Pluto got screwed

[BolianAuthor]

For its own characteristics, Pluto is better classified as a dwarf planet (even if I think the label is unfortunate) than as a full planet.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with the label "dwarf planet." If we can have dwarf stars and dwarf galaxies, why not dwarf planets? The only problem with it is the bizarre and self-contradictory assertion that a dwarf planet is not a planet at all. A dwarf star is still a star, and a dwarf galaxy is still a galaxy. I say we should just consider dwarf planets to be a particular subset of planets, just as giant planets are.

Yes, this is my issue with the definition.

That's only if you ever accepted what the "scientists" said. I have no problem, because Pluto is a planet. Deal with it.

I love that you put "scientists" between quotes, as if members of the International Astronomical Union do not deserve the name. People that spent their lives studying celestial objects, expanding our knowledge of the cosmos and, you know, making a living out of doing science.

Be careful with your quotes, or somebody will remember the hissy fit you threw about having "writer" under your name...

There's nothing wrong with my quotes... as others have pointed out, science always changes, that is exactly WHY I refuse to accept the notion that Pluto is not a planet.

Who is to say that at some point in the future, the measure of what is regarded as a planet won't change yet again? The simple fact is, that we don't know enough about the universe yet to make that call, and it's utterly retarded that the call was made to say Pluto is not a planet. After all, all we know from "hands-on" experience, is what we have in our own solar system, and what we have been able to glean from imagery of exoplanets, so there is still a LOT for us to learn, before we can define with CERTAINTY, what constitutes a true planet, and what does not.

And if anyone disagrees with my regarding Pluto a planet, good for them... we're all entitled to our opinions, and I have mine.

 

[iguana_tonante]

There's nothing wrong with my quotes... as others have pointed out, science always changes, that is exactly WHY I refuse to accept the notion that Pluto is not a planet.

You are egregiously missing the point, but I guess there is no reason to keep this discussion going at this point. I guess you can't reason with unreasonableness.

 

[Christopher]

Who is to say that at some point in the future, the measure of what is regarded as a planet won't change yet again? The simple fact is, that we don't know enough about the universe yet to make that call, and it's utterly retarded that the call was made to say Pluto is not a planet.

The simple fact is, this isn't really about what to call Pluto!!!! It saddens me that people obsess on that when it is by far the least interesting and significant aspect of this subject. The reason we redesignated Pluto is because, in the past 15 or so years, we've discovered a whole new aspect of the Solar System that we never knew about before. We've discovered that Pluto is not just one isolated thing, but an exemplar of a whole, vast new category of objects that probably outnumber the known planets by two or three orders of magnitude. We've discovered that what we thought was the outer edge of our Solar System is really just the borderlands of a whole, vast new uncharted part of it.

That is amazing. That is wondrous. And that's what this is really about. What label you stick on Pluto is a trivial side issue, merely a minor consequence of what's really going on here. So it is so very, very sad to me that so many people are so obsessed with this trivial matter of nomenclature that they can't see what an amazing new era of discovery we've entered.


I mean, think about it. The term "planet" has been around since Ancient Greece, but it took until 2006 for astronomers to give it a formal definition. Why? Because it isn't really important. Astronomers and astrophysicists are concerned with whether an object is made of ice or rock or gas, what its orbital parameters are, how it formed, how it got where it is, how it's developed over time, how it might change in the future, whether it might support life, what it might tell us about similar objects elsewhere in the universe. The question of whether it's big enough to be called a planet is largely irrelevant to anyone who actually studies planets and related objects. It's simply not the important issue here.

 

[Deckerd]

So is the Moon a planet?

As to the title of this thread; I'm just glad someone's getting laid round here.

 

[Christopher]

So is the Moon a planet?

Isaac Asimov argued that it should be, because it's twice as strongly attracted by the Sun's gravity than it is by the Earth's. (Yes, the Earth is much closer to it, but the Sun is much bigger.) He saw Earth and Luna as a pair of companion planets sharing an orbit. Anticipating the modern "dwarf planet" coinage, he proposed the term "mesoplanet" for a body larger than Ceres but smaller than Mercury. This would include Luna.

However, Asimov's proposed definition didn't catch on. Whatever the gravitational realities, the barycenter of the Earth-Luna system is located within the Earth (though not very deep within it), and most astronomers would say that makes it a satellite rather than a binary companion. By mass and shape, Luna would qualify as a dwarf planet, but the definition of a dwarf planet (which has a lot of arbitrary features that were arrived at more out of politics than science) excludes bodies that are satellites. It's an open question whether that includes Pluto's moon Charon, since it would also qualify as a dwarf planet, and its barycenter with Pluto is not within either body, so they could be considered a binary dwarf planet.

 

[RoJoHen]

After all, all we know from "hands-on" experience, is what we have in our own solar system, and what we have been able to glean from imagery of exoplanets, so there is still a LOT for us to learn, before we can define with CERTAINTY, what constitutes a true planet, and what does not.

By this logic, none of the planets, including Earth, should be considered planets because they may fail to live up to some inconceivable future definition.

"Planet" is a word that people made up. At one point, we thought Pluto fit the definition of that word. Now that we know more, we realize that it better fits the definition of a different word. Whatever we call it, it's still there. It's not like it's suddenly less important now that it fits into a different category.

 

[Silvercrest]

So is the Moon a planet?

As to the title of this thread; I'm just glad someone's getting laid round here.

Are you kidding? I haven't had this much sex since I was a Boy Scout leader.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

There's nothing wrong with my quotes... as others have pointed out, science always changes, that is exactly WHY I refuse to accept the notion that Pluto is not a planet.

Good idea. I refuse to accept the existence of gravity. After all, since science is always changing, who is to say that it won't be disproved instead?

 

[Christopher]

Whatever we call it, it's still there. It's not like it's suddenly less important now that it fits into a different category.

Exactly. Why can't people get that? If anything, it makes Pluto more important. Or rather, it makes Pluto the exemplar of a whole category of objects that we never knew about before.

The mistake people make is assuming that this is about what to call Pluto. That's not what it is. If it were just about Pluto by itself, this whole thing never would've happened. It's about what to call the whole new category of objects that we've discovered over the past 15 years, of which Pluto is just one example.

The real crux of the issue isn't Pluto, it's Eris. As long as the trans-Neptunian objects we were finding were smaller than Pluto, we could just stick with saying they weren't planets and Pluto was. But when our measurements of Eris showed that it was bigger than Pluto, it opened the question: Does that mean Eris is a planet too, or that Pluto isn't a planet after all? (It's just been determined that Eris is roughly equal in diameter to Pluto, but still more massive.) And given that we've only found a tiny fraction of what's out there past Neptune, there are probably going to be more objects found that are bigger than Pluto, in addition to the numerous smaller ones we've found.

Think about that. We're discovering whole new worlds out there. The list of sizeable named bodies in the Solar System has been growing steadily. There's Eris, Quaoar, Haumea, Makemake, Sedna, Orcus, etc. Pluto has a whole family now, and that's worth paying attention to.

 

[BolianAuthor]

There's nothing wrong with my quotes... as others have pointed out, science always changes, that is exactly WHY I refuse to accept the notion that Pluto is not a planet.

You are egregiously missing the point, but I guess there is no reason to keep this discussion going at this point. I guess you can't reason with unreasonableness.

I agree... which is why I try not to argue with many people.

 

[BolianAuthor]

Whatever we call it, it's still there. It's not like it's suddenly less important now that it fits into a different category.

Exactly. Why can't people get that? If anything, it makes Pluto more important. Or rather, it makes Pluto the exemplar of a whole category of objects that we never knew about before.

The mistake people make is assuming that this is about what to call Pluto. That's not what it is. If it were just about Pluto by itself, this whole thing never would've happened. It's about what to call the whole new category of objects that we've discovered over the past 15 years, of which Pluto is just one example.

The real crux of the issue isn't Pluto, it's Eris. As long as the trans-Neptunian objects we were finding were smaller than Pluto, we could just stick with saying they weren't planets and Pluto was. But when our measurements of Eris showed that it was bigger than Pluto, it opened the question: Does that mean Eris is a planet too, or that Pluto isn't a planet after all? (It's just been determined that Eris is roughly equal in diameter to Pluto, but still more massive.) And given that we've only found a tiny fraction of what's out there past Neptune, there are probably going to be more objects found that are bigger than Pluto, in addition to the numerous smaller ones we've found.

Think about that. We're discovering whole new worlds out there. The list of sizeable named bodies in the Solar System has been growing steadily. There's Eris, Quaoar, Haumea, Makemake, Sedna, Orcus, etc. Pluto has a whole family now, and that's worth paying attention to.

Exactly... the second paragraph of what you wrote is what I am talking about, and why I consider Pluto a planet still... as you said, we still have not discovered a lot beyond Neptune or the Kuiper Belt, so who is to say that planets bigger OR smaller won't be found? That doesn't mean Pluto has to be downgraded. There are people who think Charon should be a planet, as well as Sedna. Indeed, Wikipedia even calls Sedna a dwarf planet... yes, a dwarf planet, but a planet nonetheless. And Pluto has its own orbit, which ought retain its position as a planet. Pluto is a planet. A very small one, but one nonetheless.

 

[Christopher]

^Again, the question of what is a planet and what isn't is by far the least important aspect of this. Labels don't define what things are. Accurate descriptions and classifications are important in science, yes, but they are merely a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

And "downgraded" is a silly way of putting it. It's bizarre to think there's some kind of value judgment here. Nobody wants to "downgrade" or "demote" Pluto. That's just nonsense. It's just about finding a clear and useful nomenclatural standard for bodies such as Pluto. Planets aren't some kind of high-school clique. It's not like you have to be a member of the club to have worth. There's nothing bad about not being called a planet. It's just a matter of accuracy and clarity.

There is value in having a category like dwarf planets. As we learn more about the various types of planetary objects out there, it's good to elaborate our taxonomy appropriately. But it's silly to treat it as some kind of controversy or to read value judgments into it. That's not scientific thinking and it simply distracts from what matters.

 

[sojourner]

^so your saying Pluto is a dwarf-ish planet?

 

[RoJoHen]

Exactly... the second paragraph of what you wrote is what I am talking about, and why I consider Pluto a planet still... as you said, we still have not discovered a lot beyond Neptune or the Kuiper Belt, so who is to say that planets bigger OR smaller won't be found? That doesn't mean Pluto has to be downgraded.

You seem to be operating from the assumption that Pluto suffers from low self-esteem, as if being a planet is some sort of status symbol. Guess what. Pluto doesn't care what we call it!

There are people who think Charon should be a planet, as well as Sedna. Indeed, Wikipedia even calls Sedna a dwarf planet... yes, a dwarf planet, but a planet nonetheless. And Pluto has its own orbit, which ought retain its position as a planet. Pluto is a planet. A very small one, but one nonetheless.

But you can't just define words however you like. We have a current, working definition for the word "planet" based on what we know now. Pluto no longer fits in that definition. It's silly to ignore the facts of today just because we might learn more later.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm pretty sure pluto properly qualifies as a dwarf planet, if only because it's too big to be a comet and too small and in too crowded a neighborhood to be a regular planet. I like to tell people who ask that the solar system right now consists of four giant planets, four rocky planets, upwards of two hundred dwarf planets, several hundred moons and several thousand asteroids and comets.

I'm often mystified why so many people take this personally; it's not like any of us actually LIVE on pluto, so what the hell? Think of this in terrestrial terms: there's alot more on a map of the U.S. than eight major cities and the state capitols. Significant towns--what you might call "minor cities"--show up too; in the scheme of things, pluto is basically the Cleaveland of the solar system.

 

[Hound of UIster]

We are talking about a general population here many of whom still aren't aware we revolve around the sun.

 

[Cicero]

The problem with the IAU definition of a planet isn't that it excludes Pluto, but that it takes the location of an object into account. Alan Stern, a planetologist, makes a good case for a solar system of many planets, some of which are considered (arbitrarily or commonsensically) major, using only brief criteria: a planet is a celestial body that has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, and is not a star. Discovery News contributor Ray Villard recapitulates his argument here, with some original analysis.

To my understanding, that definition would yield 32 known planets in our solar system:

Jupiter †
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Earth
Venus
Mars
Ganymede*
Titan*
Mercury
Callisto*
Io*
Luna*‡
Europa*
Triton*
Pluto ^
Titania*
Eris
Titania *
Rhea *
Oberon *
Makemake
Iapetus *
Charon ^
Umbriel *
Ariel *
Haumea
Dione *
Tethys *
Ceres
Enceladus *
Mimas *

† Does not orbit the sun
* Local barycenter within another planet
‡ Local barycenter within another planet, but solar barycenter dominant over local
^ Local barycenter not within or within another planet

 

[iguana_tonante]

There's nothing wrong with my quotes... as others have pointed out, science always changes, that is exactly WHY I refuse to accept the notion that Pluto is not a planet.

You are egregiously missing the point, but I guess there is no reason to keep this discussion going at this point. I guess you can't reason with unreasonableness.

I agree... which is why I try not to argue with many people.

And keep rolling in your own ignorance and stubbornness. So much for scientific progress and understanding.

Indeed, Wikipedia even calls Sedna a dwarf planet... yes, a dwarf planet, but a planet nonetheless. And Pluto has its own orbit, which ought retain its position as a planet. Pluto is a planet. A very small one, but one nonetheless.

By the current definition, Pluto is a dwarf planet, just like Sedna. Which kinda destroy your argument. I am starting to get the idea that you aren't just building an argument on feelings and stubbornness, but you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Christopher]

But you can't just define words however you like. We have a current, working definition for the word "planet" based on what we know now. Pluto no longer fits in that definition. It's silly to ignore the facts of today just because we might learn more later.

In point of fact, there are a lot of valid criticisms of that current, working definition. It's a flawed definition largely because irrelevancies like nostalgia and politics ended up influencing it, so there are a lot of valid questions to be raised about the definition from a scientific standpoint. For instance, the paradoxical assertion that dwarf planets aren't planets, which seems to arise mainly from a resistance to change (since if they are planets, then the number of planets goes up hugely, while if they aren't, it only changes by one). And the various lingering questions about some of the arbitrary lines drawn by the "official" definition.

In truth -- and this is one reason why treating this like a huge controversy is so silly -- the IAU's definitions aren't really binding on anybody. They're more suggestions than anything else. Astronomers are free to use or ignore them as they see fit. But of course, a large percentage of astronomers were saying that Pluto shouldn't be considered a planet long before the 2006 ruling. As I said, the astronomical community has been uncomfortable about that designation for decades.

But you know what? That's okay. Science isn't about making up pat, easy answers, or about sticking labels on things and pretending they represent some final truth. Science is about asking questions, about continuously adding to our understanding of things. There's always more to learn.

I like to tell people who ask that the solar system right now consists of four giant planets, four rocky planets, upwards of two hundred dwarf planets, several hundred moons and several thousand asteroids and comets.

Well, to date, there are only five officially recognized dwarf planets, and three of those are only tentatively accepted. Again, our knowledge is always expanding. Eris, Haumea, and Makemake are currently accepted as dwarf planets because it's a reasonable conclusion from their observed mass that they must be spherical, but we aren't absolutely certain. And there are dozens, maybe hundreds of other candidates for dwarf planet status, but we don't have good enough observations of them yet to determine their sphericity. It's probable that the Solar System contains dozens of dwarf planets and possible that it contains hundreds, but it's far too early to pretend that's a proven fact.

Sedna is not officially regarded as a dwarf planet, and Wikipedia does not claim that it is. It only says that it probably fits the parameters. It's a dwarf planet candidate, like so many others.

Like I said, science is not about rushing to conclusions and pretending you have some final truth. It's about asking questions and gathering progressively more information to help you improve your answers to them. There's nothing wrong with saying "We don't know yet."

And the number of asteroids and comets is in the millions, not thousands, and that's just in the observed parts of the Solar System. Take the whole Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud into account and the number of small Solar System bodies is probably in the billions, even trillions.

Basically, we can break the Solar System down into several major zones with transitional areas between them:

Inner system: Contains the four Terrestrial planets, Luna, and assorted asteroids. Lacking in volatiles (such as ice, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.) except on the larger bodies.

Main/Inner Belt: Transitional zone. Mainly stony or metallic asteroids, with increasing proportion of volatiles as distance from Sun increases. Contains one dwarf planet, Ceres.

Middle system: Contains the four giant planets (two Jovian/gas giant and two Neptunian/ice giant), their associated satellite and ring systems, their associated Trojan asteroids, and the centaur asteroid/comets. Hydrogen, ice, and other volatiles are abundant.

Kuiper Belt: Transitional zone. Consists of icy bodies of many sizes including multiple dwarf planets. Far larger in mass and volume than the "Main" Belt.

Outer system: Contains icy bodies of various sizes and orbits, mostly still undiscovered. Probably contains many dwarf planets, possibly contains undiscovered icy planets. Includes scattered disc and inner Oort cloud. Contains magnetopause, the boundary with the interstellar medium.

Oort Cloud: Conjectural cloud containing billions of comets and possibly larger bodies, extending out to nearly a light-year.

Of course, you could treat the magnetopause as the outer boundary of the system, but there are still plenty of objects beyond it that are still gravitationally bound to the Sun.

And I should make it clear that the "Inner/Middle/Outer system" designations are strictly my own proposed terms for them, not something official.

 

[Goliath]

Inner system: Contains the four Terrestrial planets, the Moon, and assorted asteroids. Lacking in volatiles (such as ice, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.) except on the larger bodies.

Fixed that for you.