They were forced too. The demarcation was not solid enough. Now it is much better otherwise you have more than 9 planets. Closer to nearly 20.
No I don’t. It made little sense to me then anyway. Titan is larger than Pluto. It is patently obvious that Pluto is from the Kiuper Belt. There are many bodies of the same size or LARGER in it.
Part of the definition of a planet is that it has cleared its orbit of other object. Well, technically there are no planets. Neptune has not cleared Pluto out of its orbit and as the dinosaurs would tell you we haven’t cleaned up our own neighborhood.
They are missing a piece. Clearly if you took every near Earth object and added all their mass together, it would be insignificant when compared to the mass of the Earth. Neptune is way more massive than Pluto so it is a planet even though the orbits intersect.
This event happened while I was facilitating a group of people who were looking for work because they got laid off. I told them that you know things are tough when they’re even downsizing the solar system.
I’m of the opinion that if you are going to write about something that is not fiction you should do extensive research. When Pluto was discovered in 1930 the idea of the Kuiper belt didn’t exist. While astronomers began speculating the existence of other KBO’s shortly after Pluto’s discovery it wasn’t until 1992 that the second KBO was discovered. And there IS a significant difference in mass between Mercury and Pluto. Mercury’s mass is about 3.825 × 10^23 kg while Pluto’s is 1.309 × 10^22 kg. I think Mercury’s mass being about 30 times the mass of Pluto is fairly significant. As more and more KBO’s were discovered and the possibility of having 20+ planets in the solar system some astronomers felt that the arbitrary definition of a planet needed to be refined. Of course there was dissension, people don’t like change. Specifying that a planet must have cleared its neighborhood around its orbit is interpreted to mean that there are no other objects of comparable size in the planet’s orbit unless they are under its gravitational influence. Comparable size is important otherwise Trojan asteroids would disqualify Jupiter.
As I recall, most of the PLANETARY astronomers and astrophysicists had already left the conference when this topic was brought up for vote. To my thinking, that vote is therefore without authority and is meaningless.
Slightly unrelated, but in similar lines, I wonder how this affected people researching Pluto off grants and whatnot. During my highschool years, the Congo decided to split in half literally during a Model United Nations conference in which I was representing the Congo, so that was a fun mess to figure out how we were going to represent that nation’s viewpoints.
I really think this political argument is stupid. Pluto wasn’t arbitrarily kicked out, the REAL issue was that astronomy really didn’t have a definitive definition of a planet, so they decided to make one that would actually be useful. We now have 3 criteria for what makes a planet 1-it must orbit the sun, and not be the satellite of another object, 2-it has to be large enough to be round, so it can’t be an asteroid or comet, and 3-it has to be the gravitationally dominant object in its own orbit. It was the 3rd criteria that Pluto failed to clear, as it is just one of many thousands of objects in orbit past Neptune, some of which (such as Eris) are actually larger than it. There was no political bias here, scientists needed a more accurate definition for a phenomenon and they made a scientifically useful one. Some even wanted to “Grandfather” Pluto in and call it a planet anyway, but grandfathering is a political practice, not a scientific one. So continuing to call Pluto a planet would actually be the political act. As a consolation, they created a new category, Dwarf Planet, for any object that can fit the first 2 criteria, and Pluto got to be one of those, along with Ceres (previously known as only the largest asteroid) and nearly a dozen other Kuiper belt objects.
It’s interesting to read the wikipedia article for “dwarf planet”, under its history section. A similar problem arose with asteroids. The first asteroid discovered was termed a “planet”. But as more and more of them were discovered, we needed nomenclature to distinguish the major bodies of our solar system from the more minor ones. Personally I think it’s quite handy to leave a word to refer to the major bodies of our solar system.
The same happened with dwarf planets. We kept finding more and more in our system, and it’s predicted that this will continue. Either quite a lot of objects would need to be reclassified as planets, or just one object (Pluto) would need to be reclassified as a dwarf planet. And given that it is part of large collection of space debris (the Kuiper belt), it also makes sense to reclassify it on that front. Nothing in the belt has become gravitationally dominate enough to merge with or control the rest of the belt.
While many of you have brought up valid points, most on the planet side, a few on the non-planet side, the whole argument is ridiculous. That’s because the small group of leftovers at the conference (most of whom had prearranged with each other to stay behind specifically for the purpose of demoting Pluto because they knew they didn’t have enough votes in the full conference) who ‘demoted’ Pluto didn’t know English well enough to realize they didn’t succeed.
A planet is a planet. An x planet is a specific type of planet. A y planet is a planet with certain other criteria. So a dwarf planet, by definition, is a planet. A yellow planet is a planet that is yellow (hopefully by certain criteria, say, ‘as visible to the naked eye from earth,’ or, ‘at least 50% of the surface reflects light between about 570 and 590 nm’). A rocky planet is a planet composed with a preponderance of rocky materials. A dwarf planet is either a planet composed of/inhabited by/looks like dwarves, or it is a planet that is size-challenged. But it’s still a planet.Most languages use an equivalent system. So the small group didn’t do what they thought they did, except in their own heads. The media was to dumb to realize, so glibly reported what the group claimed with no effort to figure out the facts, and enough people glibly buy what the media, or a small group of scientists claim, swallowing it hook, line, and thinker.
Templo S.U.D. over 6 years ago
Any of you sure miss the days growing up learning Pluto was a planet?
Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo] over 6 years ago
They were forced too. The demarcation was not solid enough. Now it is much better otherwise you have more than 9 planets. Closer to nearly 20.
No I don’t. It made little sense to me then anyway. Titan is larger than Pluto. It is patently obvious that Pluto is from the Kiuper Belt. There are many bodies of the same size or LARGER in it.
thetraveller4 over 6 years ago
As Neil DeGrasse Tyson says, “Get over it…”
DanFlak over 6 years ago
Part of the definition of a planet is that it has cleared its orbit of other object. Well, technically there are no planets. Neptune has not cleared Pluto out of its orbit and as the dinosaurs would tell you we haven’t cleaned up our own neighborhood.
They are missing a piece. Clearly if you took every near Earth object and added all their mass together, it would be insignificant when compared to the mass of the Earth. Neptune is way more massive than Pluto so it is a planet even though the orbits intersect.
DanFlak over 6 years ago
This event happened while I was facilitating a group of people who were looking for work because they got laid off. I told them that you know things are tough when they’re even downsizing the solar system.
nosirrom over 6 years ago
I’m of the opinion that if you are going to write about something that is not fiction you should do extensive research. When Pluto was discovered in 1930 the idea of the Kuiper belt didn’t exist. While astronomers began speculating the existence of other KBO’s shortly after Pluto’s discovery it wasn’t until 1992 that the second KBO was discovered. And there IS a significant difference in mass between Mercury and Pluto. Mercury’s mass is about 3.825 × 10^23 kg while Pluto’s is 1.309 × 10^22 kg. I think Mercury’s mass being about 30 times the mass of Pluto is fairly significant. As more and more KBO’s were discovered and the possibility of having 20+ planets in the solar system some astronomers felt that the arbitrary definition of a planet needed to be refined. Of course there was dissension, people don’t like change. Specifying that a planet must have cleared its neighborhood around its orbit is interpreted to mean that there are no other objects of comparable size in the planet’s orbit unless they are under its gravitational influence. Comparable size is important otherwise Trojan asteroids would disqualify Jupiter.
planostanton over 6 years ago
As I recall, most of the PLANETARY astronomers and astrophysicists had already left the conference when this topic was brought up for vote. To my thinking, that vote is therefore without authority and is meaningless.
David Rickard Premium Member over 6 years ago
Everyone knows the real name is Yuggoth…
Reaven over 6 years ago
Slightly unrelated, but in similar lines, I wonder how this affected people researching Pluto off grants and whatnot. During my highschool years, the Congo decided to split in half literally during a Model United Nations conference in which I was representing the Congo, so that was a fun mess to figure out how we were going to represent that nation’s viewpoints.
yangeldf over 6 years ago
I really think this political argument is stupid. Pluto wasn’t arbitrarily kicked out, the REAL issue was that astronomy really didn’t have a definitive definition of a planet, so they decided to make one that would actually be useful. We now have 3 criteria for what makes a planet 1-it must orbit the sun, and not be the satellite of another object, 2-it has to be large enough to be round, so it can’t be an asteroid or comet, and 3-it has to be the gravitationally dominant object in its own orbit. It was the 3rd criteria that Pluto failed to clear, as it is just one of many thousands of objects in orbit past Neptune, some of which (such as Eris) are actually larger than it. There was no political bias here, scientists needed a more accurate definition for a phenomenon and they made a scientifically useful one. Some even wanted to “Grandfather” Pluto in and call it a planet anyway, but grandfathering is a political practice, not a scientific one. So continuing to call Pluto a planet would actually be the political act. As a consolation, they created a new category, Dwarf Planet, for any object that can fit the first 2 criteria, and Pluto got to be one of those, along with Ceres (previously known as only the largest asteroid) and nearly a dozen other Kuiper belt objects.
comiquer over 6 years ago
It’s interesting to read the wikipedia article for “dwarf planet”, under its history section. A similar problem arose with asteroids. The first asteroid discovered was termed a “planet”. But as more and more of them were discovered, we needed nomenclature to distinguish the major bodies of our solar system from the more minor ones. Personally I think it’s quite handy to leave a word to refer to the major bodies of our solar system.
The same happened with dwarf planets. We kept finding more and more in our system, and it’s predicted that this will continue. Either quite a lot of objects would need to be reclassified as planets, or just one object (Pluto) would need to be reclassified as a dwarf planet. And given that it is part of large collection of space debris (the Kuiper belt), it also makes sense to reclassify it on that front. Nothing in the belt has become gravitationally dominate enough to merge with or control the rest of the belt.
JastMe over 6 years ago
While many of you have brought up valid points, most on the planet side, a few on the non-planet side, the whole argument is ridiculous. That’s because the small group of leftovers at the conference (most of whom had prearranged with each other to stay behind specifically for the purpose of demoting Pluto because they knew they didn’t have enough votes in the full conference) who ‘demoted’ Pluto didn’t know English well enough to realize they didn’t succeed.
A planet is a planet. An x planet is a specific type of planet. A y planet is a planet with certain other criteria. So a dwarf planet, by definition, is a planet. A yellow planet is a planet that is yellow (hopefully by certain criteria, say, ‘as visible to the naked eye from earth,’ or, ‘at least 50% of the surface reflects light between about 570 and 590 nm’). A rocky planet is a planet composed with a preponderance of rocky materials. A dwarf planet is either a planet composed of/inhabited by/looks like dwarves, or it is a planet that is size-challenged. But it’s still a planet.Most languages use an equivalent system. So the small group didn’t do what they thought they did, except in their own heads. The media was to dumb to realize, so glibly reported what the group claimed with no effort to figure out the facts, and enough people glibly buy what the media, or a small group of scientists claim, swallowing it hook, line, and thinker.