. They just study them separately.

In this case, it makes more sense to study Pluto as a KBO than it does to study it as a planet, just like it makes more sense to study Ceres as a member of the asteroid belt than as a planet.

You know, the same way entomologists don't study beetles as ants. They call the beetles "beetles" and the ants "ants".

Just because something is spherical doesn't mean it should be a planet, especially when the thing has the same orbital properties as a whole lotta space junk (e.g. high eccentricity and inclination) and is therefore more consistent with the space junk than with what we generally think of as planets.

This also confuses me. Pluto has far more in common with Earth than Jupiter does. Why not the separate definitions between rocky and gas?

Pluto isn't rocky.

And Jupiter and Saturn (sometimes Neptune and Uranus) are designated as gas giants (Neptune and Uranus are sometimes called ice giants).

Also, the composition of a planet is unrelated to its orbital properties. If you do not know, the planets in our solar system orbit in roughly the same plane (Mercury is a little more off than others, but still pretty close) and they have relatively small eccentricities (e.g. their orbits are relatively circular). Pluto has a highly inclined and highly eccentric orbit, just like the other KBOs. Furthermore, it is locked into a 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune, just like the other KBOs. This is a very different system than something like the Earth or Jupiter.

The only reasons that people are upset about this is that they have a sentimental attachment to Pluto as a planet or they think it was an anti-American move that the only planet discovered by someone from the US is no longer a planet.

I'm not a Yank. This has nothing to do with my reticence to downgrade Pluto.

Ah yes, then sentimental attachment it is.

[Fartsniffage]

lol. You know what I do for a living, right?

Well yes.....hence - viewtopic.php?p=15369505#p15369505

In this case, it makes more sense to study Pluto as a KBO than it does to study it as a planet, just like it makes more sense to study Ceres as a member of the asteroid belt than as a planet.

You know, the same way entomologists don't study beetles as ants. They call the beetles "beetles" and the ants "ants".

Fair enough.

And Jupiter and Saturn (sometimes Neptune and Uranus) are designated as gas giants (Neptune and Uranus are sometimes called ice giants).

Also, the composition of a planet is unrelated to its orbital properties. If you do not know, the planets in our solar system orbit in roughly the same plane (Mercury is a little more off than others, but still pretty close) and they have relatively small eccentricities (e.g. their orbits are relatively circular). Pluto has a highly inclined and highly eccentric orbit, just like the other KBOs. Furthermore, it is locked into a 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune, just like the other KBOs. This is a very different system than something like the Earth or Jupiter.

Fair enough.

Ah yes, then sentimental attachment it is.

Totally.

[Arcturus IV]

In this case, it makes more sense to study Pluto as a KBO than it does to study it as a planet, just like it makes more sense to study Ceres as a member of the asteroid belt than as a planet.

You know, the same way entomologists don't study beetles as ants. They call the beetles "beetles" and the ants "ants".

Fair enough.

No, not "fair enough". There wasn't a time when entomologists called beetles ants and then suddenly found a shitload of them, so they said "hey, there's too many of these, let's call them 'beetles' instead!" God I hate that reasoning so much. It's horrible, simply horrible. Again, if Pluto isn't a planet, then neither is Jupiter or Mercury.

[Galborg]

In the olden dayes, we only knew from 7 planets, then we built telescopes and discovered Uranus, then we built bigger and better telescopes and discovered more planets.

Tyson plans to build his Death Star and nuke Pluto. It would be simpler and cheaper for Tyson to conscript al Quaida and nuke all the telescopes.

And why is that a bad thing?

Because panorama's of the space would take way to long in school, obviously.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Pluto should be a planet. And so should the other seven or so dwarf planets.

Because... you want scientists to have to waste their time explaining what they mean when they say planet, because there would suddenly be no word for a planet which had cleared its neighbourhood?

[Fartsniffage]

Pluto should be a planet. And so should the other seven or so dwarf planets.

Because... you want scientists to have to waste their time explaining what they mean when they say planet, because there would suddenly be no word for a planet which had cleared its neighbourhood?

There never was before 2006. Did they have real trouble then?