Slashdot Log In
Pluto Making a Comeback
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:46 AM
from the little-space-mass-that-could dept.
from the little-space-mass-that-could dept.
anthemaniac writes "Space.com reports that the American Astronomical Unions Division of Planetary Scientists recognizes the IAU's authority to make a new planet defintion but expects it to be altered. Separately, 300 astronomers have signed a petition saying they won't use the definition. All this stems from the discontent over how only 424 astronomers voted on the proposal that demoted Pluto. Looks like this little dog is on the comeback trail."
Related Stories
[+]
IAU Rules Pluto Still a Planet 244 comments
scottyscout writes "NPR reports that Pluto has dodged a bullet.
An international panel has unanimously recommended that Pluto retain its title as a planet,
and it may be joined by other undersized objects that revolve around the sun.
Some astronomers had lobbied for reclassifying Pluto as its so tiny. And at least one major
museum has excluded Pluto from its planetary display. But sources tell NPR that under the
proposal, to be presented at a big meeting of astronomers in Prague next week for a vote,
Pluto would become part of a new class of small planets and several more objects could be
granted membership."
[+]
IAU Demotes Pluto to 'Dwarf Planet' Status 424 comments
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.
[+]
Pluto Decision Meets with Frustration 464 comments
fuzzybunny writes "The BBC reports that the IAU's controversial Prague vote on demoting Pluto from planet status was irregular. 'There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon.'" On a less serious note, lx writes "Nonplussed by Pluto's recent downgrade from Planet Status, Fox News's own John Gibson does an incredible Stephen Colbert impersonation to correct the 'revisionist history' of the IAU's decision. Exemplifying 'truthiness,' from the article: 'Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?' "
[+]
"Xena" To Be Named Eris 167 comments
rdwald writes, "After over a year of hanging in maybe-planet limbo, newly-classified 2003 UB313, nicknamed Xena, now has a permanent name: Eris, goddess of strife. Its moon will be named Dysnomia, after the goddess of lawlessness — in Greek mythology, Eris's daughter — certainly not a reference there... I don't think I'm alone when I say, 'Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!'"
In the same IAU announcement (PDF), Pluto was given its official minor planet number: 134340.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Now that we have Pluto out of the way (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now that we have Pluto out of the way (Score:5, Funny)
The first guy to rally against that would have to be mighty brave...
Parent
i just wrote a story about this at kuro5hin.org (Score:5, Interesting)
the issue centers on one the IAU itself says it hasn't addressed with it's new definition of a planet: extrasolar systems. as new telescopes come on line with more resolving power, our bestiary of planets is going to grow by leaps and bounds. it will render the debate over pluto moot
i think a definition of planet should be:
-round, with a significant atmosphere
-this is distinct from a gas giant, which should be considered closer to stars than to planets (round, mostly gas: really just stars without enough critical mass to ignite fusion)
-and distinct from a moon (no atmosphere, but still round)
-asteroids, comets, etc make up the miscellany
and notice, most importantly, i said nothing about what something orbits. what something orbits is really secondary in consideration to what something is composed of. if we find an earth-like "moon" orbiting a gas giant in another solar system, is what it orbits really the first consideration in picking what to call it? no, composition should come first, orbit second. so you could have a moon of the sun (pluto), or a planet of saturn (titan), or an asteroid of mars (deimos/ phobos, etc.)
so this system demotes not only pluto, but also mercury. while promoting titan. so our solar system is composed of:
-4 planets (venus, earth, mars, titan)
-4 gas giants (jupiter, saturn, neptune, uranus)
-and countless moons (of the sun and the planets)/ asteroids (of the sun and the planets)/ comets/ ring systems/ kuiper belt, oort cloud objects/ etc
really, as we see more and more exotic arrangements in extrasolar systems as new telescopes come on line, this debate about pluto will look more and more pedantic. and the IAU should really begin focusing on a more rigid definition no matter what, something they said they weren't doing at their last congress. we will soon have a vastly larger catalogue of strange orbital objects/ arrangements out there. pluto is small potatoes... literally
Oh Pluto (Score:5, Funny)
Better tell solar system (Score:5, Funny)
What can the IDers take from this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know that this whole planet thing is just taxonomy, but do they? Do the politicians really understand that, either?
The story so far... (Score:5, Funny)
~800 bc - Roman god of the underworld.
05-01-1930 - New planet. Also Mickey's new canine companion. Retains position as god of the underworld.
08-10-2006 - Still a planet. And a dog. Takes time off as god of the underworld to "spend more time with his new ceslestial family".
08-24-2006 - Demoted as a planet. Reclassified as a "dwarf planet" (or as they prefer to be called "Little planetiods"). Resumes job as god of the underworld.
Today - A planet again. Maybe. Title of "Roman god the the underworld" undisputed. Still a dog.
(ps. Tomorrow - Profit ???)
Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Fine, then - have it both ways (Score:5, Funny)
The rest of the world can use the metric planets that evolved in our solar system.
There. Everyone happy now?
Parent
Re:Fine, then - have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
You're actually serious, aren't you? In what way exactly does it kick any ass? The metric systems covers lenght, volume, force... all consistent and based on one, single meter.
The "standard" (that is, the standard in the US and hardly anywhere else) is based on how many definitions for lenth etc.? How many pints of fuel are in a rocket? Would that be american pints or british dry pints or british liquid pints? How many inches go into a mile? Would that be a normal mile or a nautical one? How many ounces does a quibic yard or foot of water weigh at room temperature?
The so called (by you) "standard" system is a mess, historically grown and a nightmare to handle.
Parent
Pluto's smaller than our moon. Is it a planet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, you make it sound like they're just some random cranks who got together. This was a meeting of the IAU. Common human consensus had tomatoes as not being fruits and dolphins as fish before people sat down and came up with a consistent definition.
Pluto's essentially grandfathered in from a time when we hadn't yet found other objects in its size class. I hope you realize that Pluto is only about 2300 km across while our own moon is about 3500 km across. Are we in a double-planet system, or is there some logical reason you can think of for making a smaller object than our moon a planet while our moon is undeserving of the status?
I think it's high-time we demoted it as nothing more than an oversized trans-Uranic asteroid. I mean, it doesn't even operate on the same elliptic plane as the planets do and it has a "moon" that's half its size. The only reason anyone cares is a knee-jerk anger over having some childhood lesson overturned.
Parent
Re:Pluto's smaller than our moon. Is it a planet? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you suggesting that witches are not actually made out of wood?
Parent
Re:Pluto in School (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the shitty schools, anyway. Maybe your statement is an indictment on how shitty the school system is.. unfortunately, I don't think so. I understand your point that schools have alot of switching costs, and that the 9 planets concept has alot of inertia, but if scientists decide Pluto isn't a planet, then it's not a planet.. I expect my child's school to teach them that. I expect my child's school to teach my children about what real scientists do, and what real science is going on, and even about what real scientists are arguing about. Once scientists finally agree on what is a planet, and who the planets are, I expect my school to keep up. If science changes... schools are supposed to change with it. This idea that you shouldn't have to keep up with science because it's inconvinient... well, don't make me invoke the intelligent-design drama If you aren't going to teach kids the things that science agrees is correct, then what exactly _are_ you going to teach them? Whatever you feel like? Whatever you were taught?
Parent
Re:Pluto in School (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Insightful)
I am much happier thinking that astronomers are in a hole somewhere in the middle of the night staring into the sky adding to the human body of knowledge, then sitting in a giant auditorium fighting over meaningless bullshit and operating at the lowest forms of the intellectual discourse (semantics and sophistry... voting on definitions.. oh jesus). I liked it better when a bunch of people sitting in a giant room yelling and screaming about nothing and being otherwise useless was called Congress...
This is an argument over terminology. There is nothing of any value, at all, at stake here. This is so people can refer to planets and have it mean something, as a word. This is basically the equivalent of Webster writing down what a word means. This isn't even actual science.. it's just a bunch of people trying to formalize their industry's terminology to facillitate communication. The scientific value of a probe is going to be exactly the same if Pluto is a dwarf planet, a pluton, a planet, a really large Kuiper Belt Object, or anything else.
Just pick a god damm definition. I'm starting to think astronomers are doing this on purpose to get themselves alot of free press and airtime. Professors everywhere are making 6 minutes TV and radio spots to explain this stupid "controversy". It's semantics. Nothing more, nothing less.
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Funny)
Kind of like Slashdot, you mean?
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's a plausible deniability thing. If they're good aliens, they come here, we explain that we were very primitive but have since learned to count.
If they're bad aliens, we say "What? We only have eight planets. This isn't the solar system you're looking for. Move along..."
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Funny)
You're new here in science, aren't you?
Just pick a god damm definition.
Big Ass Round Thing! Big Ass Round Thing! Big Ass Round Thing!
Come on people, let's show these Bozos the power of the Web. Send letters, emails, customized party poppers, whatever; and let 'em know we want our Big Ass Round Things.
KFG
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Insightful)
What more information do we need about Pluto? There's lots to learn, but nothing that bears on the argument at hand.
You seem to think that "planet" is a word astronomer's agree on, and we just don't know enough about Pluto to say whether it is one. It's the other way around.
Despite the headlines, astronomers are not arguing over whether Pluto's a planet. They're arguing over the right way to define "planet". Pluto's relevent only because lots of people are used to thinking of Pluto as a planet, and don't want a definition that leaves Pluto out. But that's hard to do. There are millions of trans-Neptunian objects. If Pluto is a planet, than so are many of them.
I heard an interview with an astronmer who described our solar system as it would be seen by an alien arriving from outside. The first thing the alien would notice is the huge cloud of trans-Neptunian objects. Then much further in he'd see 8 planets. Or maybe he'd view them as 4 rocky worlds and 4 gaseous worlds. But in any case he'd differentiate all 8, which orbit pretty much in a single plane, from the TNOs, which form a sort of donut-shaped cloud. If he noticed Pluto at all, he'd definitely classify it with the TNOs.
Then suppose he met us, and we tried to tell him that Pluto isn't a TNO, it's a planet, just because it was discovered before the TNOs. He'd think we were being pretty arbitrary — and he'd be right.
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Insightful)
So? If there's more trans-Neptunian objects out there big enough to be called planets, our system has more planets. What's the big deal? There's nothing magic about the number 9 (or 8) as the number of planets. When Uranus was discovered, the number of known planets increased; it increased again with Neptune. If we find more planets out there, it will increase yet again. No big deal.
Parent
Re:waiting (Score:5, Informative)
Your post intrigued me, and after some quick research with the help of Google, I agree. You can fire up Celestia and actually see some of them, just make asteroid orbits and names visible. Pluto fits right in with them; it seems to be the largest of them.
For you unbelievers, here's a list. These objects are all out of the "normal" plane of orbits, just like Pluto.
Name, Radius
Pluto, 1,151km
Ixion, 600km
Quaoar, 625km
Orcus, 800km
Varuna, 450km
And these are just some "nicely named" ones. See "2003 EL61", "2005 FY9", etc for more examples. And you can add more [celestiamotherlode.net] as well. For those with computers that aren't slow, this page [cornell.edu] contains a Celestia ssc of 1007(!) TNOs. Doughnut shaped indeed.
Also, there is a class (like 20%-30%) of them called Plutinos [cornell.edu] which share Pluto's stable 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune. How did this come to be? There are theories [hawaii.edu], but nothing definitive yet.
The debate will continue, but if you look at that Celestia ssc of 1007 TNOs, it is pretty clear that Pluto is not a "major planet". If it is, then we've got dozens, possibly hundreds of them.
(Apologies if this has been covered before.)
Parent
Re:The whole argument seems quite ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:When they demoted Pulto (Score:5, Insightful)
When Aristotle pointed out that the Earth wasn't flat, it pissed off a lot of people. When Darwin published The origin of species, it pissed off a lot of people. When climate scientists pointed out the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, it pissed off a lot of people. When they found that Pluto, like Ceres, was within a belt of similarly sized objects, it pissed off a lot of people.
I suspect the reason these people were pissed off is because they can't fathom that new observations means that what they were taught before was wrong, and that the new information gives a better approximation of reality.
Parent