Slashdot Mirror
'Yes, Pluto Is a Planet' (sfgate.com)
schwit1 quotes a Washington Post perspective piece by the authors of a new book about Pluto:
The process for redefining planet was deeply flawed and widely criticized even by those who accepted the outcome. At the 2006 IAU conference, which was held in Prague, the few scientists remaining at the very end of the week-long meeting (less than 4 percent of the world's astronomers and even a smaller percentage of the world's planetary scientists) ratified a hastily drawn definition that contains obvious flaws. For one thing, it defines a planet as an object orbiting around our sun -- thereby disqualifying the planets around other stars, ignoring the exoplanet revolution, and decreeing that essentially all the planets in the universe are not, in fact, planets.
Even within our solar system, the IAU scientists defined "planet" in a strange way, declaring that if an orbiting world has "cleared its zone," or thrown its weight around enough to eject all other nearby objects, it is a planet. Otherwise it is not. This criterion is imprecise and leaves many borderline cases, but what's worse is that they chose a definition that discounts the actual physical properties of a potential planet, electing instead to define "planet" in terms of the other objects that are -- or are not -- orbiting nearby. This leads to many bizarre and absurd conclusions. For example, it would mean that Earth was not a planet for its first 500 million years of history, because it orbited among a swarm of debris until that time, and also that if you took Earth today and moved it somewhere else, say out to the asteroid belt, it would cease being a planet.
To add insult to injury, they amended their convoluted definition with the vindictive and linguistically paradoxical statement that "a dwarf planet is not a planet." This seemingly served no purpose but to satisfy those motivated by a desire -- for whatever reason -- to ensure that Pluto was "demoted" by the new definition. By and large, astronomers ignore the new definition of "planet" every time they discuss all of the exciting discoveries of planets orbiting other stars.
Even within our solar system, the IAU scientists defined "planet" in a strange way, declaring that if an orbiting world has "cleared its zone," or thrown its weight around enough to eject all other nearby objects, it is a planet. Otherwise it is not. This criterion is imprecise and leaves many borderline cases, but what's worse is that they chose a definition that discounts the actual physical properties of a potential planet, electing instead to define "planet" in terms of the other objects that are -- or are not -- orbiting nearby. This leads to many bizarre and absurd conclusions. For example, it would mean that Earth was not a planet for its first 500 million years of history, because it orbited among a swarm of debris until that time, and also that if you took Earth today and moved it somewhere else, say out to the asteroid belt, it would cease being a planet.
To add insult to injury, they amended their convoluted definition with the vindictive and linguistically paradoxical statement that "a dwarf planet is not a planet." This seemingly served no purpose but to satisfy those motivated by a desire -- for whatever reason -- to ensure that Pluto was "demoted" by the new definition. By and large, astronomers ignore the new definition of "planet" every time they discuss all of the exciting discoveries of planets orbiting other stars.
If Pluto is a planet, aren't a large number of other bodies in the solar system also planets?
Long live Pluto!
But not because of that.
I drove by a gym and a restaurant claiming to be planets!! It seems like the definition must still be pretty broad.
... my son's going to fail his science class, and when that happens, I'm suing you first.
Pluto and it's moons are a pretty significant set of objects, and they cross Neptunes orbit, so does that mean Neptune is no longer a planet since it sure as heck hasn't "cleared it's zone" ?
Maybe they were trying to uncover A.I. spies?
I mean this is pretty ridiculous. They say "a dwarf planet is not a planet" and yet they affirm it is a planet by saying so. I mean, the first part does but then they say it's not one. That's the same as trying to convice me that TRUE equals FALSE while I perfaafkly knwaaop tiiss'stt ialllogiccccal+_(%$#@NO CARRIER
#DeleteFacebook
Seriously, this again? Categories by nature have fuzzy boundaries. We'll have trouble telling how best to categorize the edge cases. What matters is what categories are most useful for understanding things. If the experts in an area decide to categorize something one way then let them.
To add insult to injury, they amended their convoluted definition with the vindictive and linguistically paradoxical statement that "a dwarf planet is not a planet." This seemingly served no purpose but to satisfy those motivated by a desire -- for whatever reason -- to ensure that Pluto was "demoted" by the new definition.
If I'm following this argument correctly, they are arguing that it is "linguistically paradoxical" to have something of the form "[adjective] x" to not also be in the category labeled "x". But we do this all the time. For example, in math a "skew field" is not necessarily a field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_ring, and one can come up with many other examples in STEM fields. This is a natural thing that we do all the time. And the specific reason in this case that dwarf planets were not planets was to avoid then making Eris and Ceres and a a whole bunch of other objects also planets.
I'm fascinated that with everything else going on the world, serious people apparently think that arguing over what we call a planet or not is an important issue.
It's pretty simple. If Pluto identifies as a planet, then it is one. All of this classification by scientists is just an attempt to create a privileged, sexist, and racist system that discriminates against small planetoids.
Well I for one am glad this is finally settled.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
just begs for this clip of Jerry .
To add insult to injury, they amended their convoluted definition with the vindictive and linguistically paradoxical statement that "a dwarf planet is not a planet."
Very precise.
It outrages me, that in our present revolutionary epoch, in which the right not to be offended has materialized ubiquitously upon social commentary sites, that it's okay to to call a dwarf planet less than a planet.
Clearly, dwarf humans are not less tha....
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Right, they're exoplanets.
Actually, that's the core physics of it. Planets often form from debris fields and kick out objects. The asteroid belt is one area where other planets (Jupiter) prevent this process to occur which is why it's a belt instead of a planet.
Until the day we can move a planet to an asteroid belt, that's a moot point of discussion. Yes, then it might suddenly no longer be a planet. The heavens are not a static place.
I will admit that dwarf planet is one of the areas I tend to agree is very subjective, but it's to avoid classifying every roundish object we can find in the solar system as a planet because that's generally not helpful. Planets have to be substantial enough to be clearly visible and distinct. If we don't care enough to make the distinction, we can call every asteroid, every pebble in space, a planet. Or we can go for natural roundness for a measurable but still arbitrary standard (why do we care if something is round?).
Because most exoplanets are known wholly by their mass or dimming of their companion star. At the moment, that makes them incredibly massive and makes it difficult to impossible to know if any of the other qualifiers (beyond dwarf planet) could apply. Ergo, we can only group them on their general mass and know little about most of their solar systems as a whole (like companion smaller planets or if there's asteroid belts).
You want to call Pluto a planet, go right ahead. You want to tell people that while their definition has a lot of value, you don't use the purely scientific definition of planet any more than you use "fruit" scientifically? More power to you. You want to call holes in this scientific definition? Uh, yea, worker harder.
There is almost only one country that does not use the SI meter system and there is almost only one country that thinks pluto is a planet. USA is sometime ridiculous in its fights. All the rest of the world knows why USA does not want the title of "planet" to be removed from Pluto ... ;-)
(Spoiler alert : It is the only planet of the solar system discovered by a US citizen as far as we know)
If you plan to call it a planet, what about Eris or Makemake, etc ? Where do we stop ?
That is why there were rules defined to set the limit. As a consequence of those rules, Pluto is no more a planet of the solar system but a dwarf planet such as Eris or Makemake ... If you don't like it you can try to change the classification in the next conference. But doing so, we might end up with tens or hundreds of new "planets" because of the removal of rule 3 that block Pluto from beeing a planet. I don't think pupils from the world would be glad of this change when they will have to learn a lot more of planets because of a USA caprice :P
It seems that 40, 50 years politicians were different.
Not since.
This might be the 13th sign of the apocalypse.
The bakers dozen of failures.
No brain, no pain.
Until it commits to clearing out that massive amount of debris, it's back to asteroid status again.
The reason that they think the IAU's definition of a planet is ambiguous is because they have the definition wrong. A planet does not have to completely clear its neighborhood of all other objects (the earth would not qualify if that were the case, since it shares its orbit with Luna, its moon). What makes it a planet is when it has cleared the neighborhood of all similarly sized objects.
So yes, Earth would not be a planet if it shared an orbit with a planet like mars or venus, and would be considered either a moon or possibly even an asteroid if it shared an orbit with Jupiter or Saturn, depend on whether it was gravitationally captured by the gas giant or not.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This is so fucking critical.
promise. Dammit.
Hey, don't expect society to conform to your delusion!
if you want to play planetary dress up, feel free. but if you were born a planet, then you're a planet.. and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.
Problem #1: Authors complain that the definition of "planet" doesn't include exoplanets (because they don't orbit the Sun)..
Solution: Change definition to include other stars or say that the particular star doesn't matter if the other criteria are met.
Problem #2: Authors complain that the criterion that a planet must "clear its orbit" is imprecise and is dependent on other objects.
Solution: None needed. Let the IAU define the border cases. As for being dependent on other objects, the point is that for an object to be a planet, it must utterly dominate its orbit, leaving nothing significant.
Problem #3: By the IAU definition, Earth was not a planet for the first 500 MYears of its existence, because it hadn't yet cleared its orbit. Authors call this "bizarre and absurd".
Solution: Why is this a problem? There was no guarantee that the Earth was going to survive as a planet. Another Theia-like impact could have ended it.
Problem #4: It is a linguistic paradox (and vindictive to boot) to say "a dwarf planet is not a planet."
Solution: So what? A guinea pig is not a pig. Spotted dick is not a dick. Etc.
It never ceases to amaze me how emotional the "Pluto is a planet" people are and how the MSM gives these people much more publicity then they deserve. In the immortal words of Neil DeGrasse tyson, "Get over it!"
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
The whole reason for "demoting" Pluto had nothing to do with Pluto itself. It had to do with Eris. When Eris was discovered, it appeared to be (because of its albedo) larger than Pluto. It is, in fact, more massive tham Pluto is though slightly smaller. Because of its size, the discoverer was making a strong case for having it accepted as the solar system's 10th planet. While this gave NASA a huge ole woody, because they were counting the dollar signs of how a newly discovered actual planet would spur public opinion for exploration, it caused significant consternation at the IAU. That's actually understating things. A few members of the IAU were quite literally horrified at the prospect. They were looking at the fact Michael Brown's team had discovered scads of Trans-Neptunian-Objects, that there very well could be half a dozen or more additional ones the size of Pluto/Eris, and they were quite happy with the set of planets we already had, thank-you-very-much. There was a certain historical congruency to it and no upstart finding a TNO that happened to be as large as Pluto was going to get his name listed in the same breath as such nobility as William Herschel. So they decided that in the end, that since they really couldn't call Eris a planet if Pluto was a planet, they did what they thought was the lesser evil. They preserved the sanctity of the rest of the solar system by demoting Pluto.
Of course the definition has holes and is not even self-consistent. The whole purpose of it was to demote Pluto and all other similar objects and to ensure that it was worded such that no other TNO could ever be labelled a planet, by nature of being out in the area where nothing is "cleared".
What people need to ask themselves is this: does the fact that the IAU had its collective head up its ass tell me what I consider to be a planet? The answer for me personally is a big whopping no. And when it comes up in conversation, usually after I name all 9 traditional planets (sometimes adding Eris) and get "corrected" that, hey, don't I know Pluto isn't a planet any more, that's when I let the poor smarty-pants have it with both barrels. Not really their fault, but anyone toeing the IAU party line and not willing to think for themselves deserves to get it.
The IAU isn't an official body with any authority other than what they have taken on themselves. And if they are going to let historical politics cloud scientific thinking, they certainly aren't going to speak for me. I'd like to see some textbook publishers take a stand too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The moon is large enough that the Earth and moon are considered a binary planet.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I fail to see the problem
It doesn't orbit the sun on the same plane as the other planets. Pluto just happens to have been an object discovered first at that distance. I'm fine with not calling the Earth a planet, until it cleared it's path around the Sun.
You cannot define a model for how things work if you cannot define what goes in which model. Planets are not large asteroids, they are materially very different and they behave in very different ways. Same with comets.
If you do not understand the distinctions, you cannot understand the mechanics.
There should be precisely one model per label and one label per model. If that is not the case, then the labels are wrong and to hell with any vote on the subject. Science is not a democracy.
As for the IAU, the only astronomer I ever held in respect played the xylophone.
and the idiot who went around claiming that T-Rex was a scavenger and could not hunt anything. He was a professor of something or another.
Wah, wah, wah
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
This is how science works. In 2006 they didn't know what we do now. To speak in the same context is short sighted. Fuck off Washington Post. Piece of shit Bezos news outlet
The accepted definition of a double planet system is one where the the barycenter, the point around which both bodies orbit, lies outside of both bodies.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It is "far out", orbits the Sun, has a name.
PLUTO
is good enough - who cares about legalities when there are no lawyers out there?
Which was indeed the case 250 million years ago. So the moon was a planet in the relatively recent past. Which means the Earth did not clear its orbit, the moon did.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
During all of this, Pluto has been thumbing its nose at the astro-elite. Do you know Pluto has more moons than several other "legitamate" planets, including Mercury, Earth, and Mars?
Best Pluto joke IMHO
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I'll be deep in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missourah.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
OK. I just snorted wine out my nose. Thanks, guys, for my laugh of the day.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Doing astronomy public outreach I deal with a lot of people who are angry about the Pluto situation. It's possible that you are the angriest of them all. Are you okay?
Will pluto change its mass because it's called a planet or anything else???? No, what it's called doesn't matter, stop bickering about stupid shit like this.
Ethan Siegal at Starts With A Bang (makes the point that https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...) makes the point that what is a planet should be considered in light of what we know about solar system evolution. According to that perspective, it does not appear that Pluto is a planet. If Pluto is a planet, then there are over 100 of them.
Definitions are never right or wrong, incorrect or correct. Only useful or not useful.
The scientific redefinition of planet is useful, this article was not.
The points made in the article are fine but unnecessary. The IAU is just a bunch of europeon yurofag pussy n1ggers whose purpose is to put on a huge international social justice circle jerk with your money because, most importantly, FUCK YOU.
Which was indeed the case 250 million years ago. So the moon was a planet in the relatively recent past. Which means the Earth did not clear its orbit, the moon did.
Huh? What are you talking about? The Moon formed closer to the Earth and is slowly moving away. 250 million years ago it was somewhat closer and in a few billion years it may become a double planet.
Besides by your definition, Charon is also a planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You forgot "heteronormative" and "ciscentric," you transphobe.
So Neptune isn’t a planet? Every so often Pluto is closer to the Sun for 20 years... so Neptune has some work to do...
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Speaking as a linguist, this whole discussion on the planethood of Pluto is just silly. Pluto is still the same icy body it always was, what earthly (pardon the pun) difference does it make whether the word "planet" is defined to include it or exclude it? I just don't understand why anyone cares.
I get why the IAU wanted to ditch Pluto as a full fledged planet, but the definition they came up with was idiotic. It doesn't even technically allow for extra solar bodies to be defined as planets. A better definition would probably be any body that reaches hydrostatic equilibrium & is in a stable orbit. From there simply class out planets into various categories, create a special category for Earthlike planets so we can feel special about ourselves, a category for barren moons, one for smaller bodies with atmospheres/oceans, one for super earths, rogues and the list goes on. It leaves things open ended in case we discover new "classes" of planets and allows us a place to shove all of those smaller objects off to the side so the public doesn't have to grapple with the realities of a complex solar system.
The classification does not change anything truly, but frankly the IAU kerfuffel DOES have a point : People want to keep Pluto out of sentiment. When you point them there is then more than 100 planet to add if Pluto is a planet, THEN they go back to the "but-this-is-what-i-learnt" BS defense. The IAU definition might not be 100% good, but some of the objection to it are stupid. Like the one it does not apply to other solar system. That one is frankly stupid , change the grammar to "its star" and bam, problem solved (and frankly when I read the definition the first time I read it that way too). I think that simply a lot of people cannot emotionally let go of that pluto-named TNO and will do anything including CT about not giving credit. Pretty much avoid recognizing that Pluto as a planet was pretty damn only an accident due to detection as opposed to a real definition. Just looking at the ecliptic should give IMO a hint.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Some people think Pluto should still be a planet!!!!
In other breaking news!!!!! water is wet, and the sky is blue.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
What he actually got in trouble was publishing in Italian instead of Latin where he basically made a comment that was taken to be opposition to the Christian theory of the omnipotence of god. I guess I could also point out that the reason this came up was because everybody at the time was seeing that Ptolomic doesn't work but there were 2 theories, tychonic and Copernican that both work because they're mechanically equivalent. I could also point out one of the reasons the G man published in the first place was his old college buddy, the pope, asked him to. Yeah, really.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
You can't contradict the poster that was on the wall during my childhood! Change is anti-science!
ROFLCOPTER
Yes, the IAU definition is flawed, but when you look at the other characteristics of Pluto as a Trans-Neptunian Object it makes more sense. Now what has changed that since we have visited Pluto it has become a place, a world in its own right. It is no longer a faint point of light. Same goes for every other object we've visited. They have become places. Calling something a world is more metaphorical than scientific, but it satisfies that desire to elevate its status.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't help your argument.
In 5 billion years the Sun will be a Red Giant. Does that mean we have to call it one right now?
Is it possible, perhaps, that the Universe is dynamic and not static?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
"Yes, Pluto Is a Planet" say people selling their new book about Pluto. And they're conveniently re-igniting the controversy at the time of publication. That seems to be the whole story. Wake me up when the IAU changes the definition again. That's likely to happen when they can form a consensus on extra-solar planets but it's unlikely to reverse the demotion of Pluto.
A profession that calls any element heavier than Helium a "metal" really isn't one that we should consider absolute authorities on everyday usage of English.
Right, a strawberry is not a berry by its botanical definition (a tomato, however, is), but we still call it strawberry and put alongside other berries in your dessert. And Pluto is not a planet by its astronomical definition, but you can still say that you visited a planet when you land on Pluto.
For decades, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Ceres, Astraea, Hebe, Iris, Flora, Metis, Hygiea, Parthenope, Victoria, Egeria, Irene and Eunomia were officially classified as planets. Until a new planet definition was widely accepted in 1854. And once more, the book authors were not part of the process. Therefore, this needs to be rewound, and the planetary status voted publicly upon on Facebook!
Everyone who believes otherwise is a Planet Denier!
A profession that refuses to abandon the cgs unit system. Hey, I enjoy ergs as much as the next fellow...
Hades is the Greek god of the underworld. Pluto is the Roman version.
And in old greek, Plouton is one of Hades' epithets - i.e.: adjectives often used together with His name to describe Him. (Just like Zeus Himself is usually "all-seeing" or the "storm gatherer", etc.)
It means "the rich / the rich-giver", because Hades is the god of the underworld and earth itself (as opposed to Posseidon who's got the seas and Zeus who's in charge of the sky), and that's where most of mines are and on what crops grow. (Might also have been because, except for heros, most mortals - both good and bad ones - end up in Hades' realm - different sections of the underworld serve as both hell *and* heaven, unlike in christian mythology - so He ends up with the most follower).
Over time, this has shifted to his euphemistical name (the thing mortals use to name him as to not anger Him) He became known "The Rich / The Rich Giver". (Just like in christian mythology, Satan is called often "the devil" instead of by his name).
And then again, over time this became used as His official name. That's what the Romans eventually picked-up in Latin.
Fun fact, the Latin "Jupiter" (in nominative case) has a similar construction : it's the contraction of "Zeus + pater" ("the father" - obviously once you look at the genealogy of most of the Greeko-Roman pantheon). But when declined in other cases, only the name is kept, e.g.: Jovis (genetive case).
So for some period of time "Pluto" is also what the Greel go of the underworld was called,
and even for some period of time it was His actual name.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Minor planet 134340 Pluto, Dwarf Planet extraordinary, transneptunian and Kuiper belt object of the highest class, shows the IAU its five magnificent moons.
A red giant is a star that exists at point Y along the main sequence. The sun as it is now is a star that exists at point X along the main sequence.
Astronomers with any sense call the sun a main sequence star. Everything else is ephemera.They may include that ephemera, such as element ratios, temperature, diameter, etc, because that defines where along the curve the sun is. But its core classification is invariant. And that is critical.
The ephemera is invariant of space - it doesn't matter where the sun is, you could teleport it to the other side of the universe and it would continue to have the same element ratios, temperature and diameter. They are invariant of the observer - all observers would agree on the same values, after relativistic effects are considered.
They are not invariant with time because they vary with time. However, and this is critical, they vary according to a clear predictive model. A model that can be falsified. A model, not to put too fine a point on it, that is actually scientific. They therefore do not vary randomly.
Do you see how critical this is? Here, we have a classification that selects a model, and a state space that selects where we are on the model. We can then use that model to say what the next state space will be.
How the hell are we supposed to do that with the IAU's definitions?
According to the IAU definition, if Earth were to be launched outside of the solar system, it would be classed as a star. A brown dwarf. What the hell are we supposed to do with that? If Jupiter also did, it would also become a brown dwarf. They'd not be classed as distinct but the same. How is that useful? What model do we apply that will work for both?
Pluto has a liquid core, has liquid water, has active geology and an atmosphere. And we're supposed to use the same model for it as we would for Ceres, which has none of those properties? How is that useful? How is that predictive?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It doesn't matter what you call it. Pluto is Pluto. The term "planet" is an unfortunate legacy of a superstitious, pre-telescope era anyway. Other than the fact that they had their collective heads up their collective asses, the IAU's extreme difficulty in coming up with an acceptable definition just shows what a worthless term it is. As a category, it doesn't have any useful scientific meaning. What does Mercury have in common with Jupiter, or Mars with Neptune?
The terms "gas giant", "ice giant", "rocky planet", "asteroid" and "TNO" at least try to categorise similar objects.
Perhaps you are thinking of Plutarch?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What purpose does changing the definition have?
Unless there were many statements to be made about planets that didn't hold for Pluto, there is no linguistic shortcut to be gained by removing Pluto.
Has science become just a language game?
This is the nonsense that arises when science regresses beyond the stamp collecting phase and moves into the domain of stamp organizing. It is no surprise that this process is happening in astronomy due to the lack of exploring and experimenting available to be done.
If you know the mass, composition, trajectory, etc. of an object, does it really matter what you call it? Calling an object a planet doesn't provide any additional information about the object.
No, it's not. Bye.
(just a flaimbait)
Nobody had made a mom joke yet? Ok: your mom identifie herself as a planet.
And the so-called planets are objects suspended above us and no larger than 1,000 feet across.
It is downright criminal that Newton's hoax of gravity has been perpetuated for over 300 years.
It's time for people to use their own eyes and think for themselves instead of mindlessly accepting lies by a long dead huckster as facts.
Does this mean Scroopy Noopers is wrong or are all these scientists on the take for that sweet sweet plutonium too?
I never accepted the demotion of Pluto. I don't recognize it.
If it's mostly spherical, OR has an atmosphere, OR has a natural orbiting moon, AND it orbits a star, then it's a planet.
If it's not spherical, or does not have an atmosphere, AND does not have a natural orbiting moon, BUT it has significant mass that a person could stand on the surface, then it's a planetoid.
If it has all the characteristics of a planet but does not orbit a star, then it's a rogue planet.
The definition of "Dwarf planet" needs to be defined strictly by the amount of mass it has, but meets all other requirements of planet.
People tell you the earth is flat and scientist tell you pluto isn't a planet. What's the world coming to!
https://i.imgur.com/SAZj3N2.jp...
FTFS:
. . . ratified a hastily drawn definition that contains obvious flaws.
I have no problem with allowing the IAU to define this new class of object. They just need to tighten up the definition and stop handling it like republicans trying to pass a tax scam.
Maybe not everybody knows, but the story of Pluto is almost identical to Ceres, and as far as I know there was no official definition of planet before, so it is not like they "redefined", they finally created a clear definition of what planet is.
Anyway, who cares the name in a classification, it's more important to have a logical, standardized and useful classification.
Too stupid for words.
At that point in time, one's view of the solar system would have been that it was still a hot mess, and that certain distinguished bodies were well on the their way toward becoming planets in due time, after the gravitational wet wipe had done it's thing.
There's nothing wrong, in principle, in using dynamical evolution as a definitional concept, even if, at certain points in time, it's somewhat forward looking.
Maybe it's wrong here, maybe it isn't.
Just because other fields have made pedagogical (and possibly other) mistakes (re: Mathematical skew fields), does not mean that it is OK for astronomy to make a similar mistake.
I have no problem with Pluto being called a dwarf planet, so long as it is recognized as a planet. So what if Eris, Ceres and a handful of other Kuiper Belt objects get classified as planets, either now or in the future? The IAU was 'protecting' the classification of planet against a non-problem. It's no wonder they went off track.
Sesame Street.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.
1. Planets should be within 7.5 degrees of the Earth's ecliptic plane.
2. Planets should not cross the orbits of other planets.
3. Orbits should be roughly circular around the sun.
I am going to visit it on the spaceship âoeI dont give a Fuck!â
That said, it really would be an awesome place to visit. Desolate, but awesome.
Hey, you got it all wrong again! ... or Comatoid? Planetoid or Planetissimal? How far do you want to go! AC? Hu? Mocking us again? I know you, try your mocking game elsewhere!
Either it is a Planet or not. Planetoid makes no sense art all! What is next? Comet or Cometoid
Now, come on Pluto, leave that cat alone, and don't piss at that car, the owner will shoot you, or us both!! Come on Pluto!!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Exactly. You earthlings need to check your cis-planet privilege.
#PlutoidLivesMatter
If I pick a pool ball up off the table does it cease to be a pool ball? No, of course not. Making the definition of planet context sensitive is strange.
A planet of earth's size is far too tiny to qualify as any kind of brown dwarf, not even a sub brown dwarf (the lower limit for which is approximately 1 jupiter mass). No formal name has been given to such an object because none have ever been discovered. Colloquially, it is might be referred to as a rogue or interstellar planet. If we do ever discover one (and it's quite likely they exist), then I imagine the ICU will settle on a formal name at that time.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
IAU, damnit.... I saw the typo literally the very second I hit "submit".
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
....in the Kuiper belt. It's not a planet. Get over it.
What do we do about dwarf humans?! Are they humans?!
Yes, of course they are humans.
They are just not physically capable of some things that the common, regularly occurring humans can do.
e.g. Excel at basketball -- with those regular humans.
Seems to me that the dwarf planets are physically challenged (handicapped?) when it comes to gravity.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Or the moons will rise up and start clearing out THEIR orbital zones.
Bob Stein, http://bobste.in
The Moon formed closer to the Earth and is slowly moving away. 250 million years ago it was somewhat closer and in a few billion years it may become a double planet.
Notwithstanding the Sun becoming a red giant and engulfing both (~5 billion years from now), Earth would tidally lock to the Moon (~50 billion years from now), which would stop the increasing separation between the two before the system becomes a double planet.
Is that you?
I've studied old greek in high school, thus a long time ago.
Most of my sources are printed on paper (and collection dust out of my reach somewhere back at my parent's)
As an online encyclopedia that usually is valued a lot by those who think wikipedia is utter garbage, I would point to Britanica.
Among all the paper source I've had, the mythology books by Robert Graves were among my favorite (and will cover way much more than simple trivial elements like what are Greek god's traditional epithets).
And you know you could use this question as an opening to go talk to that cute geeky shy girl from humanities.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]