Pluto May Soon Not Be A "Planet" ????

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rockthecasbah, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. rockthecasbah macrumors 68020

    rockthecasbah

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    Moorestown, NJ
    #1
    Astronomers are meeting to define what a "Planet" actually is. This decision could soon affect whether or not Pluto remains a scientifically-defined planet. Currently the argument is a stalemate, according to the article, about 50/50 for both sides. The main issue is Pluto's size. Once believed to be about Earth's, it has since been discovered to be smaller than our moon. Also setting apart is it's odd orbital plane, separating it from other planets.

    Well call me old fashioned, but i consider Pluto a planet :p. The argument compares size, but what does that really matter if it exhibits planet-like aspects? I don't know, i guess that's why i'm not an astronomer right?

    Link.
     
  2. Super Macho Man macrumors 6502a

    Super Macho Man

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
  3. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #3
    Whether Pluto is or is not a planet shouldn't really be a big part of the discussion. The real question is coming up with a definition of a planet. Once that's accomplished, Pluto will either meet that definition or not. Is Xena a planet? How do we determine going forward what constitutes a newly-discovered planet. How elliptical can its orbit be? How large does it have to be?
     
  4. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #4
    The problem with Pluto being a "planet" is that one of the new objects recently found (Sedna, I think it's called) is actually LARGER than Pluto. So if Pluto's a planet, shouldn't that larger, farther-out object ALSO be a planet?

    I think it makes more sense to demote Pluto to a "trans-Neptunian object", even though for about 20 years of its orbit, it's inside Neptune's orbit.
     
  5. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #5
    Sedna is actually smaller than Pluto. "Xena" is the major one under discussion, as it's the largest of the Trans-Neptunian objects. There are a lot of them though, with more being discovered all the time. Where do we draw the line?

    Edit: Here's a good summary of some of the options currently under consideration for defining what it means to be a "planet."
     
  6. rockthecasbah thread starter macrumors 68020

    rockthecasbah

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    Moorestown, NJ
    #6
    That's what the whole meeting is about, but the redefinition may exclude Pluto from being considered a planet which is the point of the article.
     
  7. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    Any definition that defines Jupiter and Mercury as the same kind of thing is a little off to begin with. I imagine they might come up with a couple sub-definitions under the broader definition, leaving the "main" question of Pluto's status effectively unanswered.
     
  8. Tanglewood macrumors 6502a

    Tanglewood

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #8
    Pluto doesn't meet the definition of a planet I think it should be grandfathered as a planet anyway.

    Its like vowels a-e-i-o-u- and sometimes y. Pluto is the 'y'.
     
  9. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #9
    Pluto is not a planet.

    it is a planet-oid.

    it has an unsual elliptical orbit that is not even within the plane of our solar system, it travels at a tilt....

    back in the day pluto made sense, but today it doesnt really, especially since, last I recall, part of its orbit brings it closer to the sun than Neptune....

    im no astronomer but Pluto is prolly just a huge frozen rock left over from the formation of our solar system......orbiting forever like a comet does.

    though the fact that it has "moons" makes it a planet in my book, no comet/asteroid, has orbiting smaller bodies.
     
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    It doesn't matter what we call it because it doesn't change anything, or help us solve anything.
     
  11. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #11
    Personally, I think this argument was started by the text book publishers. After Pluto is declared "not a planet," textbooks in every classroom around the world will have to be replaced. Cha-Ching
     
  12. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    Wow. So true.
     
  13. Tanglewood macrumors 6502a

    Tanglewood

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
  14. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #14
  15. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #15
    Problem is they just never defined a Planet very well, I like to think of Planets as Big enough Rocks to have or had a atmosphere.
     
  16. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #16
    Last time I checked, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus weren't really just "big rocks."
     
  17. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #17
    Neptune and Uranus aren't, they're mostly ice with enough gravitational pull to hold onto gas. Saturn is less dense than water (it would float if you could find a big enough pool) but still big enough to hold the gases in.

    The core of Jupiter is believed to be metallic hydrogen but we can't really prove it until we can get a probe down there (ie never) so until then we have to infer.

    A planet to me is something larger than some given size but not too large to become a star. Brown dwarfs aren't planets.
     
  18. srobert macrumors 68020

    srobert

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #18
    Indeed. This is not a very productive debate.

    There doesn't seem to be any solid demarkation between any celestial body in space. There isn't really a size gap between big asteroids/planetoids and small planets. Heck, there doesn't even seem to be a gap between big gazeous planets ans small cool stars. Take a big enough gazeous planet, add a little mass, pressure/temperature increases, and Swoosh! nuclear fusion starts and you get a star. (don't try this at home kids)

    This debate had been going on for years. It keeps popping back on slow news days.
     
  19. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #19
    The real question is, why the hell aren't scientists putting their time, resources, money and manpower together to find cures for things like cancer and aids instead of deciding if a giant lump of rock 2.6 billion miles from us is a planet or not :rolleyes:
     
  20. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #20
    We are...


    Should we get rid of every activity that doesn't directly impact human health?
     
  21. srobert macrumors 68020

    srobert

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #21
    ^_^ Indeed. Astronomers/Astrophysicist wouldn't be able to contribute much to Cancer research.

    But I'm pretty sure there are more important issues withing their field. One comes to mind: "How can we get Douglas Quaid's ass to mars withing the next 50 year?"
     
  22. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #22
    Actually, I'd be willing to bet they could. They're very smart folks...if they'd been trained as biologists, they'd likely be very good at it. Take a few years to retrain them and they'll be all set. But clearly that's not what they wanted to do with their lives, so more power to them. Issues like this are merely a sidelight to their real work of understanding how the universe works and what's out there. Which may become extremely important in the future.

    There are an awful lot of people in the biology world who are working on things that aren't directly applicable to human health. But maybe at some point that work will be tied into some much bigger or open up a completely new and revolutionary avenue of research that will have such an impact.
     
  23. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #23
    I'd classify all Kuiper Belt objects larger than Pluto as planets and not worry about the textbooks. We have the Internet now, so we don't have to rely on out of date information. How many moons do Jupiter or Saturn have today?

    If astronomers can declare any sun within 50 light years that wobbles a bit as having planets, I don't see what the problem is with having 30-odd planets that we do know are there in our own solar system.

    Anyway let's start naming some of these rocks. That's where the real fun starts :)
     
  24. srobert macrumors 68020

    srobert

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #24
    Indeed. And who's to say that the cure for cancer won't be found in the eye mucus of a beach dweeling 12 meter long worm on the shores of a distant planet, discovered by and to which the course has been plotted by astonomers/astrophycsists. :D Ok, long shot I'll admit.

    On another note. Many scientists agree that the survial of the human race is still very uncertain as long as we haven't settled other worlds orbiting other stars. As smart as we think we are, 1 big chunk of rock could send us all to space-pope heaven in an instant. Oooh the drama!
     
  25. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #25
    I would think that without settling other planets or some other plan that doesn't rely on earth, the human race is guaranteed not to survive.
     

Share This Page