Should Pluto Be A Planet?

augustana

This is my random question of the day. Lately I've been addicted to the Universe series on the History Channel and they're going to do an episode on "the outer planets" and all how Pluto isn't actually technically a planet anymore (there's even a poll about it, and I realized that I kind of don't understand why they got rid of it being a planet in the first place - and besides what if it is, does it really hurt anything?

Gim

No. Just because everyone was raised to believe it was a planet does not make it a planet.

The debate came to a head in 2006 with an IAU resolution that created an official definition for the term "planet". According to this resolution, there are three main conditions for an object to be considered a 'planet':

1. The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
2. The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium.
3. It must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.[89]

Pluto fails to meet the third condition, since its mass was only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit (Earth's mass, by contrast, is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its own orbit).[90][91] The IAU further resolved that Pluto be classified in the simultaneously created dwarf planet category, and that it act as prototype for a yet-to-be-named category of trans-Neptunian objects, in which it would be separately, but concurrently, classified.

Incenjucar

The only reason Pluto would be classified as a planet is because people are used to it, at this point, much like how "Hydrogen" and "Oxygen" have their names backwards.

YodaTuna

Does it really hurt anything if it's not a planet? I think it was important that they came up with an exact classification of planets with all the planets being discovered outside of our solar system as of late.

Pluto just happened to be a casualty.

Morninglord

It'll always be a planet to me. /nostalgia

ryuprecht

It must be. How else can we complete the "My Very Eager Mother..." mnemonic? That would be awkward.

Feral

ryuprecht wrote: »

It must be. How else can we complete the "My Very Eager Mother..." mnemonic? That would be awkward.

My Very Eager Mother Just Served Us Nana.

Plutonium

YES

I'm biased

xraydog

Incenjucar wrote: »

... much like how "Hydrogen" and "Oxygen" have their names backwards.

Really? Explain please.

WillyGilligan

ryuprecht wrote: »

It must be. How else can we complete the "My Very Eager Mother..." mnemonic? That would be awkward.

Deathly Hallows spoiler:

My Very Eager Motherfucker Just Sliced Up Nagini

Tav

WillyGilligan wrote: »

ryuprecht wrote: »

It must be. How else can we complete the "My Very Eager Mother..." mnemonic? That would be awkward.

Deathly Hallows spoiler:

My Very Eager Motherfucker Just Sliced Up Nagini

:^:

Also, does it really matter if its not classed as a planet? I really don't see how its official classification as a planet changes anything other then a few science text books...

real_pochacco

Go here and listen.

Incenjucar

xraydog wrote: »

Incenjucar wrote: »

... much like how "Hydrogen" and "Oxygen" have their names backwards.

Really? Explain please.

Hydrogen means "Water Generator."

Oxygen means "Acid Generator."

Oxygen and Hydrogen are both required for Water, only Hydrogen is required for acid.

As is my understanding.

The Pastry

Incenjucar wrote: »

Oxygen means "Acid Generator."

I'm assuming that would be Greek. Do you (or anyone, for that matter) happen to know the extent to which whoever named it that would have been able to distinguish between an acid and a base? I mean, when they said "acid" did they mean "has a pH significantly lower than 7" or "corrodes the shit out of this metal thing here."

Just curious really.

Tiemler

It isn't a planet, it is a planetoid, and a Kuiper Belt Object. When someone doesn't understand what that means, it is a good opportunity to teach them something about the outer reaches of our solar system.

But if they're gonna push for a simple, yes or no, answer, then no, it's not a planet.

Incenjucar

The Pastry wrote: »

Incenjucar wrote: »

Oxygen means "Acid Generator."

I'm assuming that would be Greek. Do you (or anyone, for that matter) happen to know the extent to which whoever named it that would have been able to distinguish between an acid and a base? I mean, when they said "acid" did they mean "has a pH significantly lower than 7" or "corrodes the shit out of this metal thing here."

Just curious really.

http://www.answers.com/oxygen&r=67

"Lavoisier named the new gas oxygen using the Greek words oxys, meaning sour or acid, and genes, meaning producing or forming, because he believed it was an essential part of all acids."

The Pastry

Incenjucar wrote: »

http://www.answers.com/oxygen&r=67

"Lavoisier named the new gas oxygen using the Greek words oxys, meaning sour or acid, and genes, meaning producing or forming, because he believed it was an essential part of all acids."

Much obliged.

AbsoluteZero

If Pluto is a planet, then Ceres is a planet, I say! Along with those KBOs out past Pluto that are the same size or larger.

MikeMan

Pluto should never have been a planet in the first place. Insofar as it's all arbitrary, I don't see what removing it from "The List" will hurt.

No, it should not be a planet.

AbsoluteZero

You know, Neptune and Jupiter have rings.... I don't know why people always leave em out.

Incenjucar

AbsoluteZero wrote: »

You know, Neptune and Jupiter have rings.... I don't know why people always leave em out.

I think it comes down to people only remembering the most prominent things about astronomy, and forgetting the rest.

nexuscrawler

Pluto was designated a planet before we could look much further than it. The reason they took away the planet designation is becasue they looked beyond Pluto and found there's probably dozens of other objects out there that would have to be consdered planets as well.

GoodOmens

AbsoluteZero wrote: »

You know, Neptune and Jupiter have rings.... I don't know why people always leave em out.

Uranus too. You should pay more attention to Uranus. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See, 'cause it's like Your Anus. It's funny.

Ahem.

Kaputa

The cool thing about this is that when we have children we can say "When I was a kid there were nine planets!

Squirrelmob

My one problem with it not being a plant is that it failed specifically on the "clearing the neighborhood" because it comes to close to Neptune, but that should also dick Neptune (why does Pluto still chill in its hood?), Jupiter (has a bunch of asteroids around it iirc), and Earth (near earth asteroids). More or less the IAU just didn't want Pluto and couldn't give a half a shit answer for why it shouldn't be.

I, for one, am a large fan of the other solution of adding quite a few planets to the solar system.

Navoc

Squirrelmob wrote: »

My one problem with it not being a plant is that it failed specifically on the "clearing the neighborhood" because it comes to close to Neptune, but that should also dick Neptune (why does Pluto still chill in its hood?), Jupiter (has a bunch of asteroids around it iirc), and Earth (near earth asteroids). More or less the IAU just didn't want Pluto and couldn't give a half a shit answer for why it shouldn't be.

Stern and Levison proposed another criterion that does, however, lead to a nonarbitrary way to classify objects. They remarked that some bodies in the solar system are massive enough to have swept up or scattered away most of their immediate neighbors. Lesser bodies, unable to do so, occupy transient, unstable orbits or have a heavyweight guardian that stabilizes their orbits. For instance, Earth is big enough that it eventually sweeps up or flings away any body that strays too close, such as a near-Earth asteroid. At the same time, Earth protects its moon from being swept up or scattered away. Each of the four giant planets rules over a sizable brood of orbiting satellites. Jupiter and Neptune also maintain their own families of asteroids and KBOs (called Trojans and Plutinos, respectively) in special orbits known as stable resonances, where an orbital synchrony prevents collisions with the planets.

These dynamical effects suggest a practical way to define a planet. That is, a planet is a body massive enough to dominate its orbital zone by flinging smaller bodies away, sweeping them up in direct collisions, or holding them in stable orbits. According to basic orbital physics, the likelihood that a massive body will deflect a smaller one from its neighborhood within the age of the solar system is roughly proportional to the square of its mass (which determines the gravitational reach of the massive body for a given amount of deflection) and inversely proportional to its orbital period (which governs the rate at which the encounters occur).

The eight planets from Mercury through Neptune are thousands of times more likely to sweep up or deflect small neighboring bodies than are even the largest asteroids and KBOs, which include Ceres, Pluto and Eris.

That's from this article. Seems like quite a bit more than "half a shit" of a reason.

I for one would much rather have eight planets, with lesser planetoids (or whatever the correct term is), than dozens. There is a clear difference between the eight massive bodies and the likes of Pluto, and the distinction in nomenclature seems quite fitting. I do not think of Pluto as being in the same category as Jupiter or Earth.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Low Key

electricitylikesme wrote: »

I don't think there's any risk of not feeling like you're standing on the edge of the solar system when we eventually land a man or women on Pluto though. Actually frankly that's why I want to do it - go all the way out to the rim and stare into galaxy.

Then go mad and become a space viking.

Y'know I thought I had finally wiped the show Space Knights from my memory sparks, but you just brought it all back.



They will be in my nightmares tonight

Target Practice

Who really cares?

It's not like its classification affects much of anything, besides what list schoolchildren are forced to memorize by rote.

GoodOmens

electricitylikesme wrote: »

I don't think there's any risk of not feeling like you're standing on the edge of the solar system when we eventually land a man or women on Pluto though. Actually frankly that's why I want to do it - go all the way out to the rim and stare into galaxy.

Then go mad and become a space viking.

You've been watching Firefly, haven't you?

Bionic Monkey

Squirrelmob wrote: »

My one problem with it not being a plant is that it failed specifically on the "clearing the neighborhood" because it comes to close to Neptune, but that should also dick Neptune (why does Pluto still chill in its hood?), Jupiter (has a bunch of asteroids around it iirc), and Earth (near earth asteroids). More or less the IAU just didn't want Pluto and couldn't give a half a shit answer for why it shouldn't be.

I, for one, am a large fan of the other solution of adding quite a few planets to the solar system.

Apparently, there's a very good chance there's at least one more massive gas giant out beyond the reaches of Pluto, even more massive than Jupiter.

Zek

I frankly don't give a damn. There's an official definition of a planet and if Pluto meets it then it is one, if it doesn't then it's not. It's just a word.

Rabid_Llama

Incenjucar wrote: »

The only reason Pluto would be classified as a planet is because people are used to it, at this point, much like how "Hydrogen" and "Oxygen" have their names backwards.

Wait, what?

Incenjucar

Rabid_Llama wrote: »

Incenjucar wrote: »

The only reason Pluto would be classified as a planet is because people are used to it, at this point, much like how "Hydrogen" and "Oxygen" have their names backwards.

Wait, what?

I explained it on page 1.

But this kind of supports my point.

You try changing something that people grew up with and they're all "Wait, what?" :P

Gim

Incenjucar wrote: »

But this kind of supports my point.

You try changing something that people grew up with and they're all "Wait, what?" :P

I lived a much happier life before you shot down brontosaurs for me.

Although, really, it's just semantic bickering at this point.

*shakes fist*

Incenjucar

Hey, think how I felt about it.

My nickname was Bront when I was in the GATE program.



But yeah, ultimately, words is words. It's just that most people have a hard time with words, so its best to make it easy for them.

DiscGrace

Don't think of it as "Pluto isn't a planet anymore, wahhh". Think of it as "Pluto and Charon are a binary dwarf planet system, that's super cool!"

AbsoluteZero

Pluto fails not so much because it hasn't "swept out debris in its orbit" but rather because Pluto as a celestial body does not comprise the majority of the mass present in its orbit, not by a long shot.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

[Tycho?]

No it shouldn't be a planet. If Pluto can be considered a planet then there are tens or maybe hundreds of other objects that fit the same criteria. And now that we are finding extra solar planets an actual definition of the term is required. I'm not a huge fan of the definition, it still seems a tad vague for my liking, but whatever.

Strange Attractor

I don't think Pluto really cares what we call it.