View Full Version : Pluto Loses Its Status As Planet
Tyrinon
08-24-06, 10:44 PM
Read about it here: http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=969&id=13042000&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
Thats bs... People have known for quite awhile that Pluto's orbit intersects Neptunes orbit and comes closer to the Sun. Some retarded "new" rule.
Why couldn't they have done this sooner?
sir_LOIN
08-25-06, 07:12 AM
They had, it wasn't a planet at first, but some lobby from american astrononmers back in the day made it a planet....
I agree with the guy from NASA who said it was a sloppy definition and bad science. They have tailored a set of rules by which all planets/non-planets are defined to fit this one specific example. What happens if ten years from now someone discovers a star with two planets orbiting it where #1 is the size of the earth, orbits in a circle and is usually the closest to the star, #2 is the size of jupiter, orbits in an elipse which crosses the rotation of the earth sized planet and is farther away 90% of the time but closer 10% of the time???? Do they make the jupiter sized one a "dwarf-planet"??? Bad science.
I agree with the guy from NASA who said it was a sloppy definition and bad science. They have tailored a set of rules by which all planets/non-planets are defined to fit this one specific example. What happens if ten years from now someone discovers a star with two planets orbiting it where #1 is the size of the earth, orbits in a circle and is usually the closest to the star, #2 is the size of jupiter, orbits in an elipse which crosses the rotation of the earth sized planet and is farther away 90% of the time but closer 10% of the time???? Do they make the jupiter sized one a "dwarf-planet"??? Bad science.
You are missing one critical point there...a "planet," according to the definition, needs to be able to clear out its orbit path. If #2 was the size of jupiter, you can be damn sure it would clear out it's orbit path. It would eventually collide with and pwn the earth size planet if their orbits crossed paths.
You are missing one critical point there...a "planet," according to the definition, needs to be able to clear out its orbit path. If #2 was the size of jupiter, you can be damn sure it would clear out it's orbit path. It would eventually collide with and pwn the earth size planet if their orbits crossed paths.
I didn't miss the point, I just discounted it. Because that is true if, and only if, their orbits were not syncronized. Now I'll admit that the odds of two planets with vastly differing orbits crossing each other's flight path only when the other planet is on the far side of the star they orbit is small, but it is possible. And with bajillion of stars and planets out there it's gotta be happening in some place at least once. Good science should take unlikelinesses like that into account. The burden of detail upon the international body that regulates stellar classification should be greater than something that little ol' me can break with a thought just off the top of my head.
I didn't miss the point, I just discounted it. Because that is true if, and only if, their orbits were not syncronized. Now I'll admit that the odds of two planets with vastly differing orbits crossing each other's flight path only when the other planet is on the far side of the star they orbit is small, but it is possible. And with bajillion of stars and planets out there it's gotta be happening in some place at least once. Good science should take unlikelinesses like that into account. The burden of detail upon the international body that regulates stellar classification should be greater than something that little ol' me can break with a thought just off the top of my head.
It is "possible" that you could have sycronized planets with intersecting orbits. Realize, however, that science is not based on possibilities, but rather on observation. The burden is on you to find this exceptional case in order to break the rule, not for you to think it up in your head.
Also keep in mind that classification systems are far from perfect, there will always be grey areas. The scientists are just trying to clear up some of that hazy area. In the end, Pluto is still there and hasn't changed at all because it's not officially a planet. It's just too bad that kids can't say "My very educated mother just served us nine pizzas" anymore.
benbaked
08-25-06, 08:30 PM
The ancient PC game Starflight predicted this.
At the Pythagoras Constellation the player can visit the Sol system, containing only eight planets. :eek:
Likely a limitation of the game engine, or to save space but still...the game is correct.
This is good. Pluto is a Kuiper Belt object which I don't believe should be classified as planets. The wife of Percival Lowell doesn't think so though (lol).
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4140152.html
It is "possible" that you could have sycronized planets with intersecting orbits. Realize, however, that science is not based on possibilities, but rather on observation. The burden is on you to find this exceptional case in order to break the rule, not for you to think it up in your head.
Also keep in mind that classification systems are far from perfect, there will always be grey areas. The scientists are just trying to clear up some of that hazy area. In the end, Pluto is still there and hasn't changed at all because it's not officially a planet. It's just too bad that kids can't say "My very educated mother just served us nine pizzas" anymore.
Personally I'm not going to lose any sleep over the de (or re) classification, but if I can come up with one reason they dropped the ball, I wonder how many other, more properly fleshed out and well-footed ideas the opposing stellar scientists have waiting to shoot this down. Will we be seeing either an about-face in six months? Or maybe a redesign of the parameters used to make the distinction even if the outcome is still the same?
Personally I'm not going to lose any sleep over the de (or re) classification, but if I can come up with one reason they dropped the ball, I wonder how many other, more properly fleshed out and well-footed ideas the opposing stellar scientists have waiting to shoot this down. Will we be seeing either an about-face in six months? Or maybe a redesign of the parameters used to make the distinction even if the outcome is still the same?
yeah I would imagine that there are some arguments against it...I'm not really up with the latest in astronomy though. The fact that only a small number of astronomers showed up for the vote shows a lack of interest for most of them anyway.
Wikipedia has a great article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_redefinition_of_planet) covering the many meetings of the ITU over their attempt to define "planet."
There continues to be much criticism regarding the final draft of the definition. For instance, the lead scientist on NASA's robotic mission to Pluto, Dr Alan Stern, contends that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones either. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path. "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.[31]
I prefer the "dominant body" rather than "cleared the neighborhood" wording appearing in an earlier draft better, but even that has a number of issues.
JigPu
OniKoroshi
09-08-06, 06:04 PM
SAVE PLUTO!!!!! :D hehe. Guess some people really take it seriously.
http://www.pleasesavepluto.org/
http://www.plutoisaplanet.com/
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/
QuietIce
09-08-06, 11:17 PM
The wife of Percival Lowell doesn't think so though (lol).
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4140152.html Hmmm, I wonder why ... ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.