PDA

View Full Version : Pluto's Planethood Will Be Decided Shortly



Fraser
2006-Jun-22, 05:01 AM
Pluto has been considered a planet since its discovery, but this position has come under threat with the discovery of 2003 UB313 (aka Xena), an object larger than Pluto orbiting out further in the Solar System. The International Astronomical Union will be meeting in August to decide on the fate of Pluto. By September, we could have 8 or 10 planets in the Solar System, but there won't be 9 any more.

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06/22/plutos-planethood-will-be-decided-shortly/)

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-22, 07:16 AM
One possible resolution to the debate is for new categories of planet to be introduced. Mercury, Venus, the Earth and Mars would be “rocky planets”. The gas-giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would be a second category.

I've never understood the purpose of this definition; isn't it what we do already?

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-22, 07:55 AM
The International Astronomical Union will be meeting in August to decide on the fate of Pluto. By September, we could have 8 or 10 planets in the Solar System, but there won't be 9 any more.


Pluto is just a big Kuiper belt object, and thats it.
Object with such a low mass, odd orbit, with such big moon
can be only a Kuiper belt object and nothing else.

The history is repeating itself - some of the asteroids originaly
were declared as a planets, but now they are in the group
they belong to - asteroids.

bsalessi
2006-Jun-22, 11:29 AM
Pluto is just a big Kuiper belt object,

That's what I think too. And not only Pluto+Charon but also 2003UB313 (Xena) and the smaller planetoids Brown et al have discovered.
Of course their smallness (when compared to earth and the other planets) don't imply that they aren't worth of interest! To cite one example, 2003EL61 is possibly among the most interesting and bizarre objects in the solar system.


Object with such a low mass, odd orbit, with such big moon
can be only a Kuiper belt object and nothing else.

I do not aggree with this idea. A very low mass certainly dismisses one object as a bona-fied planet but certainly not an odd orbit (excentric? inclined?) or the presence of a big moon.

We have lots of planets with odd orbits among those astronomers have discovered around nearby stars (e.g. Gliese 876b, c, d).

Also, I can imagine the existence of binary planets or planets with very, very big moons. Why not? we have binary asteroids (even ternary or multiple, e.g. Sylvia), binary KBOs, binary stars, binary brown dwarfs, binary galaxies, binary black holes, pulsars and may be even quasars....


The history is repeating itself - some of the asteroids originaly
were declared as a planets, but now they are in the group
they belong to - asteroids.

Well said, but I'd like to add that although they're more like asteroids or planetoids, objects like Pluto, Xena or even Ceres are very diferent to those like Toutatis, Eros or Icarus.

MrClean
2006-Jun-22, 11:40 AM
Pluto will ALWAYS be a planet to us great, unwashed masses regardless of what you say. If you change it they will always name the nine planets then there will be rumblings about how Pluto changed and discussions on why those crazy astornomers changed things, NOT about the fact that Pluto isn't a planet anymore. My wife can't tell you anything about Ceres or any Keiper bult objects, but Pluto and the rest of the Nine she knows.

You can't go back in time, you can only realize your mistakes, go forth and sin no more. Some famous guy said that, I can't quite put my tongue on his name though.

strangledgoose
2006-Jun-22, 12:10 PM
What a delightfull Christmas gift a new planet would be.

jseefcoot
2006-Jun-22, 12:48 PM
I don't think that Pluto, its satellites, or any other such objects should be classified as planets. However, until New Horizons reaches Pluto, we won't know with much certainty exactly how they should be classified, either. I'm willing to bet that we will end up needing a third class of celestial body, if not more. We have small rocky ones, some big gaseous ones, a collection of rocky rubble separating the two, and waaaay out beyond any of these we have the smaller, icy bodies. No way can two or three terms completely classify and describe these thousands (millions?) of objects.

However, think back to taxonomy, the system by which we name animals. It is adaptable and has evolved a little since its inception. A similar method of classification might do more than provide the astronomical world with an enduring system by which we identify things; it could very well help to stifle, in time, some of the head-butting we see on an indivdual and personal level.

While I agree that we do need a definition, something that we can use to draw a line in the sand (so to speak), I think that the timing is perhaps a little premature. We have a mission and it is on the way to the area of our solar system that is responsible for resurrecting this debate once again. That one mission will provide us with more scientific knowledge than all of our efforts to date combined. Sure, it's nearly a decade from arrival, but we've been waiting for several decades already to settle this issue. Why make a decision now, when we don't have all of the facts? I for one am willing to wait a while and hope to be able to settle it once and for all, rather than doing something now and then having to redo it in another decade.

I don't think I have enough education and knowledge to even make a guess as to how objects should actually be classified. I do think that defining the word planet too loosely will create much more confusion than it will ever prevent -- such as the proposed definition that allows anything with sufficient mass to become round under its own gravity. This could result in more planets than there are people on the Earth, if some of the more optimistic estimations of the population of the Kuiper Belt are right. I just think we should know more before we decide.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-22, 03:47 PM
I do not aggree with this idea. A very low mass certainly dismisses one object as a bona-fied planet but certainly not an odd orbit (excentric? inclined?) or the presence of a big moon.



Salessi, its not only about odd orbit...
Its about tilting, size, orbit, mass, similarity with other Kuiper belt objects...




We have lots of planets with odd orbits among those astronomers have discovered around nearby stars (e.g. Gliese 876b, c, d).

Also, I can imagine the existence of binary planets or planets with very, very big moons. Why not? we have binary asteroids (even ternary or multiple, e.g. Sylvia), binary KBOs, binary stars, binary brown dwarfs, binary galaxies, binary black holes, pulsars and may be even quasars....


Very interesting idea, you mention extrasolar planets... its really time
to create definion of a "planet".

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-22, 04:02 PM
Pluto will ALWAYS be a planet to us great, unwashed masses regardless of what you say.

Ok, you are "great, unwashed", and we are "small minded", "brainwashed"...

Being "small minded, brainwashed" I want to give you short IQ test:

There are 9 animals:

1-st, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
2-nd, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
3-th, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
4-th, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
5-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
6-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
7-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
8-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
9-th animal is legless, coldbladed, eats small birds, insects, eggs, produces venom.


Question:
Which animal doesn't belong to the members of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae, ie - which animal is not cattle?

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-22, 04:06 PM
I don't think that Pluto, its satellites, or any other such objects should be classified as planets.


:)

I can't wait to see Pluto demoted to Kuiper Belt object - lets name it "Kuperoid", and other such objects - Kuperoids.

Hadron
2006-Jun-22, 04:28 PM
Hello everybody, new here... Perhaps another criteria could be the object's proximity to other objects in or near the orbit. This would eliminate everything in the asteroid belt, and most of everything in the Kuiper belt, unless the object in question is "round". hopefully my 1st post doesn't flag me as an idiot. :D

antoniseb
2006-Jun-22, 04:46 PM
hopefully my 1st post doesn't flag me as an idiot.

Welcome Hadron. Your first post was just fine. We do have some threads that have been floating around about what criteria might get used for planets. You coud read those. In the end though we should just wait a couple months till the IAU makes their call on the definition.

aurora
2006-Jun-22, 05:15 PM
Pluto will ALWAYS be a planet to us great, unwashed masses regardless of what you say. If you change it they will always name the nine planets then there will be rumblings about how Pluto changed and discussions on why those crazy astornomers changed things, NOT about the fact that Pluto isn't a planet anymore. My wife can't tell you anything about Ceres or any Keiper bult objects, but Pluto and the rest of the Nine she knows.

You can't go back in time, you can only realize your mistakes, go forth and sin no more. Some famous guy said that, I can't quite put my tongue on his name though.

As others have pointed out, at one time Ceres was considered a planet. But that changed.

People are capable of learning new information. Lots of things have been learned in our lifetimes. Classification schemes have been altered to keep pace.

MrClean
2006-Jun-22, 06:00 PM
Ok, you are "great, unwashed", and we are "small minded", "brainwashed"...

Being "small minded, brainwashed" I want to give you short IQ test:

There are 9 animals:

1-st, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
2-nd, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
3-th, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
4-th, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
5-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
6-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
7-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
8-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
9-th animal is legless, coldbladed, eats small birds, insects, eggs, produces venom.


Question:
Which animal doesn't belong to the members of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae, ie - which animal is not cattle?

Funny, I know the answer to this one but all I can think is Jackass.

Hmmmm, must be a message there, ya think?

MrClean
2006-Jun-22, 06:06 PM
As others have pointed out, at one time Ceres was considered a planet. But that changed.

People are capable of learning new information. Lots of things have been learned in our lifetimes. Classification schemes have been altered to keep pace.

Ceres was found and declared a planet in 1801 and reclassified an asteroied in 1802. I wonder what the percentage of the population knew or even cared about the whole event at the time. Show me a gradeschool textbook for the average Kansas kid in 1801 that Tells about the planet Ceres. Now show me a text from after Pluto's discovery that doesn't list it as a planet.

Sure, NOW we say it isn't a planet and truthfully we've said it probably isn't one for quite some time, but to the general populace it is one and should be grandfathered in.

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-22, 06:09 PM
Actually, Ceres wasn't reclassified until at least 1860. The term "asteroid" was proposed by William Herschel fairly early on but the asteroids were still considered planets well into the 19th century.

The difference between then and now is that the previous controversy was of little interest to anyone outside the Royal Society, while this one is entrenched in wider culture. I suppose you could blame the mass media.

hhEb09'1
2006-Jun-22, 06:09 PM
Which animal doesn't belong to the members of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae, ie - which animal is not cattle?There are plenty of animals that belong to Bovinae, but are not cattle.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jun-22, 06:15 PM
If you change it they will always name the nine planets then there will be rumblings about how Pluto changed and discussions on why those crazy astronomers changed things, NOT about the fact that Pluto isn't a planet anymore.
So?
Consider it as an opportunity to get the public actually talking about astronomy.

"There is no such thing as bad publicity." ;)

Nerthus
2006-Jun-22, 11:23 PM
Ok, you are "great, unwashed", and we are "small minded", "brainwashed"...

Being "small minded, brainwashed" I want to give you short IQ test:

There are 9 animals:

1-st, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
2-nd, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
3-th, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
4-th, small, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
5-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
6-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
7-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
8-th, big, animal walks on 4 legs, eats grass, has one stomach with 4 comparments, and produces milk.
9-th animal is legless, coldbladed, eats small birds, insects, eggs, produces venom.


Question:
Which animal doesn't belong to the members of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae, ie - which animal is not cattle?


So, are you saying that the gas giants and the terrestrial planets have more in common with each other to the diffence of only size, than they do with pluto and the kupier belt objects? From what I've observed the only things the gas giants and the terrestrial planets have in common is enough mass to give them a spherical shape and that they orbit the sun directly on the ecliptic, yet they have totally different compostitons and formation processes. The only big difference the KBOs have with the terrestrial planets are their orbits. Their compositions are different as well, but not to the far extent as the difference between gas giants and terrestrials.

The word planet is extremely unscientific, and is equivalent to the way Aristotle use to classify animals. Flying insects, birds, and bats were all in the same category although they only have one or two similarities with one another, that are big and quite apparent, yet they have much more differences than similarities and still don't have close relation. Today we know that bats are mammals, birds are reptiles, and flying insects are insects, and that they are all animals. We should use this same scientific sense for our celestial bodies. A way to fix this would be something like calling everything orbiting a star directly a planet, from the smallest bit of dust to another star, then further classify things such as terrestrial planets, asteriods, gas giants, KBOs, scattered disc objects, oort cloud objects and comets, and etc..

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-22, 11:46 PM
Personally, I'm of the opinion that gas giants should be reclassified as "minor stars", and their moons as planets. A planet or minor planet would thus be an object composed primarily of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. The difference, rather than sphericity, which is too vague, would be internal diffrentiation.

caedmon
2006-Jun-23, 12:46 AM
As a layman and a traditionalist, I think that Pluto should keep its status as a 'planet', because people like me understand that. Scientists need to remember that we simple folk need simple words to remember these things.

In scientific circles, use the phrase 'sun-orbiting object' or 'planet-orbiting object', which seem to me to a more specific reference to the subject at hand. Then add in words for things like irregular or regularized shape, eccentric or regular orbit, etc.

*shrug*

If Xenia really is as big as observations claim, I would have no problem calling it the tenth planet.

aurora
2006-Jun-23, 02:43 AM
Ceres was found and declared a planet in 1801 and reclassified an asteroied in 1802.


Cite?


Show me a gradeschool textbook for the average Kansas kid in 1801 that Tells about the planet Ceres.

Kansas became a state in 1861.

Hull
2006-Jun-23, 03:40 AM
If Pluto was concidered an asteroied and not a planet a year ago, do you think we would have sent New Horizons to it?

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-23, 06:24 AM
We're planning to send a probe to Ceres in 2011, so yeah.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 07:11 AM
So, are you saying that the gas giants and the terrestrial planets have more in common with each other to the diffence of only size, than they do with pluto and the kupier belt objects?


Dear Nerthus, no, I'm not saying that terrestrial and gas planets have that much in common...

you are right, I oversimplyfied the IQ test, but it was just an example, nothing else.




From what I've observed the only things the gas giants and the terrestrial planets have in common is enough mass to give them a spherical shape and that they orbit the sun directly on the ecliptic, yet they have totally different compostitons and formation processes.


Don't you think its not only mass to give them a spherical shape, but also orbit and tilting?




The only big difference the KBOs have with the terrestrial planets are their orbits. Their compositions are different as well, but not to the far extent as the difference between gas giants and terrestrials.


Orbits - yes, but about composition - don't know, lets wait and see. Maybe they are a big dirty snowballs.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 07:15 AM
So?
Consider it as an opportunity to get the public actually talking about astronomy.



Exactly!

I was only reading this forum, but when I saw, finally, that Pluto's status will be reviewed, I decided to talk about it, and I don't care if somebody thinks I'm a jackass if I consider Pluto just a Kuiper belt object, and not an planet.

For me, personally, it is an insult on human mind and logic to call Pluto "planet".

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 07:27 AM
Ceres was found and declared a planet in 1801 and reclassified an asteroied in 1802.

Wrong... as parallaxicality noted, Ceres's status was reclassified much later...

For details, read:
When Did the Asteroids Become Minor Planets?
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/AsteroidHistory/minorplanets.html

hhEb09'1
2006-Jun-23, 07:29 AM
For me, personally, it is an insult on human mind and logic to call Pluto "planet".Pluto's a planet! :razz:

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 07:41 AM
If Xenia really is as big as observations claim, I would have no problem calling it the tenth planet.

I would have no problem calling Xenia the tenth planet,
ONLY if other round KBO objects will be given the status of planet,
AND if a handfull of round asteroids will also join the family of planets.

:)

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 07:44 AM
Pluto's a planet! :razz:

:boohoo:

hhEb09'1
2006-Jun-23, 07:51 AM
Sorry, hc, I couldn't resist. But I see you're actually pretty flexible. Welcome to the BAUT!

wayne mansfield
2006-Jun-23, 10:02 AM
G'day people,I'm new to the group.This is also my first post so here goes.I think we are looking at part of the solution to our problem.It is Planet Pluto itself.We have been graced with nine planets for as long as I can remember and a good amount of people alive today can remember.Why not use Pluto as a benchmark for determining other planet's status? Pluto has the mass necessary for a round shape and it orbits a star. Use Pluto's diameter as a minimum specification and it's star orbiting as a criteria to seperate it from larger objects that orbit planets. Let's say we call those objects Moons.Where have we heard that idea before?This way nothing has really changed,no need to rewrite all those science books(or add footnotes) and now we have a definite starting point for future discoveries.Thank you for letting me rant.

Martin Dawson
2006-Jun-23, 11:15 AM
Pluto is a planet, end of story,
But I have a question,
Is any one making money out of all this fuss???
Watched a BBC-TV documentry in the Horizon series on UK TV last night (22:06:2006) seems to me a lot of people have a lot to say, don't contribute much but do appear to have a vested interest...
lets make it a ten-planet Solar-System, 'Author See Clark' predicted that the early 21st century would have us living in a ten-planet Solar System, little else has come true....

Martin Dawson
Midland Spaceflight Society, England

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 11:29 AM
Now show me a text from after Pluto's discovery that doesn't list it as a planet.


There are many texts, I can't list all of them even if I want to, I can just post a links to it...
here is one of the links, to the article:
January 22, 2001
Planetarium Takes Pluto Off Planet A-List
http://www.christinelavin.com/nytimespluto012201.html

...the museum appears to have unilaterally demoted Pluto, reassigning it as one of more than 300 icy bodies orbiting beyond Neptune, in a region called the Kuiper Belt (pronounced KY-per)...
...some astronomers defending Pluto admit that were it discovered today, it might not be awarded planethood, because it is so small ó only about 1,400 miles wide ó and so different from the other planets...
...As a planet, Pluto has always been an oddball. Its composition is like a comet's. Its elliptical orbit is tilted 17 degrees from the orbits of the other planets. Pluto was discovered on Feb. 18, 1930, by Clyde W. Tombaugh, and astronomers initially estimated it to be as large as Earth. They have since learned it is much smaller, smaller than Earth's Moon...
...The exhibits refer to the inner four "terrestrial planets" ó Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars ó and the four gas giant planets ó Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, a small ball of rock and ice, does not fall into either group. "Pluto does not have a family except for the icy bodies in the outer solar system," Dr. Tyson said. "So we simply group it with the Kuiper Belt...
...Just as Ceres, which turned out to be about 580 miles wide, was reassigned from planet to asteroid, Pluto should join the Kuiper Belt objects, Dr. Tyson said. "It's entirely analogous to the asteroid belt,"...
...The new view of Pluto would recast it "from puniest planet to king of the Kuiper Belt," Dr. Tyson said. "And I think it's happier that way. I'm convinced our approach will prevail. It makes too much scientific sense and too much pedagogical sense."...

:clap: :whistle: :dance:




Sure, NOW we say it isn't a planet and truthfully we've said it probably isn't one for quite some time, but to the general populace it is one and should be grandfathered in.

Okay, now we agree that Pluto isn't a planet...

Jakenorrish
2006-Jun-23, 11:41 AM
It all depends on how our good friends at the IAU choose to define 'planet'. Until we find that out then there really isn't a debate. The fact is that Pluto will be a planet until August. I think the Cedna debate is a bit lame as all the objects in the solar system have very unusual features and properties that distinguish them from everything else.

Also, if we demote it from 'planet' status now (I think we ultimately will, but that's just my opinion), we may be jumping the gun. We could defer the decision until New Horizons gets there and we get a look at it up close and personal. I think we'll know for certain then as we'll know what the darn thing looks like!

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 12:01 PM
Sorry, hc, I couldn't resist. But I see you're actually pretty flexible. Welcome to the BAUT!

Thank you friend, but, I'm not pretty flexible... and I form my own opinions,
based on scientific data and logic. Yeah, thats the way I'm...

I can't acctually blame Pluto for being intruder, self-styled planet,
it is not Pluto but some people who have some, I would say, hidden agenda.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 12:18 PM
Sorry, hc, I couldn't resist.


:confused:

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 12:29 PM
Pluto is a planet, end of story,


Pluto is just one of more than 300 icy bodies orbiting beyond Neptune,
in a region called the Kuiper Belt, end of story.

:razz:




But I have a question,
Is any one making money out of all this fuss???
Watched a BBC-TV documentry in the Horizon series on UK TV last night
(22:06:2006) seems to me a lot of people have a lot to say, don't contribute
much but do appear to have a vested interest...


Excellent observation, yes, some people have hidden agenda...
The nature of the agenda has nothing to do with astronomy.
They do understand that Pluto is NOT a planet, and yet,
are doing everything to keep its status as a planet.
But I would rather not talk about it here, that is conspiracy topic,
really has nothing to do with astronomy, logic and scientific sense.
Then, more people are just repeating "Pluto is a planet"
without really understanding why are they saying it...

MrClean
2006-Jun-23, 12:36 PM
Nice fluffy piece. My daughters high school text however, which was printed in 2002 suprising knowing the date of other texts in that school, still listed it as a planet. I guess they screwed up not using websites as the text. Well, it's a wonderful world full of different folks with different ideas.

Guess we'll wait till August and see whether one side starts a whole new attempt to reclassify it, again. Or the rest of us are just dis-appointed that one of our friends is gone and hope somebody doesn't decide that Mercury doesn't fit their bill next. In the end, for me, it'll still be Planent Pluto.

People have died with greater sins, I can live with this one.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jun-23, 12:48 PM
Whichever way you argue it, Pluto IS a planet until the IAU decides otherwise. Whether it deserves that status we can debate, but the fact is that Pluto is indeed still a planet.

I used to be all for it remaining our 9th planet, but that was due to sentimentality and not scientific fact. The fact is that it behaves very differently to any other of the planets. Its orbit is very erratic. I for one think that the old science fiction term 'Planetoid' would be a very nice compromise.

MrClean
2006-Jun-23, 01:03 PM
We'll find out soon enough.

ASTRA_President
2006-Jun-23, 01:42 PM
This argument has always seemed to me to be one that is more emotional than scientific, with the view apparently that being a Planet is somehow better than being a moon or asteroid. I'm sure Pluto will still exist, no matter what we call it.

Any scientific studies based on a group or family of objects will generally have their own, much more detailed, selection criteria that will determine whether an object gets included or not. So no matter the outcome, it wont have any impact on any studies performed on it.

I'm much more annoyed that they called one of its moons Hydra, when we already have a constellation called Hydra. If this is an example of the IAU's wisdom, I dread to think how they'll deal with this matter - maybe they'll decide all planets should be referred to as Constellations from now on?....

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 01:46 PM
January 22, 2001
Planetarium Takes Pluto Off Planet A-List
http://www.christinelavin.com/nytimespluto012201.html



One more planetarium removed Pluto from the list of planets, in year 2000:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6968617/
"It's a misbehaved planet if you want to think about it as a planet,"
said Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York's Hayden Planetarium
at the American Museum of Natural History.
Tyson provocatively removed Pluto from his exhibit of planets five years ago,
lumping it instead with a belt of comets at the edge of the solar system.
"I still have folders of hate mail from third-graders," he said.

:)

Wolf-S
2006-Jun-23, 02:24 PM
But are there any predictions on what IAU will choose? For some reason I think they will go with 10 because it's a round number, but I have no idea really.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 02:37 PM
Use Pluto's diameter as a minimum specification and it's star orbiting as a criteria to seperate it from larger objects that orbit planets.

mansfield, what about round objects smaller diameter?
What do we do with Ceres, it is round object and yet it orbits central star (Sun)?

I think planet is:




round body (naturally round body, which means its big enough for gravity to shape in in round form).
orbits close to the central star (in our case - Sun) equatorial plane, and/or to the other major planet (in our case - Jupiter's orbital plane), which means, it was formed in main cloud which originally rotated around the central star (Sun)
if the star is single (like our Sun) then the planet's orbit should be nearly circular.
its orbit is "fully mature and independent" (my term) - which means,
it is not in orbital resonance with any other planet and not within the orbit of any other planet.
it is fully formed object, not "aborted" object (this excludes asteroids in orbit between Mars and Jupiter).
it does not look like double planet, ie. its moon(s) are much smaller and ligher in mass then the planet.

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-23, 02:38 PM
Ten is the most likely. It was the narrow winner in the first round and probably a good indication of where things are going.

ToSeek
2006-Jun-23, 02:44 PM
One more planetarium removed Pluto from the list of planets, in year 2000:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6968617/
"It's a misbehaved planet if you want to think about it as a planet,"
said Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York's Hayden Planetarium
at the American Museum of Natural History.
Tyson provocatively removed Pluto from his exhibit of planets five years ago,
lumping it instead with a belt of comets at the edge of the solar system.
"I still have folders of hate mail from third-graders," he said.

:)

Aren't those both the same planetarium, rather than "one more"?

R Pope
2006-Jun-23, 03:10 PM
This whole "ten planet" thing is a plot by the forces of evil that are attempting to convert the whole world to the metric system.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 03:20 PM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Photos/050214/PlutoUSA.gif

never
2006-Jun-23, 03:23 PM
If Pluto was once collided into at an early stage it could explain why it moved out of the same orbital plane as the other planets in our solar system and therefore why it did not grow any larger. It would have then been knocked away from the gas and dust concentration plane from which the planets were forming at the time. Computer simulations have suggested it should be larger and it being knocked away at an early stage from that orbital plane could be why it isn’t as it would no longer be in the disc of dust and gas around the young Sun. It might also explain the close relationship it has with it’s moon, Charon, as it may have either been Pluto’s knocked out core or formed from something that glanced into it and bounced a short way off but was kept close by Pluto’s gravity. Because they are so close to each other and in synchronous rotation then their spinning should create the same effect as one large unevenly weighted object which could cause the elliptical nature of it’s orbit in the same way as a spinning cricket ball that had been made rougher on one side would curve when thrown.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 03:30 PM
Aren't those both the same planetarium, rather than "one more"?

I visited Hayden Planetarium few times, but never learned
they call that center "the Rose Center for Earth and Space".

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 03:44 PM
This whole "ten planet" thing is a plot by the forces of evil that are attempting to convert the whole world to the metric system.

If they leave Pluto on a list of planets, but do not upgrade other Kuiper Belt Objects
(like Xena) to planets, then it means the forces of evil are winning...

hhEb09'1
2006-Jun-23, 03:46 PM
Thank you friend, but, I'm not pretty flexible... and I form my own opinions,
based on scientific data and logic. Yeah, thats the way I'm...I was just basing that on your post above (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=768566#post768566):
I would have no problem calling Xenia the tenth planet,I just assumed that implied you'd have no problem calling Pluto the ninth planet.

I can't acctually blame Pluto for being intruder, self-styled planet,
it is not Pluto but some people who have some, I would say, hidden agenda.Who would that be, exactly?

antoniseb
2006-Jun-23, 03:52 PM
If they leave Pluto on a list of planets, but do not upgrade other Kuiper Belt Objects (like Xena) to planets, then it means the forces of evil are winning...

Hi homo_cosmosicus,
you cannot refer to people who disagree with you here as "the forces of evil". You've made your one point here several posts ago, and haven't really added anything new. I'm guessing you're relatively young. We like having young enthusiastic people on the forum. Why not explore other topics where it is not simply a semantic choice that is the main issue?

Do some searching for the other threads about what should and shouldn't be called a planet. You'll find people who've taken the same side you have, and expressed it even more clearly. There's a lot to gain by looking.

aurora
2006-Jun-23, 04:07 PM
A general science comment, regarding people resisting change.

Certainly, many things (astronomy as well as the other sciences) have been discovered and text books have to be updated.

One example, up until only a few years ago, we thought that all ecosystems required photosynthesis. Then we discovered some that don't.

Another example, would be all the bird fossils being discovered now in China. A lot is being learned about avian evolution.

Anyway, changes are slow, but books eventually get updated and people learn about the new discoveries.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 04:14 PM
I found original source of the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5099292.stm?ls

It says:
Pluto, 2003 UB313, and any other objects passing the "roundness test",
would be reclassified as a third type of planet - perhaps "icy dwarfs".

also:

This definition could lead to a Solar System with as many as 20 planets,
including Pluto, 2003 UB313, and many objects previously classified as moons
or asteroids.

MrClean
2006-Jun-23, 04:25 PM
I found original source of the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5099292.stm?ls

It says:
Pluto, 2003 UB313, and any other objects passing the "roundness test",
would be reclassified as a third type of planet - perhaps "icy dwarfs".
[/U]

Well there's your answer in your own post isn't it? Pluto is an "Icy Dwarf" planet.

I really don't know why you're arguing with yourself like this.

O O another IQ test

1 finger, medium sized but confrontational
2 finger, large sized but naughty
3 finger, medium sized
4 finger, smallish sized
5 finger/digit stubby
6 finger/digit stubby
7 finger smallish sized
8 finger medium sized
9 figner large sized but naughty
10 finger medium sized but confrontational

now, which finger points at Xena, the new tenth planet?

Kay, it's not really an IQ test, it's an abscence of IQ test OR it's a double secret IQ test claiming ignorance but actually deducing something.

Anyways, there's 10 fingers and thats ever more compelling an argument that there should be 10 planets.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-23, 04:33 PM
Who would that be, exactly?

My friend hhEb09'1, here I would copy and paste my words:

But I would rather not talk about it here, that is conspiracy topic,
really has nothing to do with astronomy, logic and scientific sense.

But I find interesting AntoniSeb's note on other thread about Pluto,
saying that there is a special asteroid named Chiron beyond Saturn's orbit,
and how easy it was to confuse this with the name of Pluto's largest moon Charon.
Thanks Antoniseb for that note.

Then, one of the newly discovered satellites of Pluto was given name "Hydra"
which is also name of constellation Hydra... interesting, is there any other
satellite in Solar system with the name already given to some constallation?!
Perpehs not, if not, then it just confirms the "special" status for Pluto...

hhEb09'1, let me clarify my position:
Pluto should not be given any special status, nor its satellites.

The only just solution IAU can make is either
- they take Pluto off the list of planets
- or they add to the list of planets dozen or so other objects

In no way should Pluto be special planet.

There are no "special" planets, and there are no "special" people.

If IAU fixes the nonsence with the Pluto, then I'll sleep better :)

Okay, have to go now, its late evening at this point of planet Earth.

nrbdo
2006-Jun-23, 04:58 PM
This has been very interesting...and entertaining to follow. There seem to be two main groups, those who feel an emotional link to the idea of Pluto being a planet, and the analytical who purely go with the data. I personally am in the first group. Its my nature. Did anyone besides me feel the need to defend T-rex at the ideal he isn't a true hunter but mearly a scavenger? The Pluto argument falls into the same pot of emotions for me. I feel inclined to jump to her defense. Still I would like to see an arbitrary diameter included in the definition of a planet, which would include her current status. I would not be unhappy to see 10 or more planets. Still its out of my hands and I will just have to await the verdict like everyone else. Chao

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-23, 05:12 PM
Pluto is a guy. And a kidnapping rapist at that. Personally I don't have an emotional problem with "demoting" Pluto. I simply follow the wise words of David Jewitt, the co-discoverer of the first Kuiper Belt Object, 1992 QB1:


Some people see this as a demotion of Pluto from Planet-hood. I think that it can reasonably be portrayed as a promotion. Our perception of Pluto has been transformed from a singularly freakish and unexplained anomaly of the outer solar system to the leader of a rich and interesting family of trans-Neptunian bodies whose study will tell us a great deal about the origin of the solar system. So, we have discovered -1 planets and +1 Kuiper Belt. It seems like a fair trade to me.

I can't argue with that.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jun-23, 05:34 PM
I said it before in another thread, but in my humble opinion, I would bet my house on the Kuiper Belt being a far more diverse place than some commentators expect. It covers a vast area, there will be varying distribution of materials, and conditions from one object to the next.

Lets hope New Horizons throws up some big surprises!

hhEb09'1
2006-Jun-23, 07:16 PM
Pluto is a guy. And a kidnapping rapist at that. Personally I don't have an emotional problem with "demoting" Pluto. I simply follow the wise words of David Jewitt, the co-discoverer of the first Kuiper Belt Object, 1992 QB1:Wouldn't that be the discoverer of the second KBO then? :)

jcamjr
2006-Jun-23, 10:02 PM
We can measure, describe and debate all we want but the fact remains that to name a thing or label it is a far cry from being able to say that we understand it.
Pluto will still be Pluto regardless of the outcome of this debate and will be not one bit more or less important for that outcome. What I do not understand is the level of emotion this debate inspires or how personally people take it as if Pluto cares what classification the clever monkys on the 3rd planet give it! I myself like the idea of designating it and its kin as "ice dwarves" so for what its worth we can have gas giants, terestrial planets, ice giants and last but not least ice dwarves five descriptions for the five different types of planets in our solar system.

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-23, 10:08 PM
Wouldn't that be the discoverer of the second KBO then? :)

Third. Charon is a KBO too :)

JC, nice idea but doesn't really explain what a planet actually is. The proponents of this "multi-class" idea (apparently; the words coming out of this debate at the moment are maddeningly vague) have cottoned onto the idea that a planet must be round under its own gravity. In fact that would include at least one asteroid on the planetary list as well, and any number of moons, assuming that roundness is the only qualification.

There are two problems with this: first, not only gravity makes things round, and second, it is often difficult to tell when an object is round or not. When Shaggy was writing the "roundness" table for our "Definition of Planet" article on Wikipedia, he got into some serious rows about whether or not Vesta was a spheroid. The issue was never resolved.

jcamjr
2006-Jun-23, 10:30 PM
I concede your point what we need is agreement on what excactly a planet is and then we can debate different "types" of planet but I suppose the point Im trying to make is that until such a system of classification can be reached we are merely argueing matters of degree not definition

Andrea
2006-Jun-24, 12:11 AM
Maybe we should just blow up or otherwise dispose of all those nasty little KBO's so that we can quit worrying about what to call them and be done with it!

Ray Bingham
2006-Jun-24, 02:00 AM
My suggestion as to classification of a planet.... If it can be walked on, it's a planet. Now lets admit that there are lots of different kind of planets and work out a classification system for them. The gas giants are not planets. The moon and ceres are.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-24, 04:20 AM
Maybe we should just blow up or otherwise dispose of all those nasty little KBO's so that we can quit worrying about what to call them and be done with it!


Maybe we should accuse KBO's of having WMD and harboring terrorists, so we can nuke them?!

Fraser
2006-Jun-24, 04:22 AM
Maybe we should accuse KBO's of having WMD and harboring terrorists, so we can nuke them?!

Sorry, that excuse is already being saved as a reason to colonize Mars.

RUF
2006-Jun-24, 04:52 AM
:)

name it "Kuperoid", and other such objects - Kuperoids.

I like it -- clever name.
Creating a third class of objects sounds best to me.
(either way I will need to change my avatar!

jcamjr
2006-Jun-24, 06:05 AM
Ok so by this definition any object for instance a "super earth" upon which the gravity exceeds a humans ability to stand and walk is no longer a planet?
I dont know if this is the most logical way to define a planet or not after all we havent even explored what a planet must taste like to qualify perhaps anything we can walk on is not the answer maybe we should be considering a scratch and sniff test for planethood

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-24, 07:20 AM
My suggestion as to classification of a planet.... If it can be walked on, it's a planet. Now lets admit that there are lots of different kind of planets and work out a classification system for them. The gas giants are not planets. The moon and ceres are.


Very interesting suggestion, but I don't think it will work...
there are thousands of object in the Solar system we can walk on.
Like, small asteroids, perheps we can walk even on the comets
before they come too close to the Sun?

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-24, 07:28 AM
I like it -- clever name.
Creating a third class of objects sounds best to me.
(either way I will need to change my avatar!


Thanks Ruf, but I didn't create that name (Kuperiod).
I read it in article in Discovery magazine, interview
with Mike Brown - professor who co-discovered 2003 UB313 (Xena) KBO,
the one larger then old known KBO - Pluto.

Anyway, I like your Location description!
ETs will locate you very easy now
:)

peteshimmon
2006-Jun-24, 09:13 AM
Many of you seem to be forgetting that Pluto
was predicted and discovered by Americans!
You do not want a hoard of revisionists and
hacks to change its status surely?:)

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jun-24, 09:32 AM
Many of you seem to be forgetting that Pluto
was predicted and discovered by Americans!
You do not want a hoard of revisionists and
hacks to change its status surely?:)
Pluto wasn't the planet that was predicted.
The prediction was a mistake.

From the Wiki article on Pluto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Discovery_and_naming):

Ironically, Pluto is far too small to have the effect on Neptune's orbit that initiated the search. The discrepancies in Neptune's orbit observed by 19th century astronomers were due instead to an inaccurate estimate of Neptune's mass. Tombaugh's discovery is therefore even more surprising, given that the proximity of the predictions of Pickering, Lowell and Ketakar were coincidences.

peteshimmon
2006-Jun-24, 09:48 AM
I obtained a copy of Lowells memoramdon in
the eighties and as far as I can judge it is
a competant analysis. Vladimir Kourganoff of
Paris verified it and indicated it was the
resonance with Neptune that helped. I am
puzzled about this mass of Neptune thing when
there is a moon to get its mass. Anyway it
looks like it is the aggregate of bodies
orbiting with Pluto in that area that will
eventually explain the success of the prediction.
This is the only sensible course I think you
do not quibble with predictive success like
that!

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jun-24, 10:15 AM
IMO, predicting a cannonball and finding a marble doesn't constitute a successful prediction.

From Wiki, Planet X disproved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_x#Planet_X_disproved):

The distant space probes Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and Voyagers 1 and 2 disproved the existence of Planet X, as hypothesized by Lowell, in two ways. First, as they passed each of the outer planets, the acceleration gained by the gravitational pull of the planet was used to refine the masses of those planets. It turned out that the masses of the outer planets, calculated by Earth-based observatories, were low by as much as 1%. When the correct masses were used to determine the orbits of the outer planets, the remaining discrepancies vanished.

wayne mansfield
2006-Jun-24, 01:02 PM
mansfield, what about round objects smaller diameter?
What do we do with Ceres, it is round object and yet it orbits central star (Sun)?

I think planet is:




round body (naturally round body, which means its big enough for gravity to shape in in round form).
orbits close to the central star (in our case - Sun) equatorial plane, and/or to the other major planet (in our case - Jupiter's orbital plane), which means, it was formed in main cloud which originally rotated around the central star (Sun)
if the star is single (like our Sun) then the planet's orbit should be nearly circular.
its orbit is "fully mature and independent" (my term) - which means,
it is not in orbital resonance with any other planet and not within the orbit of any other planet.
it is fully formed object, not "aborted" object (this excludes asteroids in orbit between Mars and Jupiter).
it does not look like double planet, ie. its moon(s) are much smaller and ligher in mass then the planet.

Your reference to Ceres is an example of a round object that doesn't meet the minimum diameter measurement set by Pluto as I suggest.It orbits the Sun but is smaller than Pluto(Pluto being 2390 km and Ceres being 957 km).Also you bring up the point of objects not being regarded as a double planet.I've heard of Pluto being referred to a double planet because of the size of it's moon Charon. I have also heard discussions being bantered about another double planetary system in the Solar System.Possibly you've heard of it.It's the Earth/Moon system.These forums are great because it opens our eyes to other points of view.Thanks

Supernova-Lisa
2006-Jun-24, 01:58 PM
Pluto will ALWAYS be a planet to us great, unwashed masses regardless of what you say. If you change it they will always name the nine planets then there will be rumblings about how Pluto changed and discussions on why those crazy astornomers changed things, NOT about the fact that Pluto isn't a planet anymore. My wife can't tell you anything about Ceres or any Keiper bult objects, but Pluto and the rest of the Nine she knows.

You can't go back in time, you can only realize your mistakes, go forth and sin no more. Some famous guy said that, I can't quite put my tongue on his name though.

Well that's not a very intelligent thing to say.
You can realize your mistakes and change them!! That is what you are supposed to do, actually.
You make a mistake, you fix it, and you don't make the same one again.
Simple.

Just because your wife is a lay person who doesn't know a thing about gravity doesn't mean that we should keep the 9 planets for the "uneducated".
Get educated and maybe you'll agree!!

peteshimmon
2006-Jun-24, 02:20 PM
Its the usual thing. Trying to lay down the
law without knowing the full story. Lowell
used discrepancies in the position of Uranus
that remained after Neptunes influence had
been accounted for! His predicted orbit was
outside of Neptune and for a 7 Earth mass
object. The actual discovered orbit reduced the
mass needed to 1 Earth mass coming down to a
tenth after further work. And Tombaugh found
the Planet repeat Planet shortly after starting
the task because he started at the part of the
ecliptic where the prediction indicated! When
the first Kuiper Belt objects were found with
orbital periods very similar to Pluto it
indicated very clearly one explanation for
the conundrum was coming true!

ToSeek
2006-Jun-24, 08:19 PM
I visited Hayden Planetarium few times, but never learned
they call that center "the Rose Center for Earth and Space".

Better perhaps to think of it as an astronomy museum with a planetarium in the middle (each with its own name), rather than a single entity.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-25, 05:18 AM
Hi homo_cosmosicus,
you cannot refer to people who disagree with you here as "the forces of evil".


Just quick clarification here:
I did not refer to anybody on this forum as "the force of evil".

Sorry for the confusion.
:(




There's a lot to gain by looking.

Yes, and telescope is great tool for looking!
:)

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-25, 05:37 AM
His predicted orbit was
outside of Neptune and for a 7 Earth mass
object. The actual discovered orbit reduced the
mass needed to 1 Earth mass coming down to a
tenth after further work.


".... coming down to a tenth after further work" - it seems much more work
was needed, since Pluto's mass in not 10% of the Earth mass,
but only about 0,2%, which is 50 times less then predicted mass.

I have to agree with Halcyon Dayz:
"IMO, predicting a cannonball and finding a marble doesn't constitute a successful prediction."

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-25, 06:08 AM
I have also heard discussions being bantered about
another double planetary system in the Solar System.
Possibly you've heard of it. It's the Earth/Moon system.


Hi Wayne, yes, I did hear of it, Earth/Moon system as a double planet,
but I don't think so... Moon has almost 100 times smaller mass then Earth.

In case of Pluto, the Charon (or Chiron) is just 7 times smaller then Pluto!

Then, Pluto is 7 times smaller then our Moon.
Well, Pluto/Charon is just double KBO, why not...

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-25, 07:55 AM
Actually, the Moon's main claim to being a double planet with Earth is not its mass, but the fact that its orbit around the Sun is concave, like Earth's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moon_trajectory1.png

In effect, the Moon and the Earth orbit the Sun together.

hhEb09'1
2006-Jun-25, 07:57 AM
I dunno, mass is pretty close too. So that the moon is about 1/4 the diameter.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jun-26, 12:05 PM
The problem with labelling Pluto as 'a Kuiper Belt object' (meaning that it is in the Kuiper Belt) is that its orbit passes inside Neptune's for a few years. Does this then mean that Neptune is a KBO as theoretically for a brief period of time it is the outermost of the two?

Come on then fellow pedants, argue that one!

ToSeek
2006-Jun-26, 04:11 PM
I said it before in another thread, but in my humble opinion, I would bet my house on the Kuiper Belt being a far more diverse place than some commentators expect. It covers a vast area, there will be varying distribution of materials, and conditions from one object to the next.

Lets hope New Horizons throws up some big surprises!

Judging by the few comets that have been investigated so far (and are surprisingly varied), this seems likely.

aurora
2006-Jun-26, 06:46 PM
The problem with labelling Pluto as 'a Kuiper Belt object' (meaning that it is in the Kuiper Belt) is that its orbit passes inside Neptune's for a few years. Does this then mean that Neptune is a KBO as theoretically for a brief period of time it is the outermost of the two?

Come on then fellow pedants, argue that one!

Neptune defines the Kuiper belt. Pluto is in a resonance with Neptune because of the influence it exerts.

I like the term "Plutino". Maybe in addition to Trans-Neptunian Object.

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-26, 07:44 PM
Trans-Neptunian Object is a cop-out. Hell; Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and everything else in the Solar system are "trans-Venusian objects". I myself am currently a Trans-the-manky-cornershop-down-the-road object.

My position in the cosmos, is, however, subject to change.

ToSeek
2006-Jun-26, 10:32 PM
Trans-Neptunian Object is a cop-out. Hell; Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and everything else in the Solar system are "trans-Venusian objects". I myself am currently a Trans-the-manky-cornershop-down-the-road object.

My position in the cosmos, is, however, subject to change.

TNO doesn't seem very useful. I'd vote for KBO.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-27, 06:00 AM
Hell; Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and everything else in the Solar system

I'm not familiar with this object - "Hell".

Can you explain what is it?

parallaxicality
2006-Jun-27, 06:01 AM
Nice joke, but please note the semi-colon.

Tinaa
2006-Jun-27, 06:03 AM
Hell is where you have two teenage daughters fighting over one car.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-27, 06:05 AM
The problem with labelling Pluto as 'a Kuiper Belt object' (meaning that it is in
the Kuiper Belt) is that its orbit passes inside Neptune's for a few years.
Does this then mean that Neptune is a KBO as theoretically for a brief period
of time it is the outermost of the two?

Come on then fellow pedants, argue that one!


Object can be classified either as a KBO, or a planet.

Object can not change its status just because some other object
comes closer to the Sun for a brief period of time.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-27, 06:08 AM
Nice joke, but please note the semi-colon.


Thanks for the clarification, it wasn't joke...
I thought you are talking about Vulcan...
Well, Vulcan (fire, smoke) has some similarities with Hell,
so I thought you are talking about some object beyond Venus orbit.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-27, 06:11 AM
Object can be classified either as a KBO, or a planet.

Object can not change its status just because some other object
comes closer to the Sun for a brief period of time.

If not, then why not calling Neptune a "comet" every time some comet
comes closer to the Sun, for loong period of time...

In that case, Neptune will be permanently a comet, since there is always
some comet out there closer to the Sun then Neptune is...

I just discovered a new comet - Neptune!

:)

hhEb09'1
2006-Jun-27, 07:24 AM
If not, then why not calling Neptune a "comet" every time some comet
comes closer to the Sun, for loong period of time...

In that case, Neptune will be permanently a comet, since there is always
some comet out there closer to the Sun then Neptune is...:)Most visible comets are closer to the Sun then Neptune, over their entire orbit. Neptune's orbital period is about 165 years, so any comet with a lesser period (like Halley's) would be within Neptune's orbit.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jun-27, 07:49 AM
Judging by the few comets that have been investigated so far (and are surprisingly varied), this seems likely.

Too true. We've yet to see the tip of the tip of THE TIP of the iceberg!!!

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-28, 08:32 AM
Most visible comets are closer to the Sun then Neptune, over their entire orbit.
Neptune's orbital period is about 165 years, so any comet with a lesser period
(like Halley's) would be within Neptune's orbit.

So, the Neptune is comet, and all those comets with less then 165 years orbit
are in fact a planets?

:)

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-28, 08:34 AM
Too true. We've yet to see the tip of the tip of THE TIP of the iceberg!!!

Pluto was discovered over 60 years ago.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jun-28, 08:57 AM
Pluto was discovered over 60 years ago.

I was talking about the Kuiper belt as a whole. Even if I wasn't we've yet to get any kind of a detailed look at Pluto. In that respect we've yet to see the tip of the Iceberg.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-28, 01:14 PM
I was talking about the Kuiper belt as a whole.
Even if I wasn't we've yet to get any kind of a detailed look at Pluto.
In that respect we've yet to see the tip of the Iceberg.

You was talking about "tip of the tip of tip of the Iceberg".

If you want to see that tip, get a telescope, point to Pluto
and you will see tip of the tip of the tip of the Kuiper Belt iceberg...
As people already saw it for the last 6 decades.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jun-28, 02:15 PM
Homo-cosmosicus,

you're picking a fight with me due to an ongoing discussion we're having on another thread, this is leading you to be pedantic, I am more than happy to oblige you in any discussion which includes scientific facts, maybe you could provide some of your own?

If you look at the size of the Kuiper belt (between 30 and 50 AU) from the sun, and look at the size of Pluto (About 0.0021 of the Earth's mass), I think you'll find that my figure of speach is perfectly adequate to describe what we know about the the Kuiper belt.

Bynaus
2006-Jun-28, 04:27 PM
"Tip (of the tip) of the iceberg" fits well - Plutos detection was a mere coincidence - if they had looked for it ten years earlier or ten years later, they probably would not have found it. The next detection of a Kuiperbelt-object occured only in 1992: "1992 QB1" was, after Pluto, the second Kuiperbelt-object detected.

I'm feeling quite relieved that this discussions will soon be over. I am confident that the mistake from 60 years ago will finally be corrected.

Remember telling your grandkids, "when I was young, there used to be 9 planets!" ;)

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-28, 05:11 PM
Homo-cosmosicus,

you're picking a fight with me due to an ongoing discussion we're having on
another thread, this is leading you to be pedantic


You are ignoring the fact that you are not able to admit you are wrong,
and therefore you would rather somebody else pick up the heavy weight for you.

This example just shows me how stuborn (close-minded) can debunkers be,
and how easily they ignore their own words.

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-28, 05:17 PM
I'm feeling quite relieved that this discussions will soon be over.
I am confident that the mistake from 60 years ago will finally be corrected.


Yes, finally! That will be great news.

:clap:



Remember telling your grandkids, "when I was young, there used to be 9 planets!" ;)

:)

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jun-28, 05:19 PM
Please vote here, we have new poll:

Is Pluto a KBO or planet?
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=43497

hhEb09'1
2006-Jun-28, 05:22 PM
So, the Neptune is comet, and all those comets with less then 165 years orbit are in fact a planets?I'm not sure where you're headed with that... :)

You are ignoring the fact that you are not able to admit you are wrong,
and therefore you would rather somebody else pick up the heavy weight for you.

This example just shows me how stuborn (close-minded) can debunkers be,
and how easily they ignore their own words.Jakenorrish has explained that he was not talking about Pluto.

What heavy lifting is there? :)

R.A.F.
2006-Jun-28, 05:24 PM
Yes, finally! That will be great news.

I'm curious...just why would that be "great news"? Why does it matter to you one way or the other??

jkmccrann
2006-Jun-28, 05:53 PM
I'm curious...just why would that be "great news"? Why does it matter to you one way or the other??

I think if Pluto is declassified from being a planet it will be cheaper to take holidays there for h_c, because as we all know, landing taxes on KBOs are a fraction of what they are on planets.

Venus these days, just too pricey for the Average Joe..........

;)

Jakenorrish
2006-Jun-30, 07:34 AM
You are ignoring the fact that you are not able to admit you are wrong,
and therefore you would rather somebody else pick up the heavy weight for you.

This example just shows me how stuborn (close-minded) can debunkers be,
and how easily they ignore their own words.

Wrong about what exactly H_C? Exactly what am I 'debunking' on this topic?

homo_cosmosicus
2006-Jul-01, 01:26 PM
Wrong about what exactly H_C? Exactly what am I 'debunking' on this topic?

You are wrong about us "not have yet seen tip of the tip of the tip of the aisberg".
We have seen few objects in Kuiper Belt,
we have even seen Pluto's four moons,
we have seen the color of other KBO, etc.

On this topic, you are not debunking anything.

ToSeek
2006-Jul-01, 08:13 PM
You are wrong about us "not have yet seen tip of the tip of the tip of the aisberg".
We have seen few objects in Kuiper Belt,
we have even seen Pluto's four moons,
we have seen the color of other KBO, etc.

On this topic, you are not debunking anything.

But we haven't investigated any of them close up, unless you count the comets. And even then we've only had a good look at three. I think that's his point.

Jakenorrish
2006-Jul-03, 10:09 AM
Presumably you can tell me all about the properties of the material from those comets and the characteristics of Pluto's new moons H_C?

(edited due to poor grammar)

rocketblair
2006-Jul-05, 06:58 AM
I've been away for a while, but this subject is one of my favorites. While the cultural and sentimental concerns of the "Pluto lovers" (including Dr. Tyson's 3rd grade hate mail writers) are not without merit, I believe scientific reasoning will eventually win this debate over Pluto's status. Unless he has changed his mind recently, Brian Marsden of the Minor Planet Center is in favor of taking Pluto off the list of planets, and his opinion does carry quite a bit of weight in the scientific community. I for one dislike dual classification for objects, but I think the IAU may have to settle for that to appease those who simply will not let go of 76 years of history. Unfortunately that would not settle the issue. I don't see how the IAU can all of the sudden say exactly what a planet is or isn't at this point, but they might surprise. As we learn more about our outer solar system and the structure and diversity of other systems, we will no doubt come up with other names to decribe the obects being found. For now though, it makes much more sense to me to have 8 planets and not have to add to that number everytime we find another big KBO. KBO's could simply be described by their estimated size or by their shape as our telescopic resolution continues to improve.

questioner
2006-Aug-24, 02:07 PM
Im confused as to how this debate came up anyway. pluto has been a planet for as long as most people can remember... why argue the fact now? and if you find that pluto is, in fact, not a planet (but an icy dwarf or a comet) then where is the standard set? what makes a planet a planet???

ToSeek
2006-Aug-24, 05:29 PM
Im confused as to how this debate came up anyway. pluto has been a planet for as long as most people can remember... why argue the fact now?

Because we've found objects that are similar to Pluto and need to decide if they are planets or not.


and if you find that pluto is, in fact, not a planet (but an icy dwarf or a comet) then where is the standard set? what makes a planet a planet???

See this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46067) for further discussion.