NationStates Jolt Archive

Its been 1 year since Pluto lost its rightful status as a planet after the IAU changed the defintion of a planet. what does everybody think? Were there some reeason behind it othe than the discovery of Eris? Do you think it was the right descion to degrade Pluto?

Pluto's still a planet in my book.

I believe the reason was to have some sort of standard in place for defining what a plant "officially" is, where before there was none. Other than that, it's all arbitrary, so doesn't phase me what they call it.

I believe the reason was to have some sort of standard in place for defining what a plant "officially" is, where before there was none. Other than that, it's all arbitrary, so doesn't phase me what they call it.

Theydid have a standard. but the changed it so pluto isn't part of it.

Pluto is lucky to have minor planet status.

I've excreted things more deserving of planet status that Pluto. Like Mars.

You excreted Mars? Daymn, that musta hurt on the way out...

I've excreted things more deserving of planet status that Pluto. Like Mars.

Theydid have a standard. but the changed it so pluto isn't part of it.

Incorrect. Prior to last year, there was no official designation of "planet." If Pluto had remained a planet, Sol would currently have about 23 planets. There's loads of dwarf planets out there, and Pluto is NOT the largest of them.

The change was for classification purposes. It's much easier to remember eight planets than 23.

Pluto was always a planet to me, and it will always be a planet to me. I learned about the nine planets, not the eight planets and three, maybe four "dwarf planets."

I believe in science, sure, but that's one thing I will not budge on - Pluto is and always will be a planet. It has two fucking moons, at least. That's more than fucking Mercury and Venus put together. Should we re-classify them, too? Damn know-it-all scientists.

poll added

Incorrect. Prior to last year, there was no official designation of "planet." If Pluto had remained a planet, Sol would currently have about 23 planets. There's loads of dwarf planets out there, and Pluto is NOT the largest of them.

The change was for classification purposes. It's much easier to remember eight planets than 23.

I would rather learn 23 planets than not have pluto. If I have kids, Ill teach them the truth.

The main reason for downgrading Pluto was so that Holst's 'The Planets' didn't look annoyingly unfinished. *nods*

I would rather learn 23 planets than not have pluto. If I have kids, Ill teach them the truth.

Eh, planet, planetesimal. There's not much difference when you get down to that size - what we call it makes precisely bugger all difference. It is pretty clear what is a planet, and what is a planetesimal, but the dividing line is somewhat blurry. I suspect it only becomes an issue on the outer edges of a system anyway, as this is where all these small objects are.

Eh, planet, planetesimal. There's not much difference when you get down to that size - what we call it makes precisely bugger all difference. It is pretty clear what is a planet, and what is a planetesimal, but the dividing line is somewhat blurry. I suspect it only becomes an issue on the outer edges of a system anyway, as this is where all these small objects are.

Ceres.


For a guy who made an astronomy thread you know jack about even the basics.

Ceres.


For a guy who made an astronomy thread you know jack about even the basics.

Oops, yeah. Totally forgot about the asteroid belt. ¬.¬

What astronomy thread? This one?

Pluto's still a planet in my book.

I removed Pluto from my book a year or more befor the IAU. Grow up.

Either we return it to the status as a planet, or be consistent and strip Europe of it's continent title and make it part of Asia like it geographically should be. Or we could be just be contradictory I guess, it doesn't really matter.

Its been 1 year since Pluto lost its rightful status as a planet after the IAU changed the defintion of a planet. what does everybody think? Were there some reeason behind it othe than the discovery of Eris? Do you think it was the right descion to degrade Pluto?

Okay, look, I'm starting to get pissed over this now.

Shut up about insisting it's still a planet, okay people? Leave it to astronomers and those that define what those terms fucking MEAN to determine whether it is or not, okay? It's like you're some idiot who still insists the Sun rotates around the Earth despite the new proof that Earth revolves around the Sun. :headbang:

I believe in science, sure, but that's one thing I will not budge on - Pluto is and always will be a planet. It has two fucking moons, at least. That's more than fucking Mercury and Venus put together. Should we re-classify them, too? Damn know-it-all scientists. It has one moon...

But it's larger that Mar's two 2 mile long moons. And more than Venus's 0 and Mercury 0 moons.

In fact since pluto's moon is so big it might be why it has a "Irregular Orbit" and since that means that it orginally DID have a normal orbit, it should be a planet.

The real reason they changed it is because the Xena\Eris discoverer went all Emo at the Science Meeting. And bitched and whined demanding that if they had pluto on it his planet would have to be on it as well.

Asshole.


Shut up about insisting it's still a planet, okay people? Leave it to astronomers and those that define what those terms fucking MEAN to determine whether it is or not, okay? It's like you're some idiot who still insists the Sun rotates around the Earth despite the new proof that Earth revolves around the Sun. :headbang:
There was no scientific reason for taking pluto off the planet list.

Pluto started out as a non-planet.

'Nuff said. I wish I could be bothered to find a source for it though.

Also, you can tell you're on pluto by feeling up the trees.

There was no scientific reason for taking pluto off the planet list.

Read what they say before saying that please.

Also, remember that you're not an astronomer.

Read what they say before saying that please.

Also, remember that you're not an astronomer.

neither are you....

neither are you....

...

No shit. That's why I listen to them rather than insisting on something like a whiny little baby.

Pluto isn't a planet, and never should have been. In fact, if I remember my astronomy correctly, it's just a fucking comet that got to big for its britches and started trying to hang out with Uranus.
A Planet-Poseur, if you will.

Personally I would define a planet as an object big enough to round itself out and who's primary orbit is around a star (not orbiting another object). I don't really understand why it needs to clear out other objects. Maybe Pluto and others just don't have enough time to do that. A few billion more years who knows?

If my definition brings a hundred planets, so what.

Personally I would define a planet as an object big enough to round itself out and who's primary orbit is around a star (not orbiting another object). I don't really understand why it needs to clear out other objects. Maybe Pluto and others just don't have enough time to do that. A few billion more years who knows?

If my definition brings a hundred planets, so what.

Halley's Planet?

If my definition brings a hundred planets, so what.
Because astronomers aren't very imaginitive, and they'd very quickly run out of mythological names for them. I mean, who wants to learn about the 16th planet from the Sun: Devera (named, of course, after the Roman goddess of Brooms).

Ceres (the largest object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter) was considered a planet up until the mid 1800's then it was designated an asteroid until 2006 now it is considered a dwarf planet just like Pluto. Scientific definitions and theories change with new information.

Pluto's planet status was always in doubt. I remember reading books from the 1970's and 1980's where it was thought that Pluto may have been a rogue moon of Neptune's. Pluto being delisted from the planetary list really isn't that surprising. It was only a matter of time before scientists figured out what the hell it actually was.

We all think of Pluto as a planet because that is what we were taught but it's a pretty good bet that this controversy will disappear within a generation.

The main reason for downgrading Pluto was so that Holst's 'The Planets' didn't look annoyingly unfinished. *nods*

That and giving the Cybermen a chance to lay low while they rebuild their invasion force. No Tenth Planet, no sweat.

Pluto doesn't care what you all say! Pluto knows it's still a planet on the inside!

Pluto isn't a planet, and never should have been. In fact, if I remember my astronomy correctly, it's just a fucking comet that got to big for its britches and started trying to hang out with Uranus.
A Planet-Poseur, if you will.

Trust us when we say that you DIDN'T remember the astronomy correctly.

1st: A comet is basicly a giant Snowball with some meteors mixed in, AKA mostly frozen liquid. Pluto has a solid Rock Core.

2. It's Neptune not Uranus.

-------

Kyronea I call that "Make up an excuse" reason on their part. I seriously believe it's because of more personal reasons.

-------
Fergustien

Considering that Ceres is located in the Astriod belt, you should more classify it as a FORMER planet. As it it rumored that's what the Astroid belt is made up of.

And you forget how stubbron Americans are in the modern world. I'm still suprised Bush didn't try to sign a "Pluto is a planet" Statement. Guess he wasn't paying attention.

------

My definition of a planet.

It's round (Duh)
It's made of a Rock core.
It has a steady orbit.
And it's not confined within a belt system, this would downgrade it to part of the belt it is located in.

Okay, look, I'm starting to get pissed over this now.

Shut up about insisting it's still a planet, okay people? Leave it to astronomers and those that define what those terms fucking MEAN to determine whether it is or not, okay? It's like you're some idiot who still insists the Sun rotates around the Earth despite the new proof that Earth revolves around the Sun. :headbang:

'Planet' is a common word in the English language. Scientists get to determine scientific classifications, and may even use common words for them, but people in general get to determine what words mean through common use of those words.

So, if the majority of the english-speaking populace wishes to use the word planet in such a way that it includes Pluto, then that is what the word 'planet' in common use will mean. However, in scientific literature the scientific meaning will be used, as determined by scientists (note scientific terminology is also subject to 'common use' among scientists, albeit in a diminished capacity as they are expected to properly define terminology if readers of an article may be confused about what is meant by the author).

A random group of scientists does not get to redefine the English language at whim. They can't make a new classification for the word 'boat', and thus exclude the Queen Elizabeth II or a dingy just because they prefer it that way, and expect the rest of the world to just blindly fall in line.

Ever wonder what the scientific value is of having a formal scientific classification called 'planet' ? Scientifically they're all objects with a certain composition, mass, speed, and direction/orbit. The rest is just linguistics.

Ballotonia

<Snip>That's the problem. When classifying stuff, scientists have to take into consideration that their science is meant to be communicated to and understood by people outside their own field.

You don't even have to look further than this forum to find people who can't get their heads around the fact that 'theory' means very different things in common English and science lingo.

Calling Pluto a planet, while excluding the 20+ other chunks of junk zipping around Sol in various ways, only serves to further confusion. Nothing more.

I don't care what anyone says, Pluto is awesome and it's still a planet to me.

Pluto is too erratic to be classified as a real planet and as such I think the decision to reclassify it was correct.

It doesn't make Pluto any less interesting though!

I'm glad Pluto isn't a planet anyone more, Colin Matthews' movement never really fitted with the rest of Holst's suite.

That's the problem. When classifying stuff, scientists have to take into consideration that their science is meant to be communicated to and understood by people outside their own field.

Wrong. Communication in science is intended to share information with other scientists. Reporting to 'the populace' is the media's job, or educators, etc... They are responsible for 'translating' scientific findings into common language. The media however have a tendency of simply not doing that at all. The classification of Pluto is one such example: they report the altered scientific classification of Pluto as if something major has changed. It hasn't. Pluto is still the same as it was before, scientists are just calling it something different. The change is merely in scientific terminology, nothing more.

IMHO, the best solution here is more information, not less. So: teach schookids the existence of the dwarf planets as well, and say something about the classification which is formally being used. And noting to those kids that Pluto used to be scientifically classified as a planet is important as well.

You don't even have to look further than this forum to find people who can't get their heads around the fact that 'theory' means very different things in common English and science lingo.

Right. There's a common English usage of the word, and a scientific one. These are not the same. The difference isn't a problem for scientists as they are fully aware of the meaning of their scientific terminology. The common populace has a problem with this however when they start discussing things they have very little knowledge about (such as what a 'scientific theory' means). Note how the meaning of the word 'theory' in common use hasn't been changed to match the scientific use. I sincerely doubt it will be.

Calling Pluto a planet, while excluding the 20+ other chunks of junk zipping around Sol in various ways, only serves to further confusion. Nothing more.

Altering the classification has caused the confusion among the general public! Most of them are blissfully unaware of all the other objects hurtling through our solar system, and don't really care about their formal scientific classification. General grouping for popular consumption would be more like "objects I can see", "objects I can see with a telescope", and "objects which could land on my head". There's a total disconnect between the scientific community and the general populace, and bickering over the formal classification of Pluto isn't helping. General response: "who cares?", followed by people putting their heels in the sand saying they were taught Pluto is a planet and so it shall remain unless someone explains why calling it a planet would qualify as a 'bad thing' (tm). Just shuffling definitions around because it gives the scientific community warm fuzzy feelings doesn't convince... ;)

Ballotonia

Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!

It has one moon...

What about Nix and Hydra?

I see no good reason for the demotion. The whole thing seemed rather stupid to me.

By the new definition of planets, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune aren't planets.

The main reason for downgrading Pluto was so that Holst's 'The Planets' didn't look annoyingly unfinished. *nods*

Although I think of Holst knew of Pluto, he would write the song either really short, or reminiscent of "Entrance of the Gladiators"

By the new definition of planets, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune aren't planets.

Yes, they are.

Everyone saying Pluto is still a planet: go back to school, kids. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing. Badly.

Pluto's orbit for an official planet was always too weird.

Pluto is and will always be a planet (or, possibly, a double planet).

Pluto is and will always be a planet (or, possibly, a double planet).

It's a double dwarf planet. Why is the addition of a single extra classification so taboo?

Yes, they are.

Everyone saying Pluto is still a planet: go back to school, kids. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing. Badly.

Nope. Planets have to clear the neighbourhood around their orbit. Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune still have lots of other objects in their orbits.

In addition, if Neptune had cleared the neighbourhood, Pluto wouldn't even BE THERE, and we wouldn't been having this discussion.

Nope. Planets have to clear the neighbourhood around their orbit. Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn still have other objects in their orbits.

You are using a lay-person's understanding of the term. "Clearing the neighbourhood" has nothing to do with the amount of objects in their orbit, rather, it's entirely to do with the object being gravitationally dominant. Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are all gravitationally dominant in their orbits.

In other words, if it's the most massive thing in the orbit by a significant margin, then it's cleared the neighbourhood. Earth, for example, is more massive than any combined debris in its orbit.

You are using a lay-person's understanding of the term. "Clearing the neighbourhood" has nothing to do with the amount of objects in their orbit, rather, it's entirely to do with the object being gravitationally dominant. Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are all gravitationally dominant in their orbits.

In other words, if it's the most massive thing in the orbit by a significant margin, then it's cleared the neighbourhood. Earth, for example, is more massive than any combined debris in its orbit.

Gravitational dominance isn't just size, it's how many other objects co-exist in the orbit. Earth isn't dominant enough to clear ten thousand near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter still has to clear one hundred thousand.

Gravitational dominance isn't just size, it's how many other objects co-exist in the orbit. Earth isn't dominant enough to clear ten thousand near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter still has to clear one hundred thousand.

No. It has nothing to do with actually clearing the orbit of debris. Earth has cleared its orbit because it masses more than anything else in the orbit, put together.

Gravitational dominance isn't just size, it's how many other objects co-exist in the orbit. Earth isn't dominant enough to clear ten thousand near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter still has to clear one hundred thousand.

Even by those figures those planets have dominance. Earth has a far greater mass than even 10000 asteriods combined, and Jupiter easily has a greater mass than 100000 asteriods - that's like comparing marbles to a house (well, maybe not exactly).

Wrong. Communication in science is intended to share information with other scientists. Reporting to 'the populace' is the media's job, or educators, etc... They are responsible for 'translating' scientific findings into common language.

IMHO, the best solution here is more information, not less. So: teach schookids the existence of the dwarf planets as well, and say something about the classification which is formally being used. And noting to those kids that Pluto used to be scientifically classified as a planet is important as well.

Altering the classification has caused the confusion among the general public!You're right, of course. But at least in the case of fleshing out this particular designation, the popular confusion won't persist. There's no superstitious toes being trot on here, so in a generation, nobody will give a damn the thingy was briefly considered a planet. Sort of like nobody today gives a shit that Astronomers once declared all six planets of the Solar system had been discovered. That, and only that, was what I meant. As far as I'm aware, you are unfortunately devastatingly right about all you said.

But how to fix those disconnects? Is it the role of the media to keep the general population up to date on the basics of the sciences? Is it even possible for the media to do so, without becomming dummed down science journals and nothing else?

This is so pointless. Pluto is a dwarf planet. Along with dozens of others like it orbiting sol. What is the difference between a huge arse asteroid, a brown dwarf, a planet, and a supergiant? Nothing, just the labels. They are simply scales of measurement. So pluto is a dwarf, and Jupiter is a giant. It means nothing.

1st: A comet is basicly a giant Snowball with some meteors mixed in, AKA mostly frozen liquid. Pluto has a solid Rock Core.
A ball of mostly ice with a few rocks in it versus a ball of mostly ice with only one rock in it?
It is still predominately made of ice, small and invisible from Earth. Why non-Astronomers even care about it is beyond me.
2. It's Neptune not Uranus.
I only said "trying to hang out with Uranus", didn't I? Obviously, I was refering to the fact that it periodically cuts across Neptunes orbit in a vain attempt to get near the cool planets, but then it is promptly rebuffed and sent scurrying back to the outside of the crowd.
Actually, I did just forget the order of the planets, but my rationalization there almost makes sense and sounds so much better.

Its been 1 year since Pluto lost its rightful status as a planet after the IAU changed the defintion of a planet. what does everybody think? Were there some reeason behind it othe than the discovery of Eris? Do you think it was the right descion to degrade Pluto?

What is Pluto?

It's a tiny, freezing ball of rock and ice with no atmosphere to speak of, that happens to be about four billion miles away from me on a good day. Nothing grows there, nothing lives there, nothing would want to live there, and I certainly don't want to live there. We are too far away from it to send people there to explore it, and even if we weren't then there are places we'd rather visit first, and any probes which take photos of it reveal that it is exactly what I just said it is - an uninteresting ball of rock and ice with nothing there.

With that question answered, I must consider another one: why should I care? Not just about what Pluto is called, but why should I care about Pluto generally?

I shouldn't really, and I don't. Those IAU geeks can call it a flying flamingo for all I care, it will have roughly the same effect on my life - that being none, by the way.

But at least in the case of fleshing out this particular designation, the popular confusion won't persist.

True, it'll be fine in the long run.

But how to fix those disconnects? Is it the role of the media to keep the general population up to date on the basics of the sciences? Is it even possible for the media to do so, without becomming dummed down science journals and nothing else?

The commercial media venues have stopped providing the important information long ago, instead focusing on maximizing profits. This generally means mixing in a solid dose of infotainment, regardless whether it's about the lives of celebrities, weird 'interesting' non-news items, or whatever else keeps the eyeballs sufficiently occupied to also take in the commercials. They have no interest in spending the time and effort to figure out exactly what the scientific advancements are and report on it. Instead they see a nice headline to fill up the 'small news' column and quickly run with it. Since they're just a business, placing any societal responsibility in their hands would IMHO be misplaced trust.

Who do you feel is responsible for education? The state? Parents? School teachers? I'm inclined to put the primary responsibility with the parents. It's their job to guide their children and prepare them for participation in society. Not blindly believing what one reads in a newspaper or one sees on television should be one of the things being taught. Know the filter is there, so one can judge the value of provided information more critically. In fact, just teach kids critical thinking and they'll probably run with it. I'm convinced of that.

Ballotonia

Don't care, I'll still gaze at Pluto.

and she'll aways be part of the team to me.

http://www.gemele.com/sailormoon/pluto/plutooutline.gif

Since they're just a business, placing any societal responsibility in their hands would IMHO be misplaced trust.

Who do you feel is responsible for education? The state? Parents? School teachers?The idea behind a "4th Estate" was to create, encourage and maintain the dissemination of critical information to the general populace, to ensure the populace had the ability to participate in a democracy. Beyond that, I'm pretty much oblivious to most of the media history of the US, but at least in Western Europe, this mostly worked as intended until fairly recently. That is, until major private transnationals got in on it - something that happened in my lifetime, so I can actually remember what it was like before :p

But that's not what you asked. Sadly, I don't have an answer. All I can say is that it appears to me people in general don't want to know anything about anything. If you don't mind me going on a tangent; it's my great fear for the future. I can easily see the 4th Estate replaced by content-free blog'esque junk, submitted and circulated by assholes with no interest beyond a claim to fame. I'm inclined to put the primary responsibility with the parents. It's their job to guide their children and prepare them for participation in society.But the primary informer and educator in the liberal demockeries of the world for the last 30 years or so, has been television. Before that it was newspapers. If parents have no readily available source of information, then how can they guide their children? It's not like parents have time to take a few classes on the side and read 10-odd textbooks a year. Not that people in general seem inclined to do that sort of thing. In fact, just teach kids critical thinking and they'll probably run with it. I'm convinced of that.Critical thinking. Hmm... Most people are required by law to learn that at an early age. Yet they usually end up with all sorts of superstitions, a massive baggage of misinformation, virtually no comprehension of the world they live in, and thus no way to apply that critical thinking to tell fact from fiction. I'm actually a pretty good example, and that's despite my active, life-long efforts to keep myself informed.

- It's not that I have any better solutions, but I'm afraid this last one of yours quite obviously isn't cutting it.