|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pluto is no longer a planet
| Quote: |
| The top Scientists from around the world on Thursday approved a new definition of a planet, downgrading Pluto's status to leave just eight classical planets.
After a heated debate, 2,500 scientists and astronomers from 75 countries voted at the International Astronomers Union General Assembly that Pluto, which has been called a planet since being discovered in 1930, would be put into a category of planets called "dwarf planets". Much maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit." Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's. Instead, it will be reclassed in a new category of "dwarf planets," similar to what have long been termed "minor planets." The definition also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun -- "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other natural satellites. The decision was a dramatic shift from just a week ago, when the group's leaders floated a proposal that would have reaffirmed Pluto's planetary status and made planets of its largest moon and two other objects. For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Now, two of the objects that at one point were cruising toward possible full-fledged planethood will join Pluto as dwarfs: the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s before it got demoted, and 2003 UB313, an icy object slightly larger than Pluto nicknamed Xena by its discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology. Charon, the largest of Pluto's three moons, is no longer under consideration for any special designation. Text of resolution voted on Thursday by members of the International Astronomical Union. RESOLUTION 5A: The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way: (1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. (2) A dwarf planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite. (3) All other objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies". The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories. These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies. RESOLUTION 5B: Insert the word "classical" before the word "planet" in Resolution 5A ... thus reading: (1) A classical planet is a celestial body ... RESOLUTION 6A: The IAU further resolves: Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans Neptunian objects. RESOLUTION 6B: The following sentence is added to Resolution 6A: This category is to be called "plutonian objects." . |
But the funny thing is that after 76 years astronomers realise that Pluto is not a planet, knowing all the time that its orbit is skewed. This is bad science because it was a fact we learned in junior classes that our solar system has nine planets. At that time some of us even got caned if forgot the name of the farthest planet and so we have grown up with that fact. Tomorrow if they say the sun is not the sun but some other object, should we believe that too?
As of now...
Dear Pluto, we will miss you
Nah, I won't miss Pluto as a planet. It had a completely different type of orbit compared to the 8 planets, it was much further, MUCH smaller and it was part of the Kuiper Belt... And hey, if an "icy object" is larger than "a planet", then that planet doesn't deserve to be called a planet.
I think that pluto is still a planet because what defines a planet or not is what people say what a planet is, the current definition of a planet may not include pluto; it has been a planet for this long though.
Interesting stuff though.
-rick
Interesting stuff though.
-rick
I think it actually doesn't change anything if Pluto is considered to be a planet or not. But it is a good idea to get a better definition of a "planet", we don't want to learn names of some hundred planets of our solar system 
Wow, really impressive how many definitions of planet you can make, but I think I actually didn't understand the differences of all these Resolutions
Wow, really impressive how many definitions of planet you can make, but I think I actually didn't understand the differences of all these Resolutions
Pluto was always a small planet if that much.
Monns were bigger than it.
Come on guys and girls , its always been small.
Thats my point of view.
Monns were bigger than it.
Come on guys and girls , its always been small.
Thats my point of view.
I gues so...
It's small to be counted as a planet.. and it have no satelite
moreover pluto is the name of a dog!!!
It's small to be counted as a planet.. and it have no satelite
moreover pluto is the name of a dog!!!
Whether a celestial body is a planet or a star or other can not be defined by us negligible humans.
we are discussing hotly, and the Pluto is laughing at us.
we are discussing hotly, and the Pluto is laughing at us.
Interesting thought: Ancient astronomers particularly in India never considered Pluto to be a part of the planetary system. Contrary to what most people think, the plantes Neptune and Uranus were discovered by Indian astronomers more than 2000 years ago.
it was very small... if we include pluto, we should include ub313, ceres and a lot more that had not been discovered yet. now, we leave open the category of small planet instead of that one of "planet", which i think is more convinient. thats why i agree with the desition made by those astronomers. and, anyway, if i didn't agree... who cares? i'm not an astronomer and i not pretend to be one!
Pluto is no more a 'Planet'. Astrology in India never considered it as a planet. And now the astrologers claim it as a big win for the Indian Astrology system. They say Pluto never affected the events in the life cycle of anybody / anything, and this is only a formal acceptance of - what Indian Astrology system always said.
I always thought that it was the gravitational pull that formed the basis of astrological calculations and predictions. If that is correct then 'Pluto' must be having some effect which probably the Indian Astrology ignores or considers negligible.
This makes me confused, should we really not consider 'Pluto' as a planet?
I always thought that it was the gravitational pull that formed the basis of astrological calculations and predictions. If that is correct then 'Pluto' must be having some effect which probably the Indian Astrology ignores or considers negligible.
This makes me confused, should we really not consider 'Pluto' as a planet?
WellI do agree that pluto isn't a planet anymore.. I can't argue with those scientists..lol
If Pluto is not a planet anymore, what the astrologers will do from now on with their predictions?
| ankur.vatsa wrote: |
|
I always thought that it was the gravitational pull that formed the basis of astrological calculations and predictions. If that is correct then 'Pluto' must be having some effect which probably the Indian Astrology ignores or considers negligible. |
No..it's a subtle mix which is kept very secret and takes a while to master. The basic recipe for Astrology is 30% fresh Baloney (it must be the general type of baloney since the more specific type doesn't work as well), 45% generalisation hand-mixed with a liberal helping freshly picked fruit from the bleeding obvious plant and two pinches from the ubiquity plant, 20% freshly squeezed gullibility and the magic 5% luck. It's an old recipe handed down from father to son over the centuries. The planets are only there to make the charts look scientific and confuse the client.
Chris
Is Pluto not a dog anymore either then?
What is Goofy?
Is Mickey jaffa?
Why does Donald where a towel?
What happened to Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers?
What is Goofy?
Is Mickey jaffa?
Why does Donald where a towel?
What happened to Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers?
Most astrology did/does not incorporate Pluto in calculations as it was only discovered in the 1930.
However, those who did will probably still use Pluto as a measure. In astronomy the Moon, Sun and Planets are often regarded with a similar level of importance. Anyone who measures the Sun, Moon and Planets with an equal measuring stick probably won't mind Pluto's new classification.
However, those who did will probably still use Pluto as a measure. In astronomy the Moon, Sun and Planets are often regarded with a similar level of importance. Anyone who measures the Sun, Moon and Planets with an equal measuring stick probably won't mind Pluto's new classification.
I really dont care about the conclusions here. I have taken Pluto as a planet since the childhood. It doesnt cost me anything nor any body even if we take it as it is.
Changes - Re-definition: thats good, i am not against it, but as far as the personal attitudes and sentiments are concerned, the scientific results doesnt make any change to my view. It wouldnt make any difference to me whether its a planet or an icy ball or it has different orbit, or different size or anything else.
I believe it as it is, no matter what.
Changes - Re-definition: thats good, i am not against it, but as far as the personal attitudes and sentiments are concerned, the scientific results doesnt make any change to my view. It wouldnt make any difference to me whether its a planet or an icy ball or it has different orbit, or different size or anything else.
I believe it as it is, no matter what.
see the scenario is very crucial... scientists say due to its magnetic effect and orbital path ,, it cant be considerd as a planet.But the scenario is planets keep on changing their path.. so some time later they may say we were wrong.. so it wont make any sense
I'm sure someone once said:
Its round? Well I don't care... I've always considered it flat and I doesn't cost me anything to continue thinking it's flat.
(The actually cost is not being able to properly understand the movement of stars, time differences on earth, magnetism, weather patterns, distances, etc...)
Sure Pluto's new status makes no difference to us laymen, but then neither did it's previous status...
Its round? Well I don't care... I've always considered it flat and I doesn't cost me anything to continue thinking it's flat.
(The actually cost is not being able to properly understand the movement of stars, time differences on earth, magnetism, weather patterns, distances, etc...)
Sure Pluto's new status makes no difference to us laymen, but then neither did it's previous status...
So does anyone who isn't a scientist really care if pluto is technically a "planet"? I mean, it makes no difference what we call it. Words are just words. Words we use to label something don't change what the something we're labeling is. Pluto is or isn't a planet. Does it matter? It's still pluto, it's still orbiting in the same path, it's still made up of the same material, it's still puny compared to the other planets. Nothing has changed other than what we call it. And what we call it doesn't even matter! As long as we all know what we're talking about when we say "pluto" then we're all on the same page. That's all that matters.
It matters because the label changes what we know about planets as a concept:
The most planets we've ever located in one solar system: 8 (now that Pluto isn't a major planet)
The average size of a planet has gone up quite a bit
We can now say that all known planets don't have a hyper-elliptical orbit
The explanation of "How planets are formed" is now much simpler
You can now figure out what a planet with three terms instead of just judging it by it's planetniss
The size of the planetary solar system is now a constant (Pluto used to make it fluctuate)
The average speed, rotation and other characteristics of planets have changed
Pluto has not changed, that's true, but the term planet has changed. That's what's important. Pluto is still Pluto, but a planet now is very different from what it was a week ago.
The most planets we've ever located in one solar system: 8 (now that Pluto isn't a major planet)
The average size of a planet has gone up quite a bit
We can now say that all known planets don't have a hyper-elliptical orbit
The explanation of "How planets are formed" is now much simpler
You can now figure out what a planet with three terms instead of just judging it by it's planetniss
The size of the planetary solar system is now a constant (Pluto used to make it fluctuate)
The average speed, rotation and other characteristics of planets have changed
Pluto has not changed, that's true, but the term planet has changed. That's what's important. Pluto is still Pluto, but a planet now is very different from what it was a week ago.
| legion wrote: |
| If Pluto is not a planet anymore, what the astrologers will do from now on with their predictions? |
I came across a news (while surfing channels on TV) and heard from a news interviewing an astrologers and said its fine.
Well, Top scientists knows well about this stuffz, so I agree to their decision.
I will sort of miss Pluto be counted as a planet. It has been past of the nine ever since I can remember. It was also more mysterious and the name is very cool too.
I know it is best for it to be put into the right category, but that news was a little sad, in the way where you lost some thing.
I know it is best for it to be put into the right category, but that news was a little sad, in the way where you lost some thing.
I think it was a good step to remove Pluto from the list of planets of our solar system, because it was introduced to the family of planets just for political reasons and nothing more. From the scientific view it was nonsense.
back were the days that we consider pluto the 9th planet, have been amazed on why it has an elliptical revolution, have debated if it was an escaped satellite from other planets, and named a disney character from it...atleast our future children will have one less planet to memorize 
Random thought, but if the moon exploded (well, were separated into many little pieces without destroying Earth), would Earth cease to be a planet until it had "cleared" all the debris? Or is it the "potential" to clear its orbit the qualifying condition for a classical planet? Oh well, I'm just trying to be a jerk and muddy the waters.
humans are going to destroy the earth. with all our exhaust and pollution witch contributes to global warming. given butterflies are disappearing because of this. people say that the environment absorbs all these toxic gases. but they don't say what happens after that things die, and get sick . what people even die from the horrible pollution and no one seems to care. we are killing people with all our radio waves and wireless this and wireless that. wereheeaded down the twisted path of self destruction. we don't destroy the earth with the bomb will do it with their cars and our factories. we are these planets blessing or these planets curse you decide. the choice is up to you.
| benjmd wrote: |
| Random thought, but if the moon exploded (well, were separated into many little pieces without destroying Earth), would Earth cease to be a planet until it had "cleared" all the debris? Or is it the "potential" to clear its orbit the qualifying condition for a classical planet? Oh well, I'm just trying to be a jerk and muddy the waters. |
I think the waters are already quite muddy... In actuality no planet has cleared its orbital path. Almost each planet has several entities in its orbital path that are locked in the planet's gravity and move at the planet's speed, thus never colliding with the planet.
Since "Clearing" has not yet been defined, we could argue that a planet that 'cleared' it's orbit and then encountered more debris due to calamity would still count as having 'cleared' it's orbital path. Actually, without defining "Clearing" one could even claim that having a moon counts as debris (certainly when you look at the ratio between Jupiter and it's satellites, some of which are only a kilometer in diameter. That's 1/142,984 the size of their mother planet!)
I think that it is a planet after all.
ok... maybe for scientist it isnt a planet but it is.
ok... maybe for scientist it isnt a planet but it is.
| poz2006 wrote: |
| I think that it is a planet after all.
ok... maybe for scientist it isnt a planet but it is. |
Indeed.
Nothing like an intelligent post to start your day.
I'm a science teacher, all my courses, textbooks, syllabi, past exam questions, SATs all have pluto being a planet. The education system in the UK being what it is, it will probably take me 10 years to renew all of the above, Wouldn't it have been simpler to keep pluto as a planet and call the other objects, pluto-like bodies
[quote="just-in"]
dwarf planets? how insulting! just because a planet is a little smaller it's called a dwarf? does that mean we are to start calling midgets dwarfs? planets have feelings too you know!
oh wait... no they don't. pluto is still a planet.
| Quote: |
| 2,500 scientists and astronomers from 75 countries voted at the International Astronomers Union General Assembly that Pluto, which has been called a planet since being discovered in 1930, would be put into a category of planets called "dwarf planets". |
dwarf planets? how insulting! just because a planet is a little smaller it's called a dwarf? does that mean we are to start calling midgets dwarfs? planets have feelings too you know!
oh wait... no they don't. pluto is still a planet.
Although it is new for Pluto to not be an official planet, it is known for long time that the orbit is not planet-like. In elementary school, I was taught that there are nine planets. In junior and high school, I was taught that Pluto did not act like a planet and was probably an escaped moon of Neptune or an asteroid pushed into a planet-like orbit by Neptune's gravity well. So I don't understand this current uproar when it was already taught in at least some schools that Pluto isn't a planet.
poor pluto, why dont these scientists stick to one single decision ever !!When it really comes down to it, this is just splitting hairs.
| malcolmiles wrote: |
| I'm a science teacher, all my courses, textbooks, syllabi, past exam questions, SATs all have pluto being a planet. The education system in the UK being what it is, it will probably take me 10 years to renew all of the above, Wouldn't it have been simpler to keep pluto as a planet and call the other objects, pluto-like bodies |
Granted, that might have been easier, but it wouldn't be right. If science dictates that Pluto is no longer to be classified as a planet but rather assume part of a new class of dwarf-planets then so be it.
You can just leave a non-planet as a planet because it suits your existing systems. If science is to be pure it must be absolute.
This has been contentious for years, all because of it's size, it's orbital inclination. They should have kept it as a planet and dismissed all else that doesn't qualify.
| UHF123 wrote: |
| This has been contentious for years, all because of it's size, it's orbital inclination. They should have kept it as a planet and dismissed all else that doesn't qualify. |
But then we'd have to add at least 2 more planets (Ceres and "Xena"). I say "at least" because it's quite possible that if we officially extended the "Planet" term to include Pluto many other objects could fall into that category including several moons of "Major Planets".
 |