Why Pluto Still Matters

StartsWithABang writes Nearly a century ago, Pluto was discovered, and for 48 years it remained the only known object whose orbit takes it beyond the gravitational pull of Neptune. In a single generation, we've now discovered more than 1,000 additional objects in the Kuiper Belt, but does that make Pluto any less special? Here's a strong argument for why Pluto might matter now more than ever.

Comments

Why Pluto matters most?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Simple, because a probe is going to study it very soon.

Re:Why Pluto matters most?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a retarded article. Such buildup, only to state that Pluto matters because, and I quote, "as a child, Pluto reminded me of myself."

Re:Why Pluto matters most?

[Curunir_wolf]

FTA:

The fact that there are other things out there that are bigger, smarter, faster, stronger, or better than you, in any regard, in absolutely no way diminishes how special you are.

So it's important because it's a special little snowflake, just like the millennials have been taught to think of themselves. Yea, well, guess what? You're not special. And neither is Pluto.

Re:Why Pluto matters most?

[jbengt]

Reminds me of a T-shirt my son has with hundreds of identical stick-figure people drawn on it and a caption that says:
I'm Unique
just like everybody else

Great summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a strong argument for why Pluto might matter now more than ever.

Maybe, just maybe, this is something that could've been added to the summary.

I think i agree

[Poorcku]

The arguments in favor of Pluto are purely subjective, and are mostly related to the core-self identity of the writer. The funny part is that I subscribe completely. And perhaps this psychological factor should matter in this case alone.

What abot Goofy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, Goofy as s Mickey's friend, right? He's clearly a canine.

Then how can Mickey also have a pet dog?

And what about the fucking horses?

Sentimental claptrap

[Anonymous Coward]

Pluto is what it is. We have a probe about to visit so that's great. I detest the IAU definition of a planet not because Pluto isn't included but because it is an ill thought out inconsistent mess that was voted in on the last day of the IAU conference when most of the voting members had gone one after discarding a front runner definition that made a lot more sense and was more subjective. Yes it made Pluto a planet but so what!?

The definition they did accept in the end has a LOT wrong with it:
It explictly mentions the sun so extrasolar planets aren't planets.
It defines dwarf planet such that a dwarf planet is not a planet (very confusing especially for a definition intended for lay people).
It defines a planet that has not cleared it's path as not being a planet. Well what about the Trojan Asteroids and Jupiter? Is Jupiter not a planet?
They're just some of the highlights. The definition is a complete mess.

Re:Sentimental claptrap

[umafuckit]

The problem is that "planet" was defined in ancient times as a wondering star; back then there were only 5 of them and so it was a clear-cut definition. Since then, the word has stuck but our knowledge has increased and so it's no longer trivial to decide what is and is not a planet. Thus, any definition will be controversial.

I don't really agree with all your points, though, as I think they're rather nitpicky. For instance, we don't know much about extra-solar planets so it's ok to lump them into one class for now. The class has a descriptive name: "extra-solar planet", so we're good there.

The Trojan Asteriods are in stable orbits created by Jupiter and the Sun. In effect, Jupiter has cleared its path as everything in its orbit is best thought of with respect to it. So Jupiter really isn't violating the spirit of the definition.

It also makes sense to have "dwarf planets." When you look at what orbits the sun you have the inner rocky planets, the outer gas giants, the asteroid belt, the trans-Neptunian objects, and comets. The asteroid belt and the TNOs are known to contain members of substantial size and it's reasonable to call those members dwarf planets. What makes less sense is trying to shoehorn too many disparate objects into one definition. The IAU ruling was trying to move away from that, and in this respect I support it.

Mickey Mouse was in court suing Minnie for divorce

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge stated, "Mr. Mouse, I can't see fit to approve your divorce petition based solely on your opinion that your wife Minnie is crazy; in this state you have to have a valid cause for divorce."
Mickey replied, "Your honor, with all due respect, I didn't say she's crazy -- I said she's fucking Goofy!"

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

This sentence is at the core of all this rambling: "The fact that there are other things out there that are bigger, smarter, faster, stronger, or better than you, in any regard, inÂabsolutely no way diminishes how special you are." Wishful thinking at best, delusionary denial at best: the fact that there are better persons than him make him insignificant, mundane and unworthy. People like him should just accept it, understand how low their place in the world is, and behave accordingly. Seriously, if a child is a retarded spazz what good are you doing in telling it it's "special" (unless you mean handicapped) and equal to the others? You're just setting it up for a big letdown later. Be honest: call shit by its name.

Not worth reading

[toxygen01]

Even though I'm a huge fan of space and astronomy, I must say TFA certainly doesn't reach qualities to be posted on slashdot. The approver must have been drunk or what

Re:Not worth reading

[tommeke100]

typical click-bait: "read here why Pluto still matters...."
How about giving a real abstract on why it matters on the Slashdot post and people can click through for reference and details if they want to.

Re:Not worth reading

[Will.Woodhull]

Having RTFA, it is evident to me that the reason the abstract lacked any redeeming quality of any kind is because the article itself had no redeeming quality of any kind.

Slashdot: I wasted several minutes of my life reading TFA. I want them back.

Re:Once a planet, always a planet

[Paradise Pete]

Once a planet, always a planet

Modulo Alderaan, of course.

Re:Once a planet, always a planet

[umafuckit]

Do you consider Ceres a planet? Because until more recently it, and IIRC one or two other asteriods, were considered planets. Today, hardly anyone has hard of Ceres. Ceres got demoted what it was realised that was simply a large object among millions that shared its orbit. It's the same for Pluto.

I am Pluto?

[buchner.johannes]

But I think there’s something even more compelling at play here: most of us learn about Pluto as children, and as a child, Pluto reminded me of myself. It’s smaller than all the other planets, and it was the newest one to come along. To me, it represented all the undiscovered mysteries, all that was still unknown, and the hope that someday, it might matter more. I was actually rooting, as a kid, for Pluto to be bigger than Mercury, simply because I wanted it to be more important in some measurable way. And because it took longer to orbit the Sun than everything else, because it was different from all the other planets in practically every way, I truly believed it was special.

It’s been some thirty-odd years since I was that child, learning about Pluto for the first time, and in those same thirty-odd years, our estimation of the Solar System has grown to make it a larger, more well-known place. But in that same time, I’ve grown, too, and the most important lesson I’ve learned about Pluto—that I would have told my young self if I could—is this:

The fact that there are other things out there that are bigger, smarter, faster, stronger, or better than you, in any regard, in absolutely no way diminishes how special you are.

Compare that to Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Pluto is not a planet. GET OVER IT!

Maybe there is something to it and astronomy should incorporate peoples feelings in their classifications. Probably not.
But maybe in the communication? Actually i think they could have classified planets in "Big planets" and "Dwarf planets" instead of making "dwarf planets" not a subclass of "planets".

Re:I am Pluto?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You shouldn't anthropomorphize planets. They hate when you do that.

Re:I am Pluto?

[slimshady76]

I believe they like to be called "little planets" rather than "dwarf" ones. Political correctness please!

Re:I am Pluto?

[The Grim Reefer]

Ceres thoughts on Pluto.

Re:I am Pluto?

[stud9920]

Pluto is not anthropomorphized. He's antropomorphic Mickey's dog. Antropomorphic Mickey's antropomorphic friend is Goofy.

Re:I am Pluto?

[T.E.D.]

Pluto is not anthropomorphized. He's antropomorphic Mickey's dog.

Caninopomorphized then?

"beyond the gravitational pull of Neptune"

[tal_mud]

"... for 48 years it remained the only known object whose orbit takes it beyond the gravitational pull of Neptune."

Wow! A truly distinct object. Even remote galaxies aren't "beyond the gravitational pull of Neptune." which drops off as 1/R^2 out to infinity but never disappears. I wonder what makes Pluto unique?

Re:"beyond the gravitational pull of Neptune"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the article is referring to the Hill Sphere.

Sentimental nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pluto still matters because it is the most well studied known Kuiper belt object and we are finally about to get a good look at it.

Re:Once a planet, always a planet

[ZeRu]

. Today, hardly anyone has hard of Ceres..

Thank goodness, I would be worried for myself if seeing any celestial object would gave me a hard (unless they looked like a beautiful women which they generally don't, but even in that case, I would rather stare at a beautiful woman instead).

Even the summary is factually wrong

[JerryLove]

"Pluto was discovered, and for 48 years it remained the only known object whose orbit takes it beyond the gravitational pull of Neptune."

Long Period comets for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... - Discovered 1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... - Discovered 1911
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X... - Discovered 1106 (though I don't know if they determined its orbit at the time)

Some of these have orbits that take them 2 orders of magnitude farther from the Sun than Pluto

Re:Your post

[ihtoit]

I see what you did there. Well played, anonymous adversary, well played.