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
efuseekay
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You should become a professional astronomer. For making more sense than those who are involved in the planet vs planetoid dispute (which I think is silly.) It's classification, not science!
However, your point (3) is tricky. Whether or not something is spherical (and that's another minefield : how spherical is spherical?) depends a lot on its mass and composition. A massive, but hard chunk of rock is less spherical than a small, squishy ball of dust.
We can categorize by mass of course. And I don't know why people don't do that...(anybody has any ideas?)
-- Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Re:Meaningless nomenclatural dispute
by
RedWizzard
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The obvious point to the debate is whether or not the solar system has 9 (major) planets or 8. But it doesn't mean much, probably something that gets debated mainly when people are drunk.
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.
Pretty reasonable. It would mean that the asteroid Ceres (and probably some of the other larger asteroids) would qualify.
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.
Re:Meaningless nomenclatural dispute
by
Grimmtooth
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Of course, astronomers probably wonder what the fuss is over 'free software' vs 'open source', so the balance of the universe is maintained.
-- /*.sigs are irrelevant */
Re:Meaningless nomenclatural dispute
by
bonoboy
·
· Score: 2
The fourth rule (which will probably piss people off more than solve anything) might be to do with orbital paths. For instance, Pluto has a highly elliptical orbit, which looks as though it was ejected from something (like Neptune) or incorporated from something (like the Kuiper belt). Perhaps if you think about the formation of an object, planets are generally assumed to have been a combination of material along a path around a new star in the accretion disk. Therefore, their orbits are more-or-less circular. They're elliptical, but not wildly so like Pluto's.
Pluto's orbit seems to point to its history either being interrupted by an orbit-changing event like a collision or capture by the Sun. It's possible it was a normal planet to start with, but that seems less likely than the possibility it was just made to look like one by the event. Hence the debate.
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.
Re:Classification is Arbitrary
by
Waffle+Iron
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Whether we decide to classify it as a 'major planet', 'minor planet', 'planetoid', or 'planitessimal', is irrelevant.
Exactly. In fact, the situation is a tautology. If people stop squabbling and agree on a word to classify Pluto (it doesn't matter if it's "planet", "minor planet", "flerbage" or whatever), then by definition that word includes Pluto-like objects.
Pluto itself remains the same no matter what we call it.
More Information at Space.com
by
dragons_flight
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This article on Space.com has considerably more detail about the asteroid and the techniques used for its discovery and measurement.
Included in their discussion is a debate about whether it really is the largest asteroid. The measurement of its radius relies on a reasonable, but not well established, guess for the objects reflectivity of sun light. Also some people claim that since objects at that distance are largely ice, that it may not qualify as a true asteroid (i.e. made of rock).
Astronomers have such HUGE amounts of data collected I'm glad to see that automated techniques are aiding in discovering new objects.
Re:More Information at Space.com
by
mgarraha
·
· Score: 2
Here is
ESO's
own press release.
They used Astrovirtel to explore data going back 18 years, and the orbit was calculated by
a German amateur! In a/.
interview last year, Chris McKinstry
predicted such contributions.
The
Deep
Ecliptic Survey by Millis et al is finding
Kuiper Belt objects by the dozen.
Planet vs. Planetoid vs. Asteroid
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 2
OK, I'm not entirely clear where the line between "planetoid" and "asteroid" is drawn (eccentricity of their orbits, perhaps?), but I do recall a while ago hearing that the difference between a planet and an -oid is that a planet is held together by gravity rather than by chemical forces (a ball of individual grains of sand vs. one really big rock). Now, is this a formalized definition, or is it just a good idea that's been suggested to the community?
Personally, I think that if Pluto can hold down its own atmosphere (that we can discern from way over here), that's a good indication that gravity is holding it together and it should be considered a planet. The big question should be whether or not Jupiter is a brown dwarf.
Re:Planet vs. Planetoid vs. Asteroid
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
" Almost everything is held together by gravity. Including all asteroids, comets etc...."
Nope. The less massive the object, the weaker the gravitational force it exerts on its parts. If the constituant molecules were held together solely by gravity, once you shrink to a certain size, the random thermodynamic motion of the molecules would cause the object to eventually break apart.
Gravity works great for massive objects (like our moon), but it's all but non-existant with smaller objects (like you, your computer, a Mack truck, Eros...). There, the molecules are held together by the chemical (electromagnetic) bonds between the individual molecules.
Asteroids aren't held together by gravity, they are literally one big rock. If they weren't, they wouldn't be cratered because the first impact would be its last. Just like kicking a sand castle.
Comets aren't held together by gravity, instead they're held together just like all snowballs: ice crystals gluedd together by the surface tension of liquid water. If it were just gravity, they wouldn't survive passing anywhere near the sun. They'd be torn apart during the first pass from steam pockets. If steam can move ships and locomotives massing millions of tons here on earth, it can sure as heck put something into escape velocity on a body where the average man weighs less than ten pounds.
Re:how does this change plutos role?
by
JBowz15
·
· Score: 5, Funny
How does this change Pluto's role?
Well, Pluto will no longer be eligible for the lead planet Oscar. From now on, it will have to make do with the category of best supporting planet.
Virtual Telescope
by
Alien54
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The history of the solar system seems like it was a lot more complex than people have been thinking.
Pluto is seen as a escaped moon of Neptune.
Evidence suggests that the Solar systyem underwent major changes about 65 million years ago. The dinosaurs seem to have been minor collateral damage.
Mars, for example, has a whole bunch of craters that cover just one side of the planet. The other half is pretty clean. Sounds like something went BOOM.
So oddities like asteroids orbiting pluto etc are par for the course.
What I find interesting is that The observations were carried out at the European Southern Observatory with the world's first operational "virtual telescope", Astrovirtel.
- - - Radio Free Nation is a news site based on Slash Code "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box" - - -
-- "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Re:Virtual Telescope
by
jaga~
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Which side of mars is that? are you suggesting the whole exploding 5th planet thing? having craters on half the planet would mean that asteroids chose to strike mars between certain hours every day.. and not during other hours.. I'm not sure why but this doesn't quite make sense to me...
--
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
No doubt that infernal vagabond is dancing about with his flower and his bauble, singing songs about volcanoes and baobab trees... I say leave the little wretch where he is, so we can all sleep without distraction!
This article was also on CNN.com and Space.com yesterday as well, to name a few.
Ceres has a diameter of about 950 kilometers (590 miles), and is still (and always will be) the largest main belt asteroid. This new object, known as 2001 KX76 (representing its discovery year and code), is a member of the Kuiper Belt. Kuiper Belt Objects are the primitive remenants of the prestellar cloud that formed our solar system. They have been expected by planetary astronomers for years, and in the last few years, hundreds have been found, although this is the largest found to date (excluding Pluto). It is anticipated that hundreds of thousands more might be found as better telescopes are constructed.
Actually, by estimites of its composition and its known location, it is considered by many to be the solar system's biggest comet. It is located in the cometary belt, and it is constructed like a comet. It doesn't look like one just because comets do not form a coma and tail until they pass within Saturn's orbit.
I was hoping for evidence of time-travel and fantasy worlds: I misread the headline as
Giant Breaks 200 Year Old Asteroids Record
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.
Chicken Little
by
bill.sheehan
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Personally, I think the best part of the article was the masterful self-control displayed by Lars Lindberg Christensen, who responded to the reporter's mind-numbingly stupid question by reassuring him that there's "no apparent danger" that the earth would be hit by this asteroid and waited until the reporter had left the room before convulsing in derisive laughter.
Just in case, though, we'd better send Bruce Willis...
Personally, I think the best part of the article was the masterful self-control displayed by Lars Lindberg Christensen, who responded to the reporter's mind-numbingly stupid question by reassuring him that there's "no apparent danger" that the earth would be hit by this asteroid and waited until the reporter had left the room before convulsing in derisive laughter.
This reminds me of the press conference after Mickey Mantle's liver transplant. One of the doctors mentioned that the same donor had also provided a half-dozen other organs.
One of the reporters asked if it would be possible to speak with this donor.
The doctor managed to summon enough composure to respond with the zinger, "You're a sports reporter, aren't you?"
-- /.
If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine
wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas
that could provoke such a question.
So, we have a big asteroid orbiting Pluto. How does prove or disprove Pluto's planetary status?
It doesn't. Another example of silly people being paid undue attention to by sillier media. If astronomy continues in this way, it is in danger of being classified as a social science.
The article said that as a Kuiper Belt object, this rock must be given "a mythological name associated with creation."
May I suggest..."God"?
-- Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
I think I'll call it...
by
Glytch
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Bob.
Re:Mars Craters
by
Alien54
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Which side of mars is that? are you suggesting the whole exploding 5th planet thing? having craters on half the planet would mean that
asteroids chose to strike mars between certain hours every day.. and not during other hours.. I'm not sure why but this doesn't quite make sense to me...
Not a problem. You can search on the string:
line dichotomy mars craters
and get all kinds of links at google.
The boundary of the crater disparity is at about 35 - 40 degres angle to the equator. There are these links that are interesting:
* http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/online.bks/mars/cha p12.htm - Part of a book online - describe the conventional view of the dichotomy
This paper says that the impacts did not take place on a on a repeating basis, but was part of a one time event. Probably 65 million years ago.
There are other pieces of the puzzle that tie into this, available from good scientists, on the web.
* http://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.htm which is from the other side of the fence, but is not badly written.
There are a lot of PDFs for download as well from many research papers.
Remarkably, at a June, 2001 Earth Systems Processes Global Meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, astrobiologist Bruce Runnegar of the University of California in Los Angeles presented some striking independent evidence that "something" major happened in the solar system ~65 million years ago. Runnegar and his colleagues had previously identified evidence of a 400,000-year cycle in ancient ocean sediments, indicating changes in Earth's climate corresponding to natural
fluctuations in its orbit. To probe this cycle's influence on Earth's climate over the past 100 million years, Runnegar's team constructed computer models based on known variations in planetary orbits, their proximity to the Sun and their interactive perturbations. In running the models, they found that the known fluctuations of the solar system's dynamics remained constant going back to 65 million years ago. Then, to their surprise, the frequency of perturbations to the orbits of the inner planets suddenly changed
This was on CNN, etc at the beginning of the summer. Simple searches for "Runnegar" yeild good results on CNN, and in general. for example: http://cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/07/05/dinosaur.wobb le/index.html
- - - Radio Free Nation is a news site based on Slash Code "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box" - - -
-- "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Cthulu would be a cool name
by
kiwipeso
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm wondering if anyone knows who cthulu is?
Definately a cool name for a large asteroid.
When word came down from the Elias Astromony Bureau about the record, orbit was halted, and a small ceremony was held at the perihelion to recognize the achievement. Relatives of Asteroid 195-G6, the previous record holder who fell into Jupiter in 1965, were in attendence to offer their congratulations, as well as several diplomats from the Oort Cloud. The asteroid was presented with a plaque commemerating the event, and took a lap around Pluto's equator for the crowd.
Said the asteroid after the orbit, "It's nice to be recognized, but to be honest, I'm kind of glad it's finally over. Now I can get back to orbiting, which is what I really enjoy. I mean, I'm a giant rock, and I move through space for millions of years. It's what I love."
the Moon's dichotomies That I am interested in are along the line of the farside of the moon has far more craters than the near side. which makes sense.
the dichtomies on mars are not purely North South, but are substantially angled to the equator. This includes the craters distribution, which are of external origin.
If mars lost all of its water a long time ago (billions of years) then there is an issue. Random distribution is not maintained. Plus some of the crater basins are truly huge (thousands of miles)
If it lost the water more recently, then this non random distribution is easier to explain. Other anomalies can be explained by internal mechanics, but the crater distribution cannot.
-- "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
This article on Space.com has considerably more detail about the asteroid and the techniques used for its discovery and measurement.
Included in their discussion is a debate about whether it really is the largest asteroid. The measurement of its radius relies on a reasonable, but not well established, guess for the objects reflectivity of sun light. Also some people claim that since objects at that distance are largely ice, that it may not qualify as a true asteroid (i.e. made of rock).
Astronomers have such HUGE amounts of data collected I'm glad to see that automated techniques are aiding in discovering new objects.
OK, I'm not entirely clear where the line between "planetoid" and "asteroid" is drawn (eccentricity of their orbits, perhaps?), but I do recall a while ago hearing that the difference between a planet and an -oid is that a planet is held together by gravity rather than by chemical forces (a ball of individual grains of sand vs. one really big rock). Now, is this a formalized definition, or is it just a good idea that's been suggested to the community?
Personally, I think that if Pluto can hold down its own atmosphere (that we can discern from way over here), that's a good indication that gravity is holding it together and it should be considered a planet. The big question should be whether or not Jupiter is a brown dwarf.
How does this change Pluto's role?
Well, Pluto will no longer be eligible for the lead planet Oscar. From now on, it will have to make do with the category of best supporting planet.
Pluto is seen as a escaped moon of Neptune.
Evidence suggests that the Solar systyem underwent major changes about 65 million years ago. The dinosaurs seem to have been minor collateral damage.
Mars, for example, has a whole bunch of craters that cover just one side of the planet. The other half is pretty clean. Sounds like something went BOOM.
So oddities like asteroids orbiting pluto etc are par for the course.
What I find interesting is that The observations were carried out at the European Southern Observatory with the world's first operational "virtual telescope", Astrovirtel.
- - -
Radio Free Nation
is a news site based on Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
No doubt that infernal vagabond is dancing about with his flower and his bauble, singing songs about volcanoes and baobab trees... I say leave the little wretch where he is, so we can all sleep without distraction!
This article was also on CNN.com and Space.com yesterday as well, to name a few.
Ceres has a diameter of about 950 kilometers (590 miles), and is still (and always will be) the largest main belt asteroid. This new object, known as 2001 KX76 (representing its discovery year and code), is a member of the Kuiper Belt. Kuiper Belt Objects are the primitive remenants of the prestellar cloud that formed our solar system. They have been expected by planetary astronomers for years, and in the last few years, hundreds have been found, although this is the largest found to date (excluding Pluto). It is anticipated that hundreds of thousands more might be found as better telescopes are constructed.
Actually, by estimites of its composition and its known location, it is considered by many to be the solar system's biggest comet. It is located in the cometary belt, and it is constructed like a comet. It doesn't look like one just because comets do not form a coma and tail until they pass within Saturn's orbit.
I was hoping for evidence of time-travel and fantasy worlds: I misread the headline as
Giant Breaks 200 Year Old Asteroids Record
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.
Just in case, though, we'd better send Bruce Willis...
It doesn't. Another example of silly people being paid undue attention to by sillier media. If astronomy continues in this way, it is in danger of being classified as a social science.
Next year I hope it tries to break it own record. Good luck to you spacerock!
The article said that as a Kuiper Belt object, this rock must be given "a mythological name associated with creation."
May I suggest..."God"?
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Bob.
Not a problem. You can search on the string:
line dichotomy mars craters
and get all kinds of links at google. The boundary of the crater disparity is at about 35 - 40 degres angle to the equator. There are these links that are interesting:
* http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/online.bks/mars/cha p12.htm - Part of a book online - describe the conventional view of the dichotomy
This paper says that the impacts did not take place on a on a repeating basis, but was part of a one time event. Probably 65 million years ago. There are other pieces of the puzzle that tie into this, available from good scientists, on the web.
* http://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.htm which is from the other side of the fence, but is not badly written.
There are a lot of PDFs for download as well from many research papers.
Remarkably, at a June, 2001 Earth Systems Processes Global Meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, astrobiologist Bruce Runnegar of the University of California in Los Angeles presented some striking independent evidence that "something" major happened in the solar system ~65 million years ago. Runnegar and his colleagues had previously identified evidence of a 400,000-year cycle in ancient ocean sediments, indicating changes in Earth's climate corresponding to natural fluctuations in its orbit. To probe this cycle's influence on Earth's climate over the past 100 million years, Runnegar's team constructed computer models based on known variations in planetary orbits, their proximity to the Sun and their interactive perturbations. In running the models, they found that the known fluctuations of the solar system's dynamics remained constant going back to 65 million years ago. Then, to their surprise, the frequency of perturbations to the orbits of the inner planets suddenly changed
This was on CNN, etc at the beginning of the summer. Simple searches for "Runnegar" yeild good results on CNN, and in general. for example:b le/index.html
http://cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/07/05/dinosaur.wob
- - -
Radio Free Nation
is a news site based on Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I'm wondering if anyone knows who cthulu is?
Definately a cool name for a large asteroid.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
Giant Asteroid Breaks 200 Year Old Record
When word came down from the Elias Astromony Bureau about the record, orbit was halted, and a small ceremony was held at the perihelion to recognize the achievement. Relatives of Asteroid 195-G6, the previous record holder who fell into Jupiter in 1965, were in attendence to offer their congratulations, as well as several diplomats from the Oort Cloud. The asteroid was presented with a plaque commemerating the event, and took a lap around Pluto's equator for the crowd.
Said the asteroid after the orbit, "It's nice to be recognized, but to be honest, I'm kind of glad it's finally over. Now I can get back to orbiting, which is what I really enjoy. I mean, I'm a giant rock, and I move through space for millions of years. It's what I love."
Planets are in orbits set by Bode's Law. If it's not in such an orbit, it is not a planet.
Baloney. Bode's Law is has no theoretical justification, and fails to predict the existance of Neptune.
the dichtomies on mars are not purely North South, but are substantially angled to the equator. This includes the craters distribution, which are of external origin.
If mars lost all of its water a long time ago (billions of years) then there is an issue. Random distribution is not maintained. Plus some of the crater basins are truly huge (thousands of miles)
If it lost the water more recently, then this non random distribution is easier to explain. Other anomalies can be explained by internal mechanics, but the crater distribution cannot.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"