Slashdot Mirror
IAU Demotes Pluto to 'Dwarf Planet' Status
davidwr writes "It's official. Pluto's been demoted. It's now one of several 'dwarf planets.' I guess we can drop the 'Period' from 'Mary's violet eyes make John stay up nights.'" (Of course, no one says you have to privately agree with the International Astronomical Union.) Several readers have contributed links to the BBC's coverage of the downgrade, as well as the usefully illustrated story at MSNBC.
Basically, in no way at all, as the manga states that "every celestial object has its Sailor Senshi" (japanese edition, volume 18.). For reference, see the later senshi-to-be Amazon quartet (based on "Dwarf Planets" in the Kuiper Belt) appearing in TV SuperS, and the Senshi that apear in "BSSSM Stars", who are based on extrasolar planets.
Just again realized what a crazy otaku I really am...
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
NPR had an astrologer on last night and he said the same thing. Their definition of a planet is different than what the 'experts' say is a planet.
Then again, when you're dealing with flimflam you can pretty much say whatever you want.
The fact that NPR had this segment only served to legitimize this nonsense and continued to give hope to the gullible that astrology is valid.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Andrew
More viagra enhances my Johnson's sexual usefulness, nightly!
I wouldn't call it a screw-up.
The draft proposal was:
Pluto would continue to be a planet, and Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313 would become planets. However, this criterium is reached by hundreds, even thousands of other celestial bodies in our solar system. Under that proposal, all could gain planet status.
The final text is:
This definition does not define the terms "nearly round", nor "neighbourhood". But having a definition, rather than just an enumeration, is in my opinion a big leap forward. Demoting Pluto is a small price to pay.
I quite like the additional criterion of dominance of a body in its neighbourhood. It's not as arbitrary as simply requiring a minimum mass or size.
On the other hand, I do not like the fact that a planet should orbit to Sun to be called a planet. On this point, I preferred the original proposal in orbit around a star. I don't see why our solar system should be any different, why planet-like celestial bodies orbitting other stars are not called planets.
In truth there are three classes of planets. There are rocky planets like the Earth and Mars then there are gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn and finally icy planets like Pluto and other round Kupier Belt objects. None of the planets have perfectly round orbits so orbit is a poor watermark for planet status. Round shape and orbits the Sun are the most important features since roughly round shape denotes a certain mass. The number should increase not decrease there should simply be three classes of planets. If Pluto is to be considered little more than a large comet than the gas giants should be classed as failed stars. The definition for brown dwarf is fairly arbitary like the planet definition. It's arbitary if some compositions are called planets and others not since the remaining planets vary greatly in composition.
Actually, while Pluto comes closer to the Sun than Neptune, they are never that close. Pluto's erratic orbit ensures that it is well above the solar system equator when it does cross. The chart here shows how far it really is at the cross (chart is in AU =~ 149 billion meters).
I came here for a good argument
Is it possible for Pluto and Neptune to one day (like within the next couple billion years) collide?
Nope. Their orbits are in 3:2 orbital resonance; basicly this means they constantly miss each other (a bit like your average commuter bus and train schedule :P). Also, due to the declination of the Pluto orbit it doesn't even touch the Neptune orbit. When seen straight from above, the orbits overlap, but if you go off-angle to just the right spot the Pluto orbit can be seen to be completely separated from Neptune.
"Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
"Clearing" basically means that all other bodies within an orbital range are much smaller. There are many asteroids that cross Earth's orbit, but none are larger than a few tens of km. All 8 planets have cleared their orbital zones. The remainder of objects in those oribtal zones are assorted junk (comets, Trojans, NEOs, Centaurs, Atens, etc). Pluto and Ceres do not qualify because there are objects of comparable size in their respective orbital zones.
2) Pretty cool. Probably cooler than the Shoemaker-Levy impact on Jupiter (and that was very impressive).
3) No... Pluto is basically the size of China and Neptune is considerably bigger. Neptune will come out of it not significantly changed.
4) Colliding worlds might have been relatively common in the early system. You might be interested to know that the most popular current theory of the origin of the moon involves a trojan mars-sized planet striking an early earth with the debris collecting into the moon. This is called the Giant impact hypothesis.
I think they added that to specifically exclude all moons, not just Charon.
If you added up the mass of Pluto and all the other similar objects that cross closer to the Sun than Neptune, you only get a tiny fraction of Neptune's mass. Neptune completely dominates the mass at that distance from the Sun.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Actually, Pluto's orbit isn't erratic, and Neptune dominates its orbit quite nicely. Pluto is 3:2 resonance locked, which makes it a pseudo-moon of Neptune (not entirely dissimilar to Cruithne's relationship with Earth).
n ance
http://www.google.com/search?q=pluto+neptune+reso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne
> On the other hand, I do not like the fact that a planet should orbit to
> Sun to be called a planet. On this point, I preferred the original
> proposal in orbit around a star. I don't see why our solar system
> should be any different, why planet-like celestial bodies orbitting
> other stars are not called planets.
Because they're only defining what a Solar planet is, not the general meaning of the word "planet":
The IAU therefore resolves that planets
and other bodies in our Solar System be
defined into three distinct categories
in the following way...
So the new definition doesn't apply to extrasolar planets. Why didn't they broaden their scope? Maybe the whole point of the exercise was just to deal "once and for all" with the Pluto problem. It's not going to affect the current work of people looking for extrasolar planets.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
Actually (if I did the math correctly) in about 3,529,037,195 years. That's still within the projected lifetime of the solar system, so yes