Poll: Pluto, is it still a planet?

[Alon Shechter]

Well holy shit, this thread is over a year old.
Anyways, no, Pluto is just a hunk of rock hanging at space!
...No wait, that's a planet.

 

[Frosty676]

Of all the things Scientists could have done, they sat around debating whether the PLANET PLUTO (clue in the name) that everyone has agreed is a PLANET for decades and decades is actually a planet.

All of the 'scientists' involved at that meeting should be taken out and summarily executed. How much time did they waste that they could have spent doing something useful to arrive at a conclusion that no-one but themselves argees with?

Those scientists are astrophysicists and cosmologists. It's what they do.
As for Pluto. Pluto is a he not an it, he is a cartoon dog ( I think Mickey is his owner) who's yellow and funny. As For Planet Pluto, it's still a planet...a minor planet, a dwarf planet and is a member of the Kuiper belt.
So is it a planet? Yes it is, just not a major one.

 

[Naheal]

OT: Yes. Yes, it is.

 

[Stammer]

Well holy shit, this thread is over a year old.
Anyways, no, Pluto is just a hunk of rock hanging at space!
...No wait, that's a planet.

If "hunk of rock hanging in space" is the official definition of "Planet", then our solar system actually has billions of planets in it. Between all of the asteroids, comets, hunks of rock, moons, and the actual EIGHT PLANETS, there would be billions of them.

You don't consider each rock in the asteroid field to be a planet orbiting the Sun, and yet it orbits the Sun and it's a rock... so if "it's a rock suspended in space and orbiting the Sun" is the proof that Pluto is a planet, then every asteroid in the asteroid field (among everything else in our solar system) is a planet too.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

Well, you know, while I do not mean to offend anyone who feels strongly about Pluto´s demotion, I DO have to point out, that Neil deGrasse Tyson says Pluto is a Dwarf Planet.
So I am legally required by his awesomeness to accept that as the valid classification.

OT: Yes. Yes, it is.

I don´t know why, but THAT picture, combined with YOUR avatar somehow made me really f*cking scared....

 

[John the Gamer]

Its a baby planet. Sort-of. But its an ignored and refused baby, malnurished and sickly. Aww look; he's all vrozen and dead. Guess it's an vrozen baby-planet then.

 

[Hollock]

Nope, it's not. It's a dwarf planet. Dont care if you think it feels like one still, it isn't

 

[Frosty676]

Well holy shit, this thread is over a year old.
Anyways, no, Pluto is just a hunk of rock hanging at space!
...No wait, that's a planet.

What's Jupiter or Saturn then?

 

[alrekr]

The scientist actually re-catergorised Pluto as a minor planet. Its still a type of planet just not a regular sized planet.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Sure, why not? Part of my point is asking what does it matter? Is there really any difference between considering all of them to be planets and considering none of them to be planets?

If it doesn't matter to you, then why do you care about the change. It'd be more accurate, and that at least has high importance in the scientific community. Surely you're not arguing that knowledge is unnecessary.

I don't care about the change. Call it a planet or don't call it a planet, the fact that this debate has been going on for so long is what annoys me. This isn't a case of gaining new knowledge either, it is simply re-categorizing Pluto. We haven't learned anything new about Pluto or the land masses that are similar to Pluto by giving them a new classification now have we?

Exactly.

Unless we get more info on pluto and other planets in categorical limbo, we should not be changing anything.

For example, Titan is bigger than mercurey, so should it be a planet? Hm?

 

[Emissary Laito]

Not necessarily, plenty of bodies in our solar system occupy the same orbital path but don't encounter each other because they also move at the same speed including the objects in Pluto's orbital path that disqualify it from being a planet.

Its not all expected to be picked up at once. But they wont all be moving at identical speeds. Pluto has like, 3 satellites, so its picked up some of them, but it hasn't cleaned it up properly. Thus, no planet.

This is rare because of the relatively large amount of coincident required to align objects the size of a planet, but its in no way impossible to assume that somewhere earth sized planets could be forced to loose their title because some jerks in 2005 made a decision that planets cant share their orbit.

So, say, two planets that follow the same orbit on opposite sides of the sun?
The odds against that are ridiculous, but I guess it could happen. Maybe they will be exceptions, since its not like they're debris for each other. The orbit its-self would be clean.

The most popular definition before that, and many argued after is, a planet is any object in orbit around the Sun with a diameter greater than 1250 miles or 2000 kilometers. so Pluto was a planet up until 2005 and it didnt change for any scientific reason, we just decided.

I don't think that was an official definition though. I thought there was no official definition before the current one was created.

 

[BRex21]

Not necessarily, plenty of bodies in our solar system occupy the same orbital path but don't encounter each other because they also move at the same speed including the objects in Pluto's orbital path that disqualify it from being a planet.

Its not all expected to be picked up at once. But they wont all be moving at identical speeds. Pluto has like, 3 satellites, so its picked up some of them, but it hasn't cleaned it up properly. Thus, no planet.

This is rare because of the relatively large amount of coincident required to align objects the size of a planet, but its in no way impossible to assume that somewhere earth sized planets could be forced to loose their title because some jerks in 2005 made a decision that planets cant share their orbit.

So, say, two planets that follow the same orbit on opposite sides of the sun?
The odds against that are ridiculous, but I guess it could happen. Maybe they will be exceptions, since its not like they're debris for each other. The orbit its-self would be clean.

The most popular definition before that, and many argued after is, a planet is any object in orbit around the Sun with a diameter greater than 1250 miles or 2000 kilometers. so Pluto was a planet up until 2005 and it didnt change for any scientific reason, we just decided.

I don't think that was an official definition though. I thought there was no official definition before the current one was created.

It's the definition in my scientific dictionary (American) and it's close to identical to the one i have in my astronomy textbook(the exception being the unit of measure), and generally anything predating 2005 will have virtually the same definition verbatim, occasionally they would say "larger than an asteroid" but there was certainly more agreement in the scientific community on the old definition than there is the new one, be it official or not.

 

[Emissary Laito]

It's the definition in my scientific dictionary (American) and it's close to identical to the one i have in my astronomy textbook(the exception being the unit of measure), and generally anything predating 2005 will have virtually the same definition verbatim, occasionally they would say "larger than an asteroid" but there was certainly more agreement in the scientific community on the old definition than there is the new one, be it official or not.

Huh. Dunno about that part then.

Maybe when you're discovering lots of new planets, its more convenient to have more categories, rather then lumping everything together.
Helps you know where to look for something.

 

[BRex21]

Maybe when you're discovering lots of new planets, its more convenient to have more categories, rather then lumping everything together.
Helps you know where to look for something.

But the new classifications are a needlessly confusing mess. A "dwarf planet" is neither a planet or "dwarfy" something Owen Gingerich called a linguistic catastrophe. Who is he? oh hes the Chair of the committee charged with defining what a planet is. Many US astronomers petitioned their states not to recognize the change and the vast majority of them agreed Pluto is a planet, now we have definitions that change across borders.
These aren't arguments based on new scientific findings, they are arbitrary definitions and less descriptive that what we previously had.
When the definition was made there was argument because nearly all the remaining rock within Pluto's orbit is at the same speed, meaning it simply has had no opportunity to clear its orbit. I also don't see why its so hard to believe two objects could share the same orbit with the same speed yet we can see things like Pluto's moon in synchronous orbit.
but I digress Lets just, for the sake of argument, say that the whole Kuiper Belt, with the exception of Pluto was cleared out, would it then qualify as a planet?
No, because in August 2006, astronomers said, "Because Pluto's orbit overlaps Neptune's, Pluto is out." By definition then would Neptune not be a planet?
Of course its still a planet, because Pluto overlaps Neptune's orbit not the other way around!
you see how this gets out of hand. and if you don't believe me Google some of these sentences this was a crazy time for the scientific community.
Now again for the sake of argument, lets say you get to go to a new solar system,and its just like ours, you would have to wait hundreds of years to chart the path of the outer planet just to see that it overlaps anothers orbit so that your childrens children can decide if its a planet, is that really easier?

 

[Alon Shechter]

Well holy shit, this thread is over a year old.
Anyways, no, Pluto is just a hunk of rock hanging at space!
...No wait, that's a planet.

What's Jupiter or Saturn then?

That would be a SUPER PLANET!
And since they are both big and one has a magical ring on it, I must be correct.

Snip

Yeah, I see my mistake now..
Sorry for that.

 

[Emissary Laito]

But the new classifications are a needlessly confusing mess. A "dwarf planet" is neither a planet or "dwarfy" something Owen Gingerich called a linguistic catastrophe. Who is he? oh hes the Chair of the committee charged with defining what a planet is. Many US astronomers petitioned their states not to recognize the change and the vast majority of them agreed Pluto is a planet, now we have definitions that change across borders.
These aren't arguments based on new scientific findings, they are arbitrary definitions and less descriptive that what we previously had.
When the definition was made there was argument because nearly all the remaining rock within Pluto's orbit is at the same speed, meaning it simply has had no opportunity to clear its orbit. I also don't see why its so hard to believe two objects could share the same orbit with the same speed yet we can see things like Pluto's moon in synchronous orbit.
but I digress Lets just, for the sake of argument, say that the whole Kuiper Belt, with the exception of Pluto was cleared out, would it then qualify as a planet?
No, because in August 2006, astronomers said, "Because Pluto's orbit overlaps Neptune's, Pluto is out." By definition then would Neptune not be a planet?
Of course its still a planet, because Pluto overlaps Neptune's orbit not the other way around!
you see how this gets out of hand. and if you don't believe me Google some of these sentences this was a crazy time for the scientific community.
Now again for the sake of argument, lets say you get to go to a new solar system,and its just like ours, you would have to wait hundreds of years to chart the path of the outer planet just to see that it overlaps anothers orbit so that your childrens children can decide if its a planet, is that really easier?

Fair point.
Maybe they could be renamed Mega Asteroids?

;-]

I can see your point there, was more basing it off the stuff closer to the sun, where its far less likely. Point taken.

Dude, pretty sure Pluto hasn't completed an orbit since it was discovered. You can calculate the orbits rather then just waiting for them to happen.
And it was probably ruled like that because Pluto's orbit is weird and because in the long run, Pluto is screwed. When it one day, in the extremely distant future, intercepts with Neptune, Pluto will be the one that's smashed up, or caught and turned into a moon. Neptune will be unphased.

I'm curious now though.

Spoiler: Stealing this from the previous page

Do you consider those planets?

 

[BRex21]

Dude, pretty sure Pluto hasn't completed an orbit since it was discovered. You can calculate the orbits rather then just waiting for them to happen.

I'm curious now though.

Spoiler: Stealing this from the previous page

Do you consider those planets?

I would argue no, under the scientific dictionary definition of a planet, only 2 of those would be large enough to qualify. On the other hand with the new ruling some planets are and some planets aren't planets. That is simply stupid. If you call something a "Giant planet" like Saturn or Jupiter why is it still a planet when calling something a "dwarf planet" means its not a planet. I would say that 4 giant planets + 4 Terrestrial planets + 8 Dwarf planets = 16 planets, although under the new definitions someone could probably say its 4 because Giant planets may as well be called Dwarf stars now for all we care.
Technically however, Sedna exists outside of any known asteroid belt and even at its closest isnt predicted to pass into our Kuiper belt, but it gets the dwarf planet classification because we aren't entirely unsure that there might possibly be more of them out there. Now despite being reasonably sure of its size and having a decent grasp of its composition we cant REALLY be sure if its a "Planet" or a "Dwarf Planet" we are giving it the second because at that distance there is a high likelihood that we wouldn't find other objects out there, however if someday we have the technology to travel there and DONT find anything else it would become a planet, this is a sign that its a terrible system.
I look at it this way, I drive a compact car and my one friend drives a fullsized sedan and my other friend drives a large pickup. Since my car is a "Compact" it is now technically some kind of motorcycle because it isn't fullsized? Or should it loose its car status and be a motorcycle because I commute through city traffic while they travel highways? How do you define a car anyway, we don't have a good system for that, but i bet until we do we will have a lot fewer arguments as to what constitutes a car.

 

[Emissary Laito]

I would argue no, under the scientific dictionary definition of a planet, only 2 of those would be large enough to qualify. On the other hand with the new ruling some planets are and some planets aren't planets. That is simply stupid. If you call something a "Giant planet" like Saturn or Jupiter why is it still a planet when calling something a "dwarf planet" means its not a planet. I would say that 4 giant planets + 4 Terrestrial planets + 8 Dwarf planets = 16 planets, although under the new definitions someone could probably say its 4 because Giant planets may as well be called Dwarf stars now for all we care.
Technically however, Sedna exists outside of any known asteroid belt and even at its closest isnt predicted to pass into our Kuiper belt, but it gets the dwarf planet classification because we aren't entirely unsure that there might possibly be more of them out there. Now despite being reasonably sure of its size and having a decent grasp of its composition we cant REALLY be sure if its a "Planet" or a "Dwarf Planet" we are giving it the second because at that distance there is a high likelihood that we wouldn't find other objects out there, however if someday we have the technology to travel there and DONT find anything else it would become a planet, this is a sign that its a terrible system.
I look at it this way, I drive a compact car and my one friend drives a fullsized sedan and my other friend drives a large pickup. Since my car is a "Compact" it is now technically some kind of motorcycle because it isn't fullsized? Or should it loose its car status and be a motorcycle because I commute through city traffic while they travel highways? How do you define a car anyway, we don't have a good system for that, but i bet until we do we will have a lot fewer arguments as to what constitutes a car.

Sorry, this is going to sound like a cop-out, but I had to reset my computer, so lost the post I originally typed out for this, and its kinda killed my motivation to keep the conversation going.

I'll look into some of your points though. They're certainly better then the ones in the rest of the thread, which seems to consist of "I refuse to change my mind, therefore its a planet" posts.

Was nice talking to you ^^