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."
If they have the power to make or unmake planets, why can't they do something really useful with Pluto, such as decree it to be a really huge scoop of chocolate cookie-dough ice cream?
Where were you when the voynix came?
According to wikipedia:
-Earth's Diameter: 12,756.274 km
-Pluto's Diameter: 2306±20 km
-Jupiter's Diameter: 142,984 km
-Proportion of Earth to Pluter: 12756.274 / 2306 = 5.531
-Proportion of Jupiter to Earth: 142984 / 12756.274 = 11.209
Hmm... Jupiter has over twice the proportional difference with Earth as Earth has with Pluto. So I guess Jupiter wouldn't really consider Earth a real planet.
Personally, I think we should leave the little guy alone. Throw UB313 in there as well. Just give it a cool name that fits in with that whole "my very educated mother..." thing.
Like the well learned and professional scientist said: "We'll call them dwarf planets or something".
--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
No less a personage than Gustav Holst refused to include Pluto among The Planets.
Why should I listen to this "IAU" instead of to him?
Most of the Astronomers are having trouble making it to Prague because of the security anthill that's been kicked over by the hair-gel bomb plot. This will probably have a big effect on how the IAU vote turns out.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
... mickey, minnie, donald.
In other news, Pixar announces corporate sponsorship of IAU.
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.
Hell, I can show you museums that show kind, gentle dinosaurs living in harmony with man. So what?
Click here or here.
I declare holy^H^H^H^H science war against the IAU!
Has Pluto put out a press release yet. Are it and it supports going to have a celebration party? Is Jupiter going to be there? I've got a 'thing' for gas giants...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
"Most of the Astronomers are having trouble making it to Prague because of the security anthill that's been kicked over by the hair-gel bomb plot. This will probably have a big effect on how the IAU vote turns out."
All the better to have them converge on Prague without the benefit of the latest in hair care products, and to all end up coiff'ed like Einstein.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Really now...this has already been settled! Pluto is a Class C Geoinactive planet I mean sheesh.....
The real problem with Pluto is that it makes Uranus look huge.
I agree implicitly.. They should do something big with it- like name a cartoon dog after it or something.
I believe they said it shouldn't be any smaller than Uranus.
I am so sorry.
So Pluto has 3 moons? I had never seen this picture before and think it is very cool.
Pluto via Hubble
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
The panel's recommendation is being reviewed by the International Astronomical Union's executive committee. In an interview last week, executive committee member Bob Williams said the definition proposed by the panel had some potential problems, and he was not at all sure if the astronomers voting in Prague this month would approve it.
"At this point, I don't feel confident enough to bet in favor of it," he said.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
It's more than Pluto being tiny. Pluto has a highly elliptical, out-of-plane orbit that crosses over Neptune's orbit, AND its orbit is 3/2 in phase with Neptune, suggesting that it was captured by Neptune's gravity.
Is a "planet" something that was created with the solar system, or is a "planet" simply something that has a moon? Right now, we're using the latter definition.
If you want to see another example of scientific retrenchment, check out Phylocode. For years biologists have been classifying species on a Linnaean 2D grid, inheritance and time, as if God somehow keeps all his evolutions in perfect lockstep. Phylocode, tree-based, uses the inheritance dimension only.
Pluto isn't even anything special in the Kuiper Belt. There are plenty of objects, many of them probably larger than Pluto, that are classed as KBOs, so why isn't Pluto classed as such? If they found an Earth-sized rock orbiting a thousand AUs from the Sun, THAT should be classed as a planet.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
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:
Not really. "pi" is a mathematical constant, that describes a specific, precise, and unmistakable relationship between a platonic circle and its radius.
"Planet", on the other hand, is an arbitrary term, convenient for differentiating between different types of celestial bodies, but not actually bound to a specific natural phenomenon or physical law or mathematical principle.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Any object maneuverable enough to dodge a bullet can't possibly be considered a planet.
KeS
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
Pluto really has more of a historical importance than anything else. We do have good definitions of what a planet is (condensed remnants from star formation's accretion disk), and it should be pretty easy to prove that Pluto does not fit the bill. Size is not the important thing -- Mercury isn't huge, but it certainly is a planet. I guess NASA's New Horizons mission should help clear this up in a decade or so, but I don't think that will have to result in changing the status of Pluto -- leave it alone as a planet (even though it isn't), purely for historical reasons. The search for an object to help explain discrepencies in Neptune's orbit formed a major part of Pervical Lowell's life, and he made significant contributions to astronomy. I think the IAU astronomers may want to leave Pluto a planet as an honor to those who discovered it at a time when such discoveries were very difficult. More and more KBO's will be discovered, but will inevitably be farther and farther away. So -- 9 planets it is, even though it's really 8.
The truth of the matter is that Pluto is a KBO but every time the popular press runs an article pointing that out, astronomers are flooded with calls from Auntie Mabel demanding to know where they get off changing what she learned in school.
This isn't even remotely like a dispute between two theories - it's a simply argument over nomenclature and science has no problem at all simultaneously supporting multiple naming conventions.
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.
People seem to be mising the point. The problem here is not to vote on if Puto is a planet or not. The problem is to define what is a planet. Many people have proposed ways to define "Planet" but then what you apply the proposed definition to our solar system yu get undesired results. Almost every resonable proposed definition results in a solar system with either 8 planets or more than 9. Next problemis that you want your new definition to "work" outside the our solar system on the 100+ planets that have been discovered around other stars.
not a midget.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
A number of years ago, the question of a definition of a planet was raised as a result of discoveries of "planets" outside of our solar system as well as a growing number of Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) discoveries in our solar system. The IAU Division of Planetary Systems Sciences technical committee wisely chose to delay a decision on a definition until a more significant body of data was obtained.
In the mean time, a well meaning but widely misunderstood suggestion from an esteemed Astronomer suggested that the planet Pluto also be given a nice round minor planet number (i.e., reserve the next multiple of 10000). His intent was to recognize the special nature of Pluto as a large member of the KBO (Kuiper Belt Object) family. He never intended to demote Pluto from planet status. However, the press took the phrase "making Pluto a minor planet" and blew the controversy way out of proportion.
An executive committee recommendation on Planet definition was formed to draft a proposal for a definition of a planet. Minutes from the IAU executive committee indicated that they favored definitions that were based on measurable physical properties over arbitrary values. For example, they signaled that they were NOT inclined to look favorably on proposals such as "limit the number of 9 planets", or proposals that set an arbitrary minimum size of a Planet.
Last January at the AAS conference, an IAU liaison announced that the IAU executive committee was scheduled to produce a report on its recommendations just prior to the IAU 26th IAU General Assembly in Prague (Aug 14 to 25, 2006). The liaison recommended that any final comments and recommendations be submitted to the exectuive committee at least a month prior to the IAU general assembly.
I was part of a group that submitted a recommendation that the definition of a Planet encompass a requirement that "it must orbit a primary fuser with sufficient mass to deform it into an spheroidal / oblate spheroidal shape". We realized that our proposal could result in redefining several bodies as planets including the large asteroid Ceres. We proposed that a new sub-class of Planets could be defined (again based on measurable physical properties) to acuminate these new dwarf planets.
We were told that a number of other groups had submitted similar of very similar proposals. I have not examined the executive committee report in detail, however it appears that IAU executive committee agrees, in principle, with such proposals.
On Tuesday 2006 August 22, 12:45-13:45 (local Prague time), in Forum Hall, executive committee recommendation on Planet definition will be presented. Based on the unanimous recommendation of the executive committee, I am hopeful of a favorable outcome form the IAU General assembly.
chongo (was here)
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.
Don't we already say enough crap on here to scare off geek women? *rolleyes*
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
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?
Should not be based on size alone, but should also be based on spin, complexity of orbital perturbations (and I understand that Pluto's orbit is fairly unique in many ways).
Because my wife always told me that it's not size, it's the technique.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.