Pluto!

[fos]

I'm sure everyone knows that Pluto is no longer classed as one of the major planets. I think it is now called a dwarf planet, or something like that.

I'm not quite sure what to think. I have always told my students that it probably wouldn't have been classified a planet if it had been discovered recently. Now that it is official, I have mixed feelings.

We have a pretty intellectual group here. What do all of you think about the change?

fos....

[AndreL]

What is it then? A moon? Of which planet?

[lisi]

A dwarf planet. A new category of less important objects that do not quite fulfil the new criteria for a planet.

Lisi

[AndreL]

:smiley3: I learn everyday!!!

Now, will they change the name of "plutonium" since it was supposed to be named after a Planet?



Hmmm, could this be a plot to take away the only planet discovered by Americans?

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/08/plutos_demotion.html

[krp]

The main issue I believe is that a planet must have its own orbit. That is to say a planet's orbit cannot cross the orbit of another planet. In this regard Pluto failed (possibly due to its small mass).

[danieldk]

Heh, "sorry Pluto, you can't be above the rules". Think about all the textbooks that are wrong now ;).

[deanlinkous]

I think they are descriminating against Pluto simply on the basis that it is different. It is unique and special because of the orbit and because of that people are labelling it as 'wrong' and 'bad' just goes to show human will never be truly open minded only descriminatory against something else...

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." ...William James

[AndreL]

The main issue I believe is that a planet must have its own orbit. That is to say a planet's orbit cannot cross the orbit of another planet. In this regard Pluto failed (possibly due to its small mass).Sounds like "proprietary" vs "Open Source"... Linux is probably not a real OS: it's just a Finish student's project without a owner. :smiley4:


____________________
Pluto The free planet!

[AndreL]

I think they are descriminating against Pluto simply on the basis that it is different. It is unique and special because of the orbit and because of that people are labelling it as 'wrong' and 'bad' just goes to show human will never be truly open minded only descriminatory against something else...

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." ...William JamesAaaaaamen!


_________________
Pluto The free planet!

[Lavene]

One of the main reasons to reclasify Pluto was actually the discovery that it is a very common type of object. And as our ability to see further out and detect smaller objects increases we might end up with an absurdly high number of planets.

Personally I don't understand what people are getting so worked up about. Suddenly every one have an opinion about Pluto even if they don't know the first thing about astronomy. I have seen statements (mostly in blogs and comments) like:
"It's sad... now our universe has only seven planets!"
"What will be the next? Will we wake up tomorrow and find that the moon is no longer a planet too?"

Pluto is still out there... as cold and dark as it used to be. It has just got a new family. I think it's nice that we care so much for that little lump of ice that we make sure it gets a family where it can feel it belongs. And... now it's among the biggest in it's class!

Tina :smiley10:

[AndreL]

The only problem I have with this is that Pluto has a moon... and, therefore IS a planet (Ceres & 2003 UB313 do not have a moon).

Pluto's small size and eratic orbit has been known for quite some times. The decision doesn't seem to have anything to do with "new discovery" but mostly due to "new rules"...

It was classified as the ninth planet shortly after its discovery and remained so for 75 years. But on 2006 Aug 24 the IAU (http://www.iau.org/) decided on a new definition of "planet" (http://www-csm.stecf.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html) which does not include Pluto.

http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html
As far as "scientific" astronomers are concerned, well, a few hundred years ago they fiercefully claimed that the earth was flat... so there are not "such a good reference" to me. :smiley1:

Official science as acted like this often before: denying stuff that one has hundreds of proofs of, and, confirming stuff that one has no proof of...

But, what the heck, as long as it doesn't change our salary it doesn't have much effect on our day to day life... :tongue:

[Mike]

Two little ones besides the giant Charon.

[AndreL]

Yes I know. I didn't mentionned them because Charon is the best known... although some may find cool that one of them is named "Nix" (as in Unix) :smiley8:

[Lavene]

As far as "scientific" astronomers are concerned, well, a few hundred years ago they fiercefully claimed that the earth was flat... so there are not "such a good reference" to me. :smiley1:

Oh come on... are you one of those "earth is round" people?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

Seriously; what makes science *science* is the acknowledgement of the possibility of being wrong and the willingness to rethink stuff. Through history right up to today most 'discoveries' have been wrong. But in science a wrong conclusion is not a failure but a discovery of yet another thing that's not true.

Tina

[jjmac]

Lavene wrote:

>>
Seriously; what makes science *science* is the acknowledgement of the possibility of being wrong and the willingness to rethink stuff. Through history right up to today most 'discoveries' have been wrong. But in science a wrong conclusion is not a failure but a discovery of yet another thing that's not true.
>>

Well said ... but i can see AndreLs point. But that is more to do with the politics that get in on the act. The need to find funding which can and does corrupt research.


I tend to see scientific method as a good technique in the protection from, subjective interference of perceptions. And the madness it tends to fuel. Even though i know my comment on fueling madness, is itself subjective :).

It is a hard tendency to remove.

The 'Uncertainty Principle' is a good address of such issues.


As i can figure things with this current Pluto thing, which i haven't been following very closely ... i think 'they' have decided that a planet definition, should disallow bodies that cut across other orbital planes. Which effectively eliminates pretty well all the outer bodies.

I suspect some sought of politics though, something lame like , gee, if we include those, then the count will be to high. Or something to that effect. I could easily live with 100 or more myself ... if/when/were ever they are found.

Obviously a moon is a planets planet, and a planet is a moon of the sun. Or any star. An eccentric, or unusual orbit doesn't really weigh with me as being a valid reason for non-inclusion. And so i see Pluto as very much a planet. Along with any body that exists further out. But i guess there must also be other things that need to be considered. Possibly, the ability to possess a moon ?. So i wouldn't be including asteroids or comets.

On size ... size is relative. Pygmies are people too :)


jm

[AndreL]

Oh come on... are you one of those "earth is round" people?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/)
Wow! And they look darn serious about it... :smiley8:

But in science a wrong conclusion is not a failure but a discovery of yet another thing that's not true.Amen.

[deanlinkous]

Can someone specifically point out WHY exactly they do not consider pluto a planet now though? All I could find was something about the orbit?

[AndreL]

According to the new rules a planet meet three criteria: it must orbit the Sun, it must be big enough for gravity to squash it into a round ball, and it must have cleared other things out of the way in its orbital neighborhood. The latter measure knocks out Pluto and Xena, which orbit among the icy wrecks of the Kuiper Belt, and Ceres, which is in the asteroid belt. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/science/space/25pluto.html?ei=5087&en=cfe4d03207c823f2&ex=1172030400&adxnnl=1&excamp=GGGNpluto&adxnnlx=1157171551-LzURbiIKuRXxlIMhma4Itg

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html

To me, it's like saying: "If a car runs through a scrapyard it is not a new car anymore"... Pluto's mass is about a fifth of our moon: the darn thing is too small to clear its path... but... it has 3 moons! That should make it an exception in the new rules. (Ceres and Xena do not have moons. I dont even think that Xena is round.)

But what the heck: science said that it is not a planet... and science said that a foetus is not a human being... and science said that HIV causes AIDS... They must be right!

Lets go back to Linux which is not a real OS since it doesn't generate its own financing.

What is the world's most widely used operating system? It's not Windows, Unix or Linux, but ITRON, a Japanese real-time kernel for small-scale embedded systems.http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/31855.html

Real Time operating systems have traditionally been a separate breed from mainstream ones.
Thanks to efforts to incorporate Real Time enhancements into Linux, standard mainstream Linux may well become a real, Real Time OS real soon. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3627831


.

[deanlinkous]

Sounds more like - if the road is blocked with debris then your car is no longer a car unless it can smash thru it and retain it's shape and clear the path??? So if crap gets in the way - you are no longer a planet?

Heck, works for me....change whatever they want as long as it does not involve my acre. Then again if they could change my grass to gold then I would be all for it or anything else that at least would get me out of mowing. :)

[bhobjj]

if they could change my grass to gold then I would be all for it or anything else that at least would get me out of mowing. :)

One of my neighbors tried to turn his grass into gold and it got him out of having to mow his lawn for the rest of the summer. :)
~~~~~~~~
Rules, regulations, laws, and standards tend to be very conservative and slow to change. Astronomy must be a lot different. I am more familiar with Taxonomy, than astronomy.

It would probably take 10 years of debate and research for botanists to reclassify a particular genus into another family, 0r accept a new species. And even at that time, not everyone would agree.

[AndreL]

One of my neighbors tried to turn his grass into gold and it got him out of having to mow his lawn for the rest of the summer. :)
Exactly! :smiley4: or many people would offer themselves to do it!

It would probably take 10 years of debate and research for botanists to reclassify a particular genus into another family, 0r accept a new species. And even at that time, not everyone would agree.
Not every astronomers agreed in the cas of Pluto, either...

[Lavene]

It would probably take 10 years of debate and research for botanists to reclassify a particular genus into another family, 0r accept a new species. And even at that time, not everyone would agree.

The discussion about Pluto has been going on for years and years. And it seems like it will continue for a long time still...

Tina

[jjmac]

AndreL wrote:

>>
But what the heck: science said that it is not a planet... and science said that a foetus is not a human being... and science said that HIV causes AIDS... They must be right!
>>

Some scientists had three critters sitting on a lab bench one day. A giraffe, a hamster and a mouse ...

They wanted to study them for distinguishing features that may help to explain their different functionality....

They couldn't help but notice, that the giraffe had quite a long neck !

Pondering this, one of them suddenly noticed something else significant. That the giraffes head was a long way away from the rest of its' body.

Ain't science great :)


jm

[AndreL]

Yeah...
Then the scientists took a frog and said "jump":
Frog +4 legs = frog jumps

Then they cut one of its leg and said "jump" again:
Frog +3 legs = frog jumps

Then they cut another leg and said "jump" again:
Frog +2 legs = frog jumps

Then they cut another leg and said "jump" again:
Frog +1 leg = frog jumps

Then they cut the last leg and said "jump"... "jump"... "jump!"...:
Frog -4 legs = frog becomes deaf.
Science experiment terminated.

[jjmac]

(grin)

Ain't logic great :)



jm

[RedAlpha3]

Just found this article on the BBC..http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5344892.stm

[bhobjj]

What happens if Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars get demoted from planet status?

I found this link:
http://www.brainsnap.com/science_and_technology/441/pluto_under_suicide_watch_after_planetary_status_s tripped_away

[Red*Fox]

they explode :p


for all of you interested go to www.teamspeak.org (http://www.teamspeak.org) - linux avavivable and download a version...then go to the ip 66.209.70.155:8767

and feel free to lusten to lapd police, fire dispatch, police dispatch, sheriff dispatch channells, big bear lake and forestry fire com channels.. and more com channells in Los angeles..its good for those long boring nights



::soooo off topic :P::

[jjmac]

Howdy,

bhobjj wrote:
>>
One of my neighbors tried to turn his grass into gold and it got him out of having to mow his lawn for the rest of the summer. :)
>>

Sounds good to me. Any info on how he went about it. Would be very, very interested ... (grin)


jm

[morgoth]

As an amateur Astronomer, I still, and will also consider Pluto a planet. It has a mass, a regular orbit, and a orbiting satellite. The eccentricity of its orbit is completey irrelevant. The other dwarf planets do not have satellites. The IAU really has no idea what it's doing imho.

Oh, and a bunch of Astronomers are now rallying to have Pluto re-instated as a planet, it seems that not many people voted on it ;-)

Dave

[jjmac]

morgoth;1867 wrore:
>>
As an amateur Astronomer, I still, and will also consider Pluto a planet. It has a mass, a regular orbit, and a orbiting satellite. The eccentricity of its orbit is completey irrelevant. The other dwarf planets do not have satellites. The IAU really has no idea what it's doing imho.

Oh, and a bunch of Astronomers are now rallying to have Pluto re-instated as a planet, it seems that not many people voted on it ;-)

Dave
>>

Hope it is reinstated, i haven't been following the issue ...

Why do you think they did that in the first place. What would be the motivation. Possibly ... who would profits from that.

Seems like most of these things have some ones agenda behind it somewhere ...


jm

[Lavene]

Oh, and a bunch of Astronomers are now rallying to have Pluto re-instated as a planet, it seems that not many people voted on it ;-)

That's often what happens when you're too lazy to take part in descissionmaking... if all those astronomers that now are working to revert the discission actually bothered to show up and vote on the issue they probably wouldn't have to spend so much time on it now.
Gawd I'm tired of all those people complaining about 'wrong' descissions when they don't even bother to vote!

Tina

[morgoth]

That's often what happens when you're too lazy to take part in descissionmaking... if all those astronomers that now are working to revert the discission actually bothered to show up and vote on the issue they probably wouldn't have to spend so much time on it now.
Gawd I'm tired of all those people complaining about 'wrong' descissions when they don't even bother to vote!

Tina

Yup, agreed. It really angers me that people just don't want to make decisions anymore.

Dave

[jjmac]

Saw a thing on TV last night on Pluto. It suggested that the iau, if thats their correct initial ... the so called , standards body .. were unclear, or lacked a clear definition of what a planet was.

But it seemed that they were focusing on Plutos orbit being out of the ecliptic. As though that was indicative of something which made it not really like the others. I tend to see it as a indicating something that is just extensive to the others.

They also drew attention to the size issue. In that the earths moon was larger.

They didn't seem to notice or consider the obvious.

The moon, like all moons, orbits a bit of rock that isn't undergoing nuclear transformations. Such as the 'sun'. It's orbiting a bit of rock that is itself orbiting a sun/star.

Pluto orbits a star, and has bits of rock that orbit it, as is typical of planets. It also has a gravity field which is stronger than its' own mass, kinda strange, but then, gravity is little understood any way. Basically that just means its' 'round'. Asteroids don't have that mass/gravity relationship and so aren't commonly round. Even though they also go around a sun/star. The key there being 'they go round', in that their locked in to the orbital/gravitational fields of the orbiting planets that straddle their particular location. Thats not the same as an orbit.

So, a planet is a hunk of rock whose gravity field is grater than its' mass, making it round, and it falls around a star. And a moon is a very similar object. but it falls around the earlier bit of rock. And an asteroid just gets dragged around by the others, becoming unpredictable in its' behaviour if it should ever escape its' field lock.

Pluto obviously is just like the other planets. And so too, would be '2003 ub131', 3 time Plutos distance out , once more is known about it.

The standards body seems to be displaying some sought of fear of numbers/counts, or some sought of 'middle ages' reluctance. Seeing the expanding model of the solar system as a kind of threat that needs to be kept in check ... like, no further than Neptune. What do they think is going to happen ?, will it lead to some form of conceptual evolution that may threaten their particular position. Like having to actually get real jobs (grin)

It also shows the trend these days amongst so called 'scientific researches' where the factors that are considered sometimes leave out elements ... especially those that could result in a conclusion contry to the one 'desired' ... smakes of politcs to me !

Oh yes, the doco type TV article, though not to bad, had this entrepreneur type that had an expo display some where. He supported the idea that Pluto wasn't a planet because the iau said so, and he's already spent a lot of money on his display and doesn't want to change it. So people should just get over it . Good grief :roll:

Maybe the iau should give him a chair (lol)


PS:
What is it with this site ?. I log into the front page, navigate to a topic, open in a new page, write a post, on submitting ...

A 'You ar not loged in' message comes back. So i have to log in again. !!!

I've got 'privoxy' configured to accept site cookies ... some sought of vBulletin heavy handardness ??

damn irritating. it is ...

:) :)


jm

[morgoth]

Jim - you probably took too long to type up your post, and the session timed out.

Dave

[AndreL]

Why do you think they did that in the first place. What would be the motivation. Possibly ... who would profits from that.

Seems like most of these things have some ones agenda behind it somewhere ...They want to end-up with twelve (12) planets... But, with the new discoveries they do not want to take any chances so they demoted Pluto in case they find something more "interesting" or "suitable"... If not, well they may promote it again as well as Eris (formerly: Xena) which also has a moon (Dysnomia) which would make ten (10) and some other rocks that they may find also "suitable"

I tell you, these people are totally "OFF" ...
There way of thinking is absolutely (and frighteningly) distorted.
Some may say: "Not of this World!"

[jjmac]

Howdy,


AndreL wrote:
>>
They want to end-up with twelve (12) planets... But, with the new discoveries they do not want to take any chances so they demoted Pluto in case they find something more "interesting" or "suitable"...
.
.
.
I tell you, these people are totally "OFF" ...
>>

If thats the case, your sure not wrong ... smaks of a kind of social fundamentalism/absolutism type of perspective. Not exactly the type of thing that becomes a scientific standards body.

Ok, we have our conclusion/belief, now lets go and find the evidence to support it, ignoring all in contrary of course ... Ha !!!

Such science like that is becoming so common, or maybe, i'm just noticing it more than i did.

How to win an election, ... ban all other parties .... result ...
They all love me, other wise they wouldn't have voted me back in. Only one voted though ... guess who ...

If that is the actual reason, then they have __no__ right to be associated with a scientific body.
Sounds like something along the lines of the creation of 12 months rather than accepting there are actually 13 etc, using ordered symetry as an excuse, i could go on. As a reason goes, it's akin to something like, we only have enough room for 12 in the book of known planets (grin)

I'd be happy with a solar system of inconceivable size, with uncountable planets, full of forms unknown and strange particle manifestations.

It Wouldn't disturb me at all :)

It is very sad though.

Wondering: wonder what the time out period is (grin)

PS: Had to login again, on submit a login page came up. I was only a few minutes on the post. Maybe it's because i am new to the site. It seems inconsistant though, as it only happens when i open a thread in a 'new' page. Possibly a cookie thing in the browser which i have got closed down fairly tight. No password traces etc ... have to check on that. Privoxy is configured to accept site cookies though.


jm