Pluto: A Planet Or Not?

[Weather-history]

The great debate is about to get underaway in Prague. Do you think Pluto should remain as a planet?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4789531.stm

[crimsone]

Personally, no. Astrology is a science, and science is forever correcting itself after realising that they were wrong about something. The fact is, they were wrong (grossly wrong - based on a simple miscalculation of the objects size) aboubt the body they call Pluto. This would have thrown a question mark over it's planetary status at the time if they had realised. These days of course we've found more pluto(ish) sized objects than you can possibly hope to memorise, and realised that they are in fact parts of an asteroid belt, and so the evidence really is against it.

Of course, then you have the fact that Pluto is the ONLY "planet" ever to be discovered by an American. I wonder how that might influence the decision, because I can't really see most US scientists being happy to admit their mistake and loose their "find".

[Weather-history]

Personally, no. Astrology is a science, and science is forever correcting itself after realising that they were wrong about something.

I think you mean astronomy, Crimsone! :blush:

[crimsone]

I stand corrected :lol: :blush:

Sorry - it was a classic freudian slip, having just read my stars online. I guess I was still thinking about them. lol

Edited August 14, 2006 by crimsone

[stella]

I think you mean "lose", Crimsone.

:blush:

[flagpole]

I think you mean "lose", Crimsone.

:blush:

Hi Stella, pedantry aside can you put your location in your profile? It helps if you ever post a weather report :lol:

[crimsone]

:lol:

I don't know Stella. If you're shaking your head at my tiny 'ickle typo, I'd hate to know what you'd think of some of the other products of my aging keyboard and tired 'ickle typing hands.

I doesn't matter though, because typing too quickly is probably the least of my problems. Talking to quietly is more important to me ...

... Well, that and a few things best kept to myself! (like chocolate ice-cream, for example).

As long as I can spell "Freudian", I'm OK. :blush:

Edited August 14, 2006 by crimsone

[Snowly does it]

Absolutely not, it is not a planet and never was. Big lump of ice in off-kilter orbit of the sun? Sounds very much like a Kuiper belt object to me!

[PersianPaladin]

Mmm....50\50 split thus far.

I reckon it should remain a planet for sentimental and cultural purposes only.

[crimsone]

Surely, PP, Science shouldn't cater to such whims? What would science be worth to anybody if it still said that the earth was flat for those same reasons?

[Zerouali lives]

Even if it does get downgraded everyone will still classify Pluto as a planet.

[flagpole]

Even if it does get downgraded everyone will still classify Pluto as a planet.

I won't.

[crimsone]

lol. I wouldn't. I don't consider it a planet even now, and it never will be one as far as I am concerned.

Besides, is public perception or peoples opinions really of any concern or relevance to scientific fact? How can we say on one hand that the scientific evidence shows more and more insistantly that Pluto is not a planet, and still give it a scientific status as a planet?

The sun is in orbit around the earth, don't you know, and has been since the dawn of time (ie, whenever God got around to creating time). Gallileo was completely insane and blasphemous with it. We would be greatly lacking in our understanding if Gallileo had managed to convice the world that the cultural and religious views of society should be dismissed I'm sure!

flippancy and humour aside though, the example of Galilleo's statement of the fact that the earth orbits the sun is a perfect one. Where would we be now if Science hadn't eventually ignored the cultural values of medieaval Europe and accepted this fact? The difference of course is that those were very unenlightened times. In the modern day, most areas should (and do) really know better. A fact is a fact, whether the general public like it or not. Pluto is NOT a planet, and never will be. We send children for their education to learn the about reality and factual truth, not old wives tales and misnomers.

Edited August 15, 2006 by crimsone

[devon lad]

I think you mean "lose", Crimsone.

Come on guys - I think Crimsone has made some valid points and all you are doing is picking on his spelling etc.

Perhaps he is dyslexic (like me and Richard Branson!).

Give us a chance.

DL

[crimsone]

Erm, thats "her" please! lol

(sorry! I couldn't resist! I really have little idea about why I have this problem on this board though. It's not a common thing for me elsewhere. Thanks though DL )

Edited August 15, 2006 by crimsone

[Scribbler]

When a so-called planet is named after a Disney dog then it deserves to be downgraded!

[Roger J Smith]

I think what has the astronomers concerned is that there are very likely several or perhaps dozens of objects larger than Pluto out beyond its orbit, in the outer solar system -- they have already identified one for certain. Ten planets might be okay, but when they are forced to admit twenty or thirty to the club, then the prestige of the title of planet will be diminished.

Pluto is basically an escaped satellite and/or a far-out asteroid that happens to have a smaller object (Charon) under its sway as its own moon.

It is hardly bigger than Ceres, the largest of the regular asteroids, and considerably smaller than several of the larger satellites, including Neptune's Triton and even our own Moon. However, on that basis, Mercury is in a spot of trouble, being slightly smaller than Titan or Ganymede.

I think they will probably vote to dump Pluto and redefine "planet" so that all the far out newcomers will be forced to accept asteroid status.

But I won't vote on it here, because frankly, I don't care one way or the other. The solar system is basically a collection of many different types of objects. Jupiter is as different from the earth as the earth is from Pluto. Having classifications is useful, but boundaries are bound to be fuzzy at times.

[Weather-history]

Here's an idea than has been proposed

Mercury to Neptune will be known as classical planets

Whilst Pluto, Charon, UB313 and Ceres will be known as Plutons

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4795755.stm

Edited August 16, 2006 by Mr_Data

[Wynn D Woo]

If science wants to present itself as the quest to uravel and reveal the truth then pluton needs to be downgraded, it cannot start bending rules here or there to suit otherwise it becomes a faith (more so than i already believe it is).

[Darren Bown]

Check out Space Weather if the new definition is passed, on the 24th August, then there will be 12 planets in the solar system, including Ceres, Pluto, Charon and another called 2003 UB313.

Daz

[Snowly does it]

Good lord! Ceres is an asteroid! I mean its just bigger than the others, by that reckoning we'll have thousands of planets or plutons or whatever!

[crimsone]

I'm good with that. Apparently, Pluto is no longer a planet, it's a "pluton".

I feel that the crirical point that they have missed in their new definition is that a planet should not be part of a belt of such objects. While this would have firmly downgraded pluto and the other prospects, it would mean that we would have avoided a situation that I am more than happy with, and is just over the horizon.

What will happen now is that over the course of time, hundreds, if not thousands of these "plutons" will be discovered and named. As a result, the status of the "pluton" definition will become lower and lower until they are not listed as planets in the solar system as such - at all. Maybe they will all be considered "minor planets", where only the "major planets" (which will no longer be inclusive of pluto) are actually considered as proper planets. Either way, the reluctance to remove Pluto's planetary status will come back to bit the backsides of the scientists in a relatively short time. Pluto's fate is sealed.

One last thing though...

Surely that statement of Pluto and Charon being "twin" planets should actually be that they are "binary planets"? (ref: Binary stars)

Edited August 16, 2006 by crimsone

[A Gower Guy]

BBC Q&A on the subject

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4798205.stm

[crimsone]

I'm really starting to like this definition!

The moon currently drifts away from the earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. In a few billion years, this distance will reach such a point that the earths moon will be in orbit around a ceter that is actually outside of the earth. The gravitational effects of this will mean that the earth will also be orbiting that same center, and so will be orbiting around a point in space that the moon also orbits.

At this point, according to the definition, the moon will become "Planet Luna". What's really great about this, Red Giants pending, is spacewalking (stay with me! lol).

If the earth is orbiting around a point outside of itself, then it stands to reason that a cosmonaught orbiting the earth could end up in that same center. Gravitational stresses aside for a moment, this would effectively mean that two entire planets revolve around him, qhich could easily give rise to a Guiness World Record for the "longest periot of time a planet has ever revolved around a single person".

Better still, no less than TWO planets would be revolving around a single person! This leads me to one question - If such a man in such a point in orbit of the earth were to curl up into a ball, could such a man effectively become a planet orbiting the sun, making Earth and Luna two moons revolving around one "heavenly object", otherwise known as a god?