Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Why Pluto Still Matters 91

Posted by samzenpus from the where-the-mi-go-and-the-terran-federation-play dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Pluto Still Matters More

Why Pluto Still Matters

Comments Filter:

  • Why Pluto matters most? (Score:3)

    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @01:25AM (#48520379)
    Simple, because a probe is going to study it very soon.

    • I am Pluto? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by buchner.johannes ( 1139593 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @04:36AM (#48521033) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 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: (Score:2)

        by RoLi ( 141856 )

        Exactly. That article was really - what's that buzzword called - oh yeah: anticlimactic

    • Re:Why Pluto matters most? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @08:42AM (#48521943) Homepage Journal

      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 [waitbutwhy.com]. And neither is Pluto.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )
        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2014 @01:25AM (#48520381)

    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.

  • cb;dr (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

    Click Bait; Didn't Read.

  • I think i agree (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Poorcku ( 831174 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @01:29AM (#48520401) Homepage
    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.

    • Sentimental claptrap (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2014 @02:46AM (#48520653)

      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.

      • 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 clas

        • 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.

          What if it were 3 or 4 billion years ago when the solar system was still young. There would still be a lot of clutter in the orbit of Jupiter and the other planets. We wouldn't be able to call them planets anymore by the IAU's definition.

          • You would call them developing planets in that case. It's pointless to pick holes in the definition because there is no perfect answer because the boundaries are fuzzy. It makes more sense to embrace that and subdivide things roughly into stuff like exo-planet, developing planet, dwarf planet, gas giant planet, etc. This way you convey information about the body in question. Arguing about the definition of the term "planet" on its own is just semantics and not interesting.
            • I'm not sure I would consider that a boundary. For a substantial part of their lifetime, our planets were not considered planets.

              We know now that planet formation is common place and occurs around nearly every single point of light in the sky. I just don't think the word should still be specific to the Solar System as it currently stands. We need a definition that includes the current planets, and the "other planets".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        It explictly mentions the sun so extrasolar planets aren't planets.

        Oddly enough, I don't find this the least bit confusing. Including extrasolar planets in the technical definition of "planet" has just as much potential for confusion -- which is to say not much, but some. It's in the nature of language to be confusing without context. Including the Sun in the definition actually makes it more consistent with the classical definition of a planet -- a visible object that moves against the backdrop of the "fixed stars".

        It defines dwarf planet such that a dwarf planet is not a planet (very confusing especially for a definition intended for lay people).

        Who says the definitions is 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?

        Tro

    • 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.

      I agree. Then again, my name is on New Horizons, so yeah: Go Pluto!

  • What abot Goofy? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2014 @01:30AM (#48520405)

    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?

    • Mickey Mouse was in court suing Minnie for divorce (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2014 @02:48AM (#48520659)

      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!"

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If "Hello" Kitty White is a catoid and has a pet kitty, why shouldn't a mousoid with a dogoid friend have a pet dog? I find it more disturbing that there's a moon out there called Dysnomia.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      I read the last line too fast and missed "the". :P

    • Re:Once a planet, always a planet (Score:4, Funny)

      by Paradise Pete ( 33184 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @04:29AM (#48521005) Journal

      Once a planet, always a planet

      Modulo Alderaan, of course.

    • Re:Once a planet, always a planet (Score:5, Informative)

      by umafuckit ( 2980809 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @04:31AM (#48521015)
      Do you consider Ceres [wikipedia.org] 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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ZeRu ( 1486391 )

        . 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).

      • I consider Ceres a planet. It's round, may have a very small and more or less stable atmosphere.

      • If they were asteroids then they weren't planets, were they?

        Shouldn't you be busy installing Umbongo on your chromebook, you pallid hipster nonce?

  • LOL (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 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

  • Not worth reading (Score:3, Informative)

    by toxygen01 ( 901511 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @04:07AM (#48520909) Journal
    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

  • "beyond the gravitational pull of Neptune" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tal_mud ( 303383 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @04:39AM (#48521041)

    "... 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?

  • but that rubbish site "medium.com" came up. They are not tricking me into reading crap again.

  • Sentimental nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2014 @05:09AM (#48521109)

    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.

    • I'd argue that Triton (of Neptune) is currently the "most well studied known Kuiper belt object", being it already had a Voyager flyby. There's a good chance Triton is from the Kuiper belt based on composition, density, and its "backward" orbit.

      But we'll have better evidence for that theory either way when Pluto is visited by New Horizons.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RoLi ( 141856 )

      Exactly. It is the nearest and therefore most accessible large Kuiper belt objects. Sure there are others and bigger ones, but they are somewhat more distant.

  • Even the summary is factually wrong (Score:3)

    by JerryLove ( 1158461 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @08:43AM (#48521953)

    "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... [wikipedia.org] - Discovered 1948
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] - Discovered 1911
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X... [wikipedia.org] - 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

    • I'm also having trouble with the term "beyond the gravitational pull". At what point is that? As objects get farther away, the gravitational pull decreases, and although it eventually becomes infinitesimal, it does not reach zero, correct?

      Also, I'd imagine that when, for example, Uranus and Neptune are on opposite sides of the sun from each other, there isn't much gravitational pull going on between them.

  • ... is not that they reclassified it, per se... but that it can't help but remind of the word "atom", and how at one time it meant "indivisible". And particles smaller than atoms were discovered, they didn't turn around and say that they should change what *they* were called.

    How about a little consistency, please?

    • "atom" has a pretty well-defined meaning (if a little fuzzy in places; what's the difference between alpha particles and doubly ionized helium, for example?), and it's a useful meaning. "planet" has been fuzzy since we started finding asteroids. Certainly Venus is a planet. How about Ceres? Pluto? The moon? If we're going to use the term to mean something, we have to have some sort of definition, and we really should stick to it.

      I'd much rather see the apatosaurus renamed brontosaurus, myself.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Close