Slashdot Mirror
Is Pluto a Binary Planet?
astroengine writes "If the Pluto-Charon system were viewed in a similar way to binary stars and binary asteroids, Pluto would become a Pluto-Charon binary planet. After all, Charon is 12% the mass of Pluto, causing the duo to orbit a barycenter that is located above Pluto's surface. Sadly, in the IAU's haste to define what a planet is in 2006, they missed a golden opportunity to define the planetary binary. Interestingly, if Pluto was a binary planet, last week's discovery of a fifth Plutonian moon would have in fact been the binary's fourth moon to be discovered by Hubble — under the binary definition, Charon wouldn't be classified as a moon at all."
I figured it had something to do with dick-waving. I'm not a professional astronomer, don't play one on TV, but I've had an abiding love for the subject since I was growing up in the 60s. If you use the orbital argument then it makes sense, because Ceres, too was thought to be a planet in 1801 (It accorded nicely with the 'traditional' Bode's Law). It didn't take long for the scientific community to figure out thought, after Vesta, Juno, and other asteroids were found that these were just the largest members of a population of many; we now estimate hundreds of thousands. Likewise the compostional argument works in favor of demotion as well. Working outward we have rocky inner planets, two gas giants, two ice giants, and then a buttload of comparitively very tiny solid icy bodies, that when they get perturbed and wander closer, get called comets. I don't understand the emotion behind the debate. in 1801 the asteroid belt wasn't known, so they called Ceres a planet. In 1930 the Kuiper belt wasn't known, so they called Pluto one. We've learned differently. What's all the fuss?
Astronomical knowledge is evolving quite a bit faster than the rest of the library. I'm not necessarily saying that any IAU decisions are correct but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with recategorizing. Isn't it that a hallmark of the intelligent?
No. I can write a computer algorithm to sort something; that doesn't make it intelligent. Anyone can make something more complicated -- true genius is making things simpler.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
LInguists would laugh at this, if for no other reason then they change the technical definition not the common one, so your whole complain is a straw man.
The only reason the Pluto stuff (and the IAU) has gotten so much attention and ranting is that an American discovered Pluto and a bunch of patriots got butthurt that 'europeans' were taking away their thunder.
When there is ambiguity, professional and standards organizations redefine stuff all the time. This was a pretty routine thing to do and would have gone completely under the radar if nationalism had not come into play and got people fired up. In the end, they couldn't keep Pluto as a 'planet' without including a significant number of other bodies, which would have pissed off people too.
But like many issues, the original energy behind the backlash has been pretty much lost on the people who continue to push it today....which was part of the point. You can wrap up all sorts of nationalistic bullshit if you tie it into other existing narratives that appeal to the same people... think of the children, elitists forcing things on the public.. plays to the same audience and plays well off even less knowledge of the issue.