• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* - - - - 2 votes

Should Pluto to be upgraded to planet status again?

pluto planet

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 16 October 2015 - 11:18 AM


Given we now know that Pluto is a geothermically active and colourful world with unique topography and is not just a flat icy ball of rock is there any talk or chance do you think of upgrading it back to a regular planet basis? When someone asks me how many planets are on the solar system, I will always include Pluto. :) What do you think? Do you think Pluto should be our 'ninth planet?
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2 ceridwen

  • Guest
  • 1,292 posts
  • 102

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 October 2015 - 03:23 PM

and I think Ceres should be a planet too

#3 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 16 October 2015 - 09:29 PM

I have always and will always regard Pluto as a planet. Now we have evidence that it is not just a lump of rock, surly they can see that too? I wonder how many asteroids and other lumps of rock out there have blue skies.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 17 October 2015 - 02:49 AM

I have always and will always regard Pluto as a planet. Now we have evidence that it is not just a lump of rock, surly they can see that too? I wonder how many asteroids and other lumps of rock out there have blue skies.

 

Blue skies? Well, that's as good a reason as any. The demotion of Pluto was based on people who live by rigid rules, and who voted . Seriously, is science subject to democracy? Are we going to vote on the value of pi?


  • Good Point x 1

#5 ceridwen

  • Guest
  • 1,292 posts
  • 102

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 October 2015 - 02:57 AM

Mars has red skies

#6 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 October 2015 - 04:43 AM

I thought Pluto was still a planet, but with the added tag "dwarf".  If we want to call it a full-blown planet, aren't there a couple other distant round objects that are even bigger than Pluto?  Seems like we'd have to call them planets too.  We could continue the nomenclature trend, and call them Santa's Little Helper and Ren.


  • Agree x 1

#7 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 18 October 2015 - 08:56 AM

As I was growing up, every text book or computer program detailed Pluto as a planet, Since being demoted or 'tagged' dwarf, its importance it seems has also been demoted. So much so that we now only have '8' planets and Pluto is not mentioned or pictured in some children's guides to the solar system.

 

They say size doesn't matter but clearly it does :( :(

 

 


Edited by shifter, 18 October 2015 - 08:57 AM.


#8 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 18 October 2015 - 10:52 AM

I thought Pluto was still a planet, but with the added tag "dwarf".  If we want to call it a full-blown planet, aren't there a couple other distant round objects that are even bigger than Pluto?  Seems like we'd have to call them planets too.  We could continue the nomenclature trend, and call them Santa's Little Helper and Ren.

 

 

This is the problem astronomers have made for themselves in trying to define the word planet. But it can't be precisely defined as there are vast numbers of planet types in the universe, and even in the solar system no two are alike. Better to abandon the rigidity of definitions and ask whether it feels like a planet. Pluto, with its atmosphere, glaciers, and five moons, feels like one, while Ceres, with its boring, lunar surface, does not. As for objects in the Kuiper belt, they can be left for later, until they have been explored.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 18 October 2015 - 10:53 AM.

  • Disagree x 1

#9 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 18 October 2015 - 02:01 PM

Wow pople. Have I been sleeping for the last 20 years? I always have been knowing, that Pluto is a planet. Is it not? Why?



#10 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 21 October 2015 - 07:47 PM

Wow pople. Have I been sleeping for the last 20 years? I always have been knowing, that Pluto is a planet. Is it not? Why?

 

For the same reason that Ceres and the other asteroids aren't planets. Pluto belongs to a population of objects with similar orbits (the Kuiper belt, or, more specifically, the plutinos). It's not practical to have hundreds or thousands of planets in the Solar System. The Kuiper belt is like a far asteroid belt. Since we don't consider asteroids as planets anymore, we shall do the same with Pluto.


  • Disagree x 1

#11 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 21 October 2015 - 11:53 PM

For a time in its orbit, Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune.

Pluto is hardly asteroid like either. I wonder if those self important scientists who demoted Pluto back then had the information about Pluto we have today, could they have launched a successful argument? Would they have wanted to? Back then they just figured Pluto was a little icy rock with no more remarkable features than an asteroid.

Pluto is a facinating and beautiful unique world. Problem with calling it a dwarf planet is that it is effectively also 'dwarfing' its significance in future literature. Barely rates a mention now.

#12 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 October 2015 - 12:31 AM

Pluto does not care what we call it.

 

The fact that its orbit crosses Neptune's and its mass is so low -some moons are bigger -- make it sufficiently different to the other eight objects orbiting the sun that we call planets seems to invite a distinction of some kind.  Calling Pluto a planet like the others is just plain goofy.  Come to think of it, Pluto and Goofy are kind of hard to tell apart. 

 

But as long as we know what we mean when we talk about it, it doesn't really matter what we call it.  I'm perfectly happy to leave it to the astronomers who work with such things more than the rest of us and have a ore pressing need for precise terms.



#13 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 22 October 2015 - 04:21 AM

Mercury is a planet. Jupiter is a planet. One is a rock 2/5th the size of Earth. The other is a gas giant with a volume 1300 times the size of Earth. Seems like the definition of planet can be broad enough to accommodate Pluto.... Given what we now know at least

Edited by shifter, 22 October 2015 - 04:29 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#14 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,601 posts
  • 315

Posted 22 October 2015 - 06:24 PM

Pluto should have tenure.

#15 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:18 PM

lol people :) I feel like in another universe :)

From how long Pluto is not considered a planet?


  • Ill informed x 1

#16 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 23 October 2015 - 09:57 AM

10 odd years ago when they found a few more planets floating around they decided to feel important and change what everyone knew.

Have you heard of these remarkable discoveries? Chances are probably not because they are unimportant 'dwarfs' (no offence to dwarfs). Can't they call these planets 'kuiper belt planets'? Thereby not detracting their planet like status?

EightTNOs.png

Pluto is old news now anyway. Who's up for a flyby of Makemake? With a name like that you know it's gotta be cool :)

Edited by shifter, 23 October 2015 - 09:58 AM.


#17 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 23 October 2015 - 03:52 PM

I haven't heared about that :) really.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#18 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 28 October 2015 - 09:21 AM

Mercury is a planet. Jupiter is a planet. One is a rock 2/5th the size of Earth. The other is a gas giant with a volume 1300 times the size of Earth. Seems like the definition of planet can be broad enough to accommodate Pluto.... Given what we now know at least

 

Planet definition doesn't depend only on size. Ganymede is more than twice as larger than Pluto and it's not a planet.


Edited by Antonio2014, 28 October 2015 - 09:22 AM.


#19 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 28 October 2015 - 11:15 AM

Ganymede goes around a planet so THAT is why it is not a planet.

We have little basis in science to exclude Pluto, it is social and that is why strict made up definitions should not be used - they are arbitrary.

#20 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 28 October 2015 - 12:42 PM

A few years ago (in 2006) a gang of astronomers called IAU decided on rules for planets, as they wanted to exclude objects in an area they call the Kuiper belt, where there may be a hundred thousand bodies and dozens the size of Pluto or even larger. Why the IAU hates them no one knows, but they voted in these rules to exclude them as planets--

 

(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 neighborhood 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 neighborhood around its orbit, and
   d. is not a satellite.
 
(3) All other objects orbiting the Sun (except satellites)  shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".
 
By these rules Pluto and Ceres are excluded because Pluto spends a good bit of time in the Kuiper belt and Ceres resides in the asteroid belt. It would be easy to make Pluto a planet and exclude all other known bodies by adding a few words--
 
1 c. has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit or has at least five moons
2 c. has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit and has fewer than five moons
 
Which is ad hoc, but 1c and 2c were ad hoc to begin with.
 
Another option for Pluto--
 
1 c. has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, or has at least one moon with sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium

Edited by Turnbuckle, 28 October 2015 - 12:50 PM.

  • Unfriendly x 1

#21 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2015 - 09:24 PM

Ganymede goes around a planet so THAT is why it is not a planet.

 

Pluto hasn't cleared his neighbourghood, so THAT is why it is not a planet.

 



#22 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2015 - 09:40 PM

 

A few years ago (in 2006) a gang of astronomers called IAU decided on rules for planets, as they wanted to exclude objects in an area they call the Kuiper belt, where there may be a hundred thousand bodies and dozens the size of Pluto or even larger. Why the IAU hates them no one knows, but they voted in these rules to exclude them as planets--

 

You could show a little more respect for the International Astronomical Union, the organism that represents all astronomers in the world, founded 96 years ago and formed by national astronomical associations representing 73 countries. Why you hate the IAU no one knows, but they voted to exclude Kuiper Belt objects as planets for the same basic reasons that asteroids were excluded too in the XIX century. But hey, better talking from ignorance and insult the people that know what they are doing!



#23 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 November 2015 - 11:23 PM

 

 

A few years ago (in 2006) a gang of astronomers called IAU decided on rules for planets, as they wanted to exclude objects in an area they call the Kuiper belt, where there may be a hundred thousand bodies and dozens the size of Pluto or even larger. Why the IAU hates them no one knows, but they voted in these rules to exclude them as planets--

 

You could show a little more respect for the International Astronomical Union, the organism that represents all astronomers in the world, founded 96 years ago and formed by national astronomical associations representing 73 countries. Why you hate the IAU no one knows, but they voted to exclude Kuiper Belt objects as planets for the same basic reasons that asteroids were excluded too in the XIX century. But hey, better talking from ignorance and insult the people that know what they are doing!

 

 

Wow! One doesn't run into an apologist for the IAU very often!

 

Keep in mind that the IAU had previously recognized Pluto as a planet, so perhaps they don't know what they are doing. And besides, they voted on it, and science is not a democratic discipline. Nor was the vote very convincing, as it was 237 yes and 157 no. Considering there are more than 12,000 members, this represents about 3% of the total membership. I expect that if the vote had been delayed until NASA's sexy pics of Pluto and its moons had been published, the vote would have gone the other way.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 03 November 2015 - 11:26 PM.

  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#24 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2015 - 11:30 PM

Keep in mind that the IAU had previously recognized Pluto as a planet, so perhaps they don't know what they are doing.

 

It's you who don't know what they are doing. They changed the designation due to the discovery of the Kuiper Belt. When only Pluto was known in that area, there was no reason to not call it a planet. The same happened with Ceres until more asteroids were discovered.

 

 

And besides, they voted on it, and science is not a democratic discipline.

 

It's not science, it's nomenclature. Really you don't know what they did.


Edited by Antonio2014, 12 November 2015 - 11:32 PM.

  • Unfriendly x 1

#25 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 13 November 2015 - 12:48 AM

I can't believe that some get so heated about it. Must be a nerd thing.



#26 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 04 January 2016 - 01:51 AM

I'm curious are they called 'dwarf planets' because they are small or because they don't meet the 3rd criteria. If a 'planet' that resembled every bit like Jupiter to Neptune was found in the Kuiper Belt, would it be called a dwarf planet? (or have we pre assumed we have found all there is to see in the kuiper belt and therefore no need to worry about that).

If they want to change the designation of what constitutes a planet, fine, but 'dwarf' is just a stupid name (and if we found something massive what then? A new class of planet again?) and then to diminish it's significance and anything further in the kuiper belt region does astronomy science a disservice. Makemake is just as interesting and unique as Mercury etc

#27 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 07 January 2016 - 11:53 PM

The problem with "dwarf planet" is not "dwarf" but "planet". They should have used some term that had nothing to do with planets. Something in the line of "asteroid". Using "dwarf planet" for something that is not named a "planet" only adds to the confusion.



#28 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 16 January 2016 - 09:33 AM

From what I have read, Jupiter hasn't entirely cleared its neighbourhood of asteroids either (Trojan asteroids) and it 'technically' doesn't orbit the sun because the barycentre is far above the actual sun (although I think that last bit is splitting hairs a little).

So should Jupiter be classified as a dwarf planet for not having its neighbourhood entirely cleared?

#29 Antonio2014

  • Guest
  • 634 posts
  • 52
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 16 January 2016 - 10:02 AM

From what I have read, Jupiter hasn't entirely cleared its neighbourhood of asteroids either (Trojan asteroids) and it 'technically' doesn't orbit the sun because the barycentre is far above the actual sun (although I think that last bit is splitting hairs a little).

 

It has cleared its neighbourhood. Bodies in the Lagrange points (like the trojans) or satellites don't count, since they can't be cleared by any planet.

 

And no, technically it orbits the Sun. The definition of planet says nothing about the position of the barycentre. It's only needed that the planet orbits a star; that is, that it isn't a rogue planet.



#30 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 21 January 2016 - 07:36 AM

So they think they have evidence of the 'planet x' and they want it to be our official 9th planet. No mention it orbits a strange elliptical orbit like Pluto or spends its life in the Kuiper Belt. But it's a planet because it's huge they say. So there you have it. Size does count afterall.... :(

https://amp.twimg.co...fc-7a189bd74dd9

That 3rd definition of having its neighbourhood cleared essentially made it impossible for anything out past Neptune to be able to be a 'planet' (because it lies in the Kuiper Belt) so what's this talk about being the 9th planet? They presume it has a highly elliptical orbit and can take ~20000 years to orbit the sun. At least Pluto spends some of its time closer to the sun than Neptune.

Dwarf planet tag is dumb. Why not call them Kuiper Belt planets. Because technically by the IAU's own definition of a planet, this Neptune sized planet X is a dwarf planet. There is nothing about the 3 criteria regarding what is a planet or a dwarf planet that mentions size a prerequisite. The only difference in them is whether it has cleared its neighbourhood or not

Edited by shifter, 21 January 2016 - 07:37 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users