• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Pluto to regain status as ninth planet...?

At least we'll know what it looks like this time next year when NASA's New Horizon spacecraft flies by it.
 
Fans of sci-fi shows which constantly refer to our solar system as having nine planets, will just have to wait until a rogue interstellar orphan wanders in too close. Possibly from another galaxy entirely.

In theory, how much notice would we have that Nibiru is heading our way? :p
 
Last edited:
You can see Pluto from Wrigley Field?
No, but you can see Minnie Mouse on Wrigley's Pleasure Planet.
Now, that's just Goofy.



1406231658250094.jpg


It would be funny if those two moons on the right were called Hix and Pix.
 
While I understand why this was done in the first place, I just wish the IAU would settle on what constitutes being a planet. I feel that astronomically, it should still be a planet, even if the meaning has changed.

My Dad actually met Clyde Tombaugh in the 80's.
 
I just wish the IAU would settle on what constitutes being a planet.

Well, until recently, we didn't have much evidence of planets orbiting other stars. Given that we only really have our own solar system to go on, it stands to reason that definitions might change as we continue to learn more.

I just know that it will be a victory for my childhood if Pluto becomes a planet again.
 
And next week in science...Brontosaurus was actually real!!!

There is a Dinosaur by the name of Brontomerus (Thunder Thighs), though.

While I understand why this was done in the first place, I just wish the IAU would settle on what constitutes being a planet.

Isn't the controversy precisely because they have settled on what is a planet, but some people dislike the definition?

Anyway, why is there no love for Ceres? Everyone talks about Pluto getting "demoted" from Planet to Dwarf Planet. However, Ceres got demoted from planet all the way to freakin' asteroid. The creation of the classification of Dwarf Planet allowed Ceres to regain some of its former planetary glory.
 
And next week in science...Brontosaurus was actually real!!!

There is a Dinosaur by the name of Brontomerus (Thunder Thighs), though.
Uh, it reminds me of a girl I knew once. :shifty:

Isn't the controversy precisely because they have settled on what is a planet, but some people dislike the definition?
To be completely honest, there are some issues with the definitions adopted by the IAU. It is badly worded, at least. (By definition, dwarf planets are not considered planets -- while dwarf stars and dwarf galaxies are obviously considered stars and galaxies respectively; the meaning of "clearing the orbital neighbourhood" is not clearly defined; etc.) As with anything resulting from a negotiate and a compromise, it's not perfect, but it works pretty well in the context it's used. In fact, most of the critiques are actually semantic arguments dressed up as scientific debate, and they stem from nostalgia instead of actual astronomical concerns.

Anyway, why is there no love for Ceres? Everyone talks about Pluto getting "demoted" from Planet to Dwarf Planet. However, Ceres got demoted from planet all the way to freakin' asteroid.
Because most people do not care about actual astronomy, they only care about what they learned in elementary school and don't want it to change. How dare actual astronomers mess with stuff I learned in a book when I was 7? The gall of some people! :klingon:
 
Isn't the controversy precisely because they have settled on what is a planet, but some people dislike the definition?
To be completely honest, there are some issues with the definitions adopted by the IAU. It is badly worded, at least. (By definition, dwarf planets are not considered planets -- while dwarf stars and dwarf galaxies are obviously considered stars and galaxies respectively; the meaning of "clearing the orbital neighbourhood" is not clearly defined; etc.) As with anything resulting from a negotiate and a compromise, it's not perfect, but it works pretty well in the context it's used. In fact, most of the critiques are actually semantic arguments dressed up as scientific debate, and they stem from nostalgia instead of actual astronomical concerns.

Anyway, why is there no love for Ceres? Everyone talks about Pluto getting "demoted" from Planet to Dwarf Planet. However, Ceres got demoted from planet all the way to freakin' asteroid.
Because most people do not care about actual astronomy, they only care about what they learned in elementary school and don't want it to change. How dare actual astronomers mess with stuff I learned in a book when I was 7? The gall of some people! :klingon:

Apparently Ceres is both an asteroid and a dwarf planet. Maybe Pluto should apply to become an asteroid. They're a more welcoming group than those snobbish planets.

Am I the only person who thinks the definition of moon needs to be changed so any random rock that goes too close to Jupiter doesn't become a moon? The most obvious definition I can think of (being round as opposed to irregularly shaped) would probably exclude some popular moons like Phobos and Deimos, though.
 
Am I the only person who thinks the definition of moon needs to be changed so any random rock that goes too close to Jupiter doesn't become a moon? The most obvious definition I can think of (being round as opposed to irregularly shaped) would probably exclude some popular moons like Phobos and Deimos, though.
I support making a distinction between "moons" (enough mass to achieve hidrostatic equilibrium, i.e. become almost spherical) and mere "natural satellites". It would "demote" a whole bunch of objects from moons to satellites, but I got no problem with that.

Of course, there will be people who will cry and whine and wear T-shirts with "Phobos and Deimos ARE moons!!!11!!!!eleven!!" written all over them.
 
A couple of quick questions that some with more knowledge than me might be able to answer

1) I believe that Pluto's moons all have a retrograde orbit. Do any other moons in the solar system have a retrograde orbit?

And 2) could its moon's retrograde orbits have any bearing on whether Pluto is considered a planet or not?

Edited to add - Does Pluto itself have a retrograde orbit?
 
I just wish the IAU would settle on what constitutes being a planet.

Well, until recently, we didn't have much evidence of planets orbiting other stars. Given that we only really have our own solar system to go on, it stands to reason that definitions might change as we continue to learn more.

I just know that it will be a victory for my childhood if Pluto becomes a planet again.


True enough. I'll give you that :)

But it's like Iguana said. The definitions themselves are a bit convoluted.
 
A couple of quick questions that some with more knowledge than me might be able to answer

1) I believe that Pluto's moons all have a retrograde orbit. Do any other moons in the solar system have a retrograde orbit?

And 2) could its moon's retrograde orbits have any bearing on whether Pluto is considered a planet or not?

Edited to add - Does Pluto itself have a retrograde orbit?

There are several other moons with retrograde orbit. Neptune's moon Triton has a retrograde orbit and scientists think it's actually a captured Kuiper object. Triton will eventually get to close to Neptune and be torn apart and then Neptune will have a ring system like Saturn.

Pluto's orbital plane is highly elliptic, at times above and below the orbital plane of the rest of the planets. Pluto's orbit at times swings inside Neptune and way out into the Kuiper belt.

Pluto-Orbit-400.jpg
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top