Should Pluto be a Planet?

[Arcturus IV]

1. See above.
2. No. See above.
3. Not irrelevant. Size is an important factor when deciding planetary status, and honestly right now? The whole system is a giant pile of steaming shit. There need to be better definitions, or the IAU needs to go back to the previous setup and stop pretending this current system is better. Because it isn't.

1. Your nonsense is still nonsense.
2. Your unsourced nonsense is still unsourced nonsense.
3. Until Alan Stern's "definition" is accepted by the IAU, it matters not what he says. In current scientific reality, size is only relevant when defining a planet in the sense that a planet must be massive enough to be near-spherical and to have enough gravity to clear its neighbourhood. "It's smaller than a couple of freakishly large moons" is not a criterion.

1. Then come back with a better reply than "NUH UH YUR WRONG", or I will continue to ignore your pointless rambling.
2. Then source your own arguments or I will continue to ignore your pointless rambling.
3. Because Alan Stern is not a scientist and the IAU is infinitely superior to everyone else because they are perfect and cannot make silly, arbitrary decisions? Size is entirely relevant. Mass is not size. Gravity is not size. Size is important because if a black hole with the mass of Earth were to orbit the Sun and clear its orbit, it would still not be a planet because a) it is a black hole, and b) it would be less than 2 centimeters wide.

1 and 2. From the planetar wiki link:

The 2M1207b link defines said substellar object as a sub-brown dwarf. It's almost the same size as Jupiter.

No, first of all, it says that there are some questions, not that it is a sub-brown dwarf. Secondly, its estimated mass is almost an order of magnitude larger than Jupiter.

Further, neither sub-brown dwarf nor planetars are commonly used by the astronomical community and are therefore very sporadically defined. They also don't describe how people think Jupiter formed. The current ideas about how Jupiter formed are that it formed by accretion or small bodies that condensed out of the solar nebula (like Earth, but with some ices too) until it hit about 10 Earth masses, then it started directly accreting material onto its core. This is very different from directly collapsing out of the solar nebula.

The distinction between "this orbits a yellow G-type star" and "this orbits a brown dwarf" is pretty arbitrary.

That's not the distinction being made.

As for the definitions not being well defined or agreed upon, that is my point in arguing Jupiter is not a planet. Not everyone agrees on Pluto's demotion, and planets are relatively poorly undefined with arbitrary exceptions made by the IAU as they see fit.

The IAU doesn't give that much of a shit if "everyone" including people who aren't in astronomy think their definitions are good. The average person knows pretty much fuck-all about actual astronomy. Even a lot of people who are decent amateur astronomers are often really, really wrong (I've heard someone describe the ring nebula as a supernova remnant when it's really a planetary nebula).

They even overturned the popular vote to grant the name "Vulcan" to one of Pluto's moons for arbitrary and questionable reasons.

They didn't overturn anything. They said that they'd take suggestions from the poll, but that they might disregard them. Probably they noticed that there was active campaigning to fix the election or they just thought the second and third place ones were more appropriate.

3. The Sun isn't in Mercury's orbit, duh. I'm talking about gravity. I require evidence that Mercury itself has cleared its orbit, and that the orbit hasn't been cleared by dint of Sol's gravitational well, or passing asteroids or what have you.

All of the planets are in the Sun's gravitational well, that's why we're orbiting it.

Does the Sun orbit itself through any part of Mercury's orbit? No.

3. Not irrelevant. Size is an important factor when deciding planetary status, and honestly right now? The whole system is a giant pile of steaming shit. There need to be better definitions, or the IAU needs to go back to the previous setup and stop pretending this current system is better. Because it isn't.

The previous system where there was no definition and people did demote planets when they figured out they were part of say, the asteroid belt? You know, like what happened with Ceres? Back during a time before the internet when people didn't have time to raise a fuss about how they know better than some experts?

That previous set up?

1. My mistake. It was this link, it said "possible", and that there was "no consensus". So I retract that bit.
2. It is the distinction being made for a sub-brown dwarf. As defined, it cannot orbit a star unless it is a brown dwarf (which I suppose means brown dwarfs are not considered stars):

A sub-brown dwarf — cold masses smaller than brown dwarfs that do not orbit a star.

In fairness, it also states that this is a proposed, but not widely accepted, definition. So I'll leave it at that.
3. I don't give much of a shit if the IAU thinks they're perfect and infallible and everyone else is an ignorant pleb who knows jack-all about astronomy. They can't logic properly.
4. I see a "probably" there. Doesn't sound very definitive to me.
5. Still not seeing evidence that Mercury cleared its own orbit. Is that because there isn't any, hm? And besides, Mars' orbit isn't exactly 'cleared'. But I don't want to open a brand new can of worms when there's already plenty to go around.
6. No, not that setup. The previous one, where Ceres was a planet and there wasn't all this irrational lazy fuss about too many planets being too hard to remember or list or organise or whatever. God it's stupid.

There are ~7,000,000,000 people in the world. Naming them all will be messy.

Uh, I don't think you read that right.

People name tons of these things (I have a friend who discovered two trans-Neputian Objects and I know she named one of them Panda, I forget what she called the other one). The ones that are round get some special IAU treatment where they make sure to name them after a variety of gods from different cultures now (which is why Xena and Gabrielle didn't stay Xena and Gabrielle), but they're still not planets.

Nope, pretty sure I read that right. I just didn't reply correctly:

There are ~7,000,000,000 people in the world. Naming them all humans will be messy.

Fixed for clarity.

And on a side note, Pluto's orbit may be elliptical, but it more closely resembles the other planetary orbits than the Kuiper Belt object orbits. Also, both Jupiter and Mars have slightly more pronounced elliptical orbits than the other planets.

My whole point is that the IAU is incompetent when it comes to providing a good system for naming and categorising substellar (and even stellar) objects. The current one is a royal fucking mess and should be rebuilt from scratch. See this post for an alternative. No, it isn't perfect, but it's a good starting point to work with, and a hell of a lot more comprehensive and definitive than the current one.

[Geilinor]

No. This isn't a matter of opinion. Scientific terminology is objective. Pluto is not a planet because it does not have enough gravitational pull to clear its orbit. End of story. It is not and never should have been a planet.

Exactly. It's science, not popularity.

This^. Pluto shouldn't be a full planet because it can't be.

[Cameroi]

Exactly. It's science, not popularity.

This^. Pluto shouldn't be a full planet because it can't be.

so earth isn't a planet because of all the junk we've thrown out there co-orbiting with us? and this is called logic?

(and yes i'm not refering to stuff still orbiting earth, but which has fallen into orbiting the sun co-orbital with us)

[Tlaceceyaya]

This^. Pluto shouldn't be a full planet because it can't be.

so earth isn't a planet because of all the junk we've thrown out there co-orbiting with us? and this is called logic?

(and yes i'm not refering to stuff still orbiting earth, but which has fallen into orbiting the sun co-orbital with us)

Those things are unbelievably tiny compared to the mass of the earth.
Pluto, however, makes up a small amount of the total mass of the Kuiper Belt.

[Dazchan]

1. Your nonsense is still nonsense.
2. Your unsourced nonsense is still unsourced nonsense.
3. Until Alan Stern's "definition" is accepted by the IAU, it matters not what he says. In current scientific reality, size is only relevant when defining a planet in the sense that a planet must be massive enough to be near-spherical and to have enough gravity to clear its neighbourhood. "It's smaller than a couple of freakishly large moons" is not a criterion.

1. Then come back with a better reply than "NUH UH YUR WRONG", or I will continue to ignore your pointless rambling.
2. Then source your own arguments or I will continue to ignore your pointless rambling.
3. Because Alan Stern is not a scientist and the IAU is infinitely superior to everyone else because they are perfect and cannot make silly, arbitrary decisions? Size is entirely relevant. Mass is not size. Gravity is not size. Size is important because if a black hole with the mass of Earth were to orbit the Sun and clear its orbit, it would still not be a planet because a) it is a black hole, and b) it would be less than 2 centimeters wide.

1. I'm not really sure how else to respond to your claim that Jupiter isn't a planet because of a much more massive object outside of the solar system's existence...
2. You're the one making the claim that Jupiter isn't a planet. It's your job to source it. That's how these things work.
3. i don't give a flying fuck who Alan Stern is, although your appeal to authority apparently hinges on me caring. There is a scientific definition used to determine if something is a planet. It was developed and agreed upon, not just by one scientist, but by consensus, in 2006. It requires an object to be orbiting a star, be spherical due to its own mass and to have cleared its neighbourhood of significant objects. Did you note that size isn't mentioned at all? Thus, size is irrelevant to determining whether something is a planet.

[Arcturus IV]

1. Then come back with a better reply than "NUH UH YUR WRONG", or I will continue to ignore your pointless rambling.
2. Then source your own arguments or I will continue to ignore your pointless rambling.
3. Because Alan Stern is not a scientist and the IAU is infinitely superior to everyone else because they are perfect and cannot make silly, arbitrary decisions? Size is entirely relevant. Mass is not size. Gravity is not size. Size is important because if a black hole with the mass of Earth were to orbit the Sun and clear its orbit, it would still not be a planet because a) it is a black hole, and b) it would be less than 2 centimeters wide.

1. I'm not really sure how else to respond to your claim that Jupiter isn't a planet because of a much more massive object outside of the solar system's existence...
2. You're the one making the claim that Jupiter isn't a planet. It's your job to source it. That's how these things work.
3. i don't give a flying fuck who Alan Stern is, although your appeal to authority apparently hinges on me caring. There is a scientific definition used to determine if something is a planet. It was developed and agreed upon, not just by one scientist, but by consensus, in 2006. It requires an object to be orbiting a star, be spherical due to its own mass and to have cleared its neighbourhood of significant objects. Did you note that size isn't mentioned at all? Thus, size is irrelevant to determining whether something is a planet.

1. Mass is not size, and size is not a non-issue. See 3.
2. I advise you to go back and read all of my posts. It's a counterargument to show how incapable the current planetary definition is. I don't care if Jupiter is or isn't a planet, what I am saying is that there are enormous holes in the current system. Which leads me to 3...
3. By that definition, a < 2cm black hole with the mass of Earth that is orbiting a star and has cleared its orbit is, indeed, a planet, as would be Antares (complete with its monstrous size) if it orbited another star. And that is the biggest load of shit I have ever heard. Rethink your logic, just like the IAU should.

[Sassinia]

No. But it's double dwarf planet with Charon.

[Grave_n_idle]

This^. Pluto shouldn't be a full planet because it can't be.

so earth isn't a planet because of all the junk we've thrown out there co-orbiting with us? and this is called logic?

No. Because 'clearing your orbit' doesn't mean you have to have literally eradicated every atom of space junk. Ignoring our moon, which is in orbit around us - the Earth is a million times more massive than everything else describing the same orbit. Pluto is something like one-tenth of the mass of the rest of the material in the same orbit.

Personally, I think the categorisations are going to change again. I think 'dwarf planet' is a stopgap, and not a very good one - but I think it's functional enough for now.

[Abarrach]

Yes, it is an sphere, and massive enough.

[Wolfmanne]

Scientists can make their mind up and I'll just accept it.