Slashdot Mirror
IAU Rules Pluto Still a Planet
scottyscout writes "NPR reports that Pluto has dodged a bullet.
An international panel has unanimously recommended that Pluto retain its title as a planet,
and it may be joined by other undersized objects that revolve around the sun.
Some astronomers had lobbied for reclassifying Pluto as its so tiny. And at least one major
museum has excluded Pluto from its planetary display. But sources tell NPR that under the
proposal, to be presented at a big meeting of astronomers in Prague next week for a vote,
Pluto would become part of a new class of small planets and several more objects could be
granted membership."
Why all the controversy anyway?
Why not fix the "official" number of planets at nine, including the largest, nearest, and most well-known of the Kuyper Belt Objects, and leave it at that?
Pluto's nature won't change either way, and our understanding of it won't change either way. This kind of legalistic controversy just for the sake of legalistic controversy is getting pretty annoying.
Traditionally, Pluto has been a planet. Now, I'm not saying tradition trumps everything, but I see no reason why it shouldn't trump meaningless debate.
Let me know if I've got it all wrong, and there is actually meaningful debate on this topic.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Yep, I called it. Many moons ago I said if they rule it's a planet it means science is dead. Real science doesn't label something based on feel good social acceptance, but strives for as much exactness as possible.
As of now, the modern age is officially over and dystopic post-modern has begun.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Please give us a scientific definition of a planet that includes Mercury but excludes Pluto and Titan.
"Planet" - like "hacker" has always been a very vaguely defined term and meant different things to different people. The line between "planet" and "Kuiper belt object" is as blurry as the line between two species of galapagos finch.
Clear, Dark Skies
Based on the original meaning of planet (wanderer), the only planets should be visible from Earth and move against the background of stars. Pluto is not visible without a fair-sized telescope.
I don't think there is any distinction between planets and asteroids that is useful in Astronomy.
Besides, Pluto does not appear in Mr. Vem J Sun.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
It's been suggested that the best way to decide what is or is not a planet is to determine if the mass is held together the force of gravity or electrostatic forces (like metal bonds).
If by gravity then it should be considered a planet. If by chemisty then it's just a hunk of rock.
This makes the most sense to me.
It's not a matter of adjusting our definition. It's a matter of having one, which we don't.
Various people (not generally astronomers) want a strict, reasonable definition of "Planet", but find that these either exclude Pluto, or include a vast number of things no one would really consider a planet.
Astronomers generally don't care. They know Plutos properties, and don't use "planet" as a terribly specific term. This is purely a laymans controversy. It's significant only because something you learned in grade school was an over-simplification. Experts understand the details, and exactly which over-simplification is better is not very interesting to them.
But since I'm a layman, my 2 cents:
Juptier and Earth aren't like each other. They also aren't like anything else in their repsective orbital neighborhoods. There's a whole lot of stuff that orbits the sun at roughly the same distance as Earth, and none of it is much like Earth. Ditto for Jupter and 6 other object whose names you know. There's a whole lot of stuff that orbits at similar distance as Pluto, and quite a bit of it is a lot like Pluto.
Somewhere in there is my own favorite over-simplification, which kicks out Pluto.
Not that anyone cares, but I propose the following definition for a planet:
- Its primary orbit must be around a star
- It must be approximately spherical due to its own gravitational field being sufficient to make it so (the allowable eccentricity from a perfect spheroid would have to be defined)
- It is not itself a star
I see the following potential problems with this:
- It may be hard to judge shape accurately enough to tell if an object is close enough to spherical to qualify
- There may be very soft things that stay gravitationally round even when very small (what happens to a drop of mercury in space?)
- Given something such as a spheroidal asteroid smaller than Pluto, it may be difficult to distinguish if it's randomly spheroidal or spheroidal due to its own gravity.
Still, I like it better than other definitions I've seen.
Now proceed to tear it apart, add to it, etc.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?