Renobulus writes: "The BBC has this story about a giant asteroid orbiting near Pluto. This article also talks about Pluto's role as a planet in our solar system. This asteroid could help prove scientists belief that Pluto is only a minor planet."
Meaningless nomenclatural dispute
by
Angst+Badger
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I confess I entirely fail to see the point of the hairsplitting going on over whether Pluto is a "major" or "minor" planet, and I sure hope it's being conducted by privately-paid scientists who don't have anything better to do. It's not as if major and minor planets exist as natural categories, like the distinction between neutrons and protons, or even between housecats and weasels. It's an artificial categorization, and a very vaguely defined one at that: if it were well-defined, settling the debate would be as simple as comparing Pluto's properties to the list of requirements for major planet status.
Personally -- and I am not an professional astronomer -- I think the qualifications should be these:
It should never have been large enough to ignite nuclear fusion, i.e., a planet is not a star or a stellar remnant.
It should not be orbiting another planet, i.e., a planet is not a moon.
And finally, it should be large enough for its gravity to crush it into a spherical shape.
Of course, my layman's approach is just as pointless as that of these professional scientists, at least until someone can step forward and explain what use the major/minor distinction has.
-- Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Re:Meaningless nomenclatural dispute
by
Fred+Ferrigno
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We can categorize by mass of course. And I don't know why people don't do that...(anybody has any ideas?)
The people who would use mass as a deciding factor would just set the mass above or below Pluto's mass to agree with their opinion.
The way I see it, there are only two possible definitions that would make people happy:
1.) Tradition says we have 9 planets, and there's no arguing with it.
2.) Anything larger than Pluto is a planet.
Define "spherical". The asteroid Ceres is
supposedly roundish. Our friendly visiting
comets are also quite nicely spherical.
Personally I consider the planet/asteroid/comet/planetoid distinction to be
completely artificial and uninteresting.
Crud orbits the sun, from grains of dust
to Jupiter sized monsters.
Download marvellous Celestia and play with the universe yourself instead (3d card semi-required).
Classification is Arbitrary
by
bokmann
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Whether we decide to classify it as a 'major planet', 'minor planet', 'planetoid', or 'planitessimal', is irrelevant.
Whatever Pluto is, it's been that since before life appeared on Earth, and it will continue to be that long after we are gone.
They Will Never Figure Out If Pluto Is A Planet...
by
istartedi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
They Will Never Figure Out If Pluto Is A Planet... until they agree on the definition of a planet.
I mean, come one, how hard is it really? Mass and orbital excentricity. Pick two arbitrary numbers out of a hat. Problem solved. OK, OK, this might allow a gas cloud so you need a density factor, and you ought to limit the furthest approach too (a large body that passes by is not a planet).
The bottom line here is that it is not really rocket science to come up with a definition for "planet" and stick with it. Why do otherwise intelligent people insist on playing what is, in essence, a semantic game?
-- For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Suppose they next discover a trans-Neptunian object that is larger than Pluto. At that point we'll either have to define this new object as a planet or demote Pluto to minor planethood. I guess it's not really proof but it seems that the more and more objects we find comparable to Pluto in size and in nearby orbits the weaker becomes the case for Pluto remaining a planet. Kind of like how Ceres, Vesta, Juno and Pallas all lost their ~50 year-old planethood when hordes of asteroids began to be discovered back in the 1850's.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally -- and I am not an professional astronomer -- I think the qualifications should be these:
Of course, my layman's approach is just as pointless as that of these professional scientists, at least until someone can step forward and explain what use the major/minor distinction has.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Whether we decide to classify it as a 'major planet', 'minor planet', 'planetoid', or 'planitessimal', is irrelevant.
Whatever Pluto is, it's been that since before life appeared on Earth, and it will continue to be that long after we are gone.
They Will Never Figure Out If Pluto Is A Planet... until they agree on the definition of a planet.
I mean, come one, how hard is it really? Mass and orbital excentricity. Pick two arbitrary numbers out of a hat. Problem solved. OK, OK, this might allow a gas cloud so you need a density factor, and you ought to limit the furthest approach too (a large body that passes by is not a planet).
The bottom line here is that it is not really rocket science to come up with a definition for "planet" and stick with it. Why do otherwise intelligent people insist on playing what is, in essence, a semantic game?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Suppose they next discover a trans-Neptunian object that is larger than Pluto. At that point we'll either have to define this new object as a planet or demote Pluto to minor planethood. I guess it's not really proof but it seems that the more and more objects we find comparable to Pluto in size and in nearby orbits the weaker becomes the case for Pluto remaining a planet. Kind of like how Ceres, Vesta, Juno and Pallas all lost their ~50 year-old planethood when hordes of asteroids began to be discovered back in the 1850's.