PDA

View Full Version : Pluto : News | Planet new defenition



TheGozr
08-24-2006, 10:42 AM
Astronomers say Pluto is not a planet

PRAGUE, Czech Republic - Leading astronomers declared Thursday that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight. After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930.

Planet new defenition:

RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 5A is the principal definition for the IAU usage of "planet" and related terms. Resolution 5B adds the word "classical" to the collective name of the eight planets Mercury through Neptune.

Resolution 6A creates for IAU usage a new class of objects, for which Pluto is the prototype. Resolution 6B introduces the name "plutonian objects" for this class. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "plutonian" as:
Main Entry: plu € to € ni € an
Pronunciation: plü-'tO-nE-&n
Function: adjective
Usage: often capitalized
: of, relating to, or characteristic of Pluto or the lower world

After having received inputs from many sides -- especially the geological community -- the term "Pluton" is no longer being considered.

IAU Resolution: Definition of a Planet in the Solar System
Contemporary observations are changing our understanding of planetary systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect our current understanding. This applies, in particular, to the designation 'planets'. The word 'planet' originally described 'wanderers' that were known only as moving lights in the sky. Recent discoveries lead us to create a new definition, which we can make using currently available scientific information.

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A planet1 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 neighbourhood 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) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects3 orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

1The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
2An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.
3These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.


RESOLUTION 5B
Insert the word "classical" before the word "planet" in Resolution 5A, Section (1), and footnote 1. Thus reading:

(1) A classical planet1 is a celestial body . . .

and

1The eight classical planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.



IAU Resolution: Pluto

RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.

RESOLUTION 6B
The following sentence is added to Resolution 6A:

This category is to be called "plutonian objects."

EURO_Snoopy
08-24-2006, 11:27 AM
Settled at long last, btw how many moons has Earth got?

F6_Ace
08-24-2006, 11:38 AM
Looks like one or two people might be re-writing their pub quizzes for this evening.

Interesting news but you'd hope that astronomers might be spending more time investigating planets around other stars rather than worrying too much about Pluto's classification.

KaleunFreddie
08-24-2006, 11:50 AM
Before pluto was dicovered, there was a very destiguishable unexplained 'wobble' in the outer solar system.
It was deduced that this must be due to some planetary gravitational force, and Pluto was discovered by prediction.

It goes around the sun like all other 'planets'.
Now are they getting too PC, and are kak scared of offending other large planets so they reclassify Pluto.. Har Har Har bunch of Dingbats http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LStarosta
08-24-2006, 11:59 AM
Pluto in many ways resembles a comet more so than it does a planet.

Treetop64
08-24-2006, 12:47 PM
It's been argued for many years that Pluto and Charon were KBOs (Kupier Belt Objects) that have gone astray, and I've tended to agree with this.

LEBillfish
08-24-2006, 12:48 PM
uh....yea......If it's the size that matters, then earth compared to Jupiter as the standard would fall into that catagory......

Besides think about it, do you all really want size to matter?

In any case it sounds like a few folks with too many degrees having not enough sense and too much time on their hands desperate to make their mark in this world.......

In other words........http://www.babesandstuff.com/forum/images/smilies/jerkit.gif

Cworth
08-24-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:

In any case it sounds like a few folks with too many degrees having not enough sense and too much time on their hands desperate to make their mark in this world.......

In other words........http://www.babesandstuff.com/forum/images/smilies/jerkit.gif

I agree completely..

Besides I think we have more important things here on earth that science should be working on that does not deal with wasting money on space exploration or what is or is not a planet.Things like cures for diseases and other problems of that nature.

TheGozr
08-24-2006, 01:15 PM
Space exploration is not waste of money IMO i think we should even send more money to finally start something important for all of us, Like Lets built bases on the Moon, Mars http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Maybe we can take off a bit of money from the Military wich make more sens and send it to the Medecine sciences, i dought some extronomers can work on medecine right now.
You want to help the world? Start by reforming the Pharmaceutical . Like a little revolution on that matter.
Pharmaceutical = To much money involve for them to have cures yet.

LEBillfish, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Talking of moons are you a Planet? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ernst_Rohr
08-24-2006, 01:21 PM
Besides I think we have more important things here on earth that science should be working on that does not deal with wasting money on space exploration or what is or is not a planet.Things like cures for diseases and other problems of that nature.

I disagree. We are one hunk of nickel-iron away from being a footnote on the historical record, just like our predeccesors, the dinosaurs.

Plus, from a long term survivial of the species perspective, we are dealing with a finite amount of resources on the earth, and a limited amount of land.

Plus, there is also the long exsisting human need to get the hell away from everyone else! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In all seriousness, the space race did more for human technology and science that ANYTHING else, save for the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Pesonally, if it comes to a choice, give us another space race over WW3, thank you kindly!

The items your addressing, disease and what not, have been left to large for profit companies to sort out. The environment isnt going to matter to the politicians until its something that might cost them an election. So, in short, while the talk about it, they arent going to do much about it.

As far as "curing" the rest of the worlds ills, you talking about a bunch of greedy, selfish, self-interested, short-sighted, ignorant, and vindicitve twits who cant agree not to kill each other over stupid BS for any length of time. They are going to fix the world?

Not happening!

I dont know about the rest of you, but give me space travel. They ever get to the point it allows immigration to someplace else, I will be the first in line to get off this rock! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Akronnick
08-24-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Looks like one or two people might be re-writing their pub quizzes for this evening.

Interesting news but you'd hope that astronomers might be spending more time investigating planets around other stars rather than worrying too much about Pluto's classification.


That actually was more the focus than the status of Pluto. As telescopes and computers get better, more and more objects are being observed, both in this system and others, so a definitive defintion of "planet" was needed. The reclassification of Pluto is just a consequence of the new definition. Pluto gets all the headlines because everyone knows it as the ninth planet. Who would turn to page three to read about 2003 UB313 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313)?

CAF96th_Sillyak
08-24-2006, 02:15 PM
and I just bought my astronomy textbook, guess they will have to be re-writing that pretty soon.

slo_1_2_3
08-24-2006, 02:36 PM
Wait a minute I heard they were gonna add three new planets into our solar system, now the're getting rid of one? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
08-24-2006, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Wait a minute I heard they were gonna add three new planets into our solar system, now the're getting rid of one? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

that was the early scuttlebutt...they've since changed their position and decided to eliminate Pluto from the list....size isn't the only reason....Pluto has a funny orbit around the Sun which the other planets don't share

LEBillfish
08-24-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
LEBillfish, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Talking of moons are you a Planet? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Depends on which end of me you're looking at.....My moon end, or my planetoid end.......HOWEVER......If you're implying I'm as big as a planet, you can expect to get launched to the moon...alice... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TheGozr
08-24-2006, 03:43 PM
LOL.. I would say that, For a tiny planet as you are and with the two moons in orbit you sure make a lots of gravity forces around you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif and also many Pilots would wish to claim a successfull landing or simply be gravitational asteroids. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

flockzap
08-24-2006, 04:08 PM
Since I was not planning to move in (to Pluto) it doesn´t make a difference. There are smaller things here on earth and forums (some avatars are awesome) far more agreable to sight than a planet I really never saw.

dogstar4000
08-24-2006, 04:24 PM
I for one won't be flying on the Pluto map anymore then.

Sturm_Williger
08-24-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
I dont know about the rest of you, but give me space travel. They ever get to the point it allows immigration to someplace else, I will be the first in line to get off this rock! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No way man ! <Elbows Ernst aside> Me first !!

Good post, I agree completely.

Rjel
08-24-2006, 05:02 PM
For most of us who grew up thinking of Pluto as a planet, this probably won't change anything. Only when our generations die off will this new ruling mean much.

As far as a new space race goes, I'd like to see more countries pool their efforts to see where that takes mankind. With an all out effort similar to what was made by the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. in the '60s, who knows where mankind would be fifty to one hundred years from now.

slo_1_2_3
08-24-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
For most of us who grew up thinking of Pluto as a planet, this probably won't change anything. Only when our generations die off will this new ruling mean much.

As far as a new space race goes, I'd like to see more countries pool their efforts to see where that takes mankind. With an all out effort similar to what was made by the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. in the '60s, who knows where mankind would be fifty to one hundred years from now. I'n not being mean or anything this is just my opinion,: Extinct.

LStarosta
08-24-2006, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
uh....yea......If it's the size that matters, then earth compared to Jupiter as the standard would fall into that catagory......

Besides think about it, do you all really want size to matter?

In any case it sounds like a few folks with too many degrees having not enough sense and too much time on their hands desperate to make their mark in this world.......

In other words........http://www.babesandstuff.com/forum/images/smilies/jerkit.gif

Talk about being ignorant...

Keep jerkin' though if that's what you do.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LStarosta
08-24-2006, 05:15 PM
Anyway, about space exploration...

There are some people putting rockets on a Lear Jet and taking it into space.

LEBillfish
08-24-2006, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Talk about being ignorant...

Keep jerkin' though if that's what you do.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Actually ignorance has nothing to do with taste yet simply being innocent to, or unaware of something........Now if my teasing has pushed some button of yours, struck some nerve, well that's your issue to deal with as you I am ignorant to. As to my matter of taste your opinion of it matters to me just as little.

However, as to the subject of "Pluto" no longer being a planet I'll stick to my statement as I am not ignorant to the workings of politicians (and yes, no matter your field once you start defining and dictating you are a politician).

Point being, though I'm sure the International Astronomical Union did significantly more, during their week long meeting, you'll often find such "defining" of issues is nothing more then grandstanding to try and set ones own name to work done by those before you.

Now to elucidate on that point, in time most realize the world is made up of basically 4 types of people........Those that simply live their lives doing whatever they do, and those make up the majority by far and are important in that they build, the last 3 not nearly as productive (lets just to give it a number say 70%). There is a second group that is clever, and creates new things from concepts developed by the third group. Now this group is actually very valuable in that the lions share of what we will see, use, advances us and so on in this world are developed and pushed for by this group..They are a driving force if you will, yet do not "really" invent. Lets say they make up 15%. Then there is a third group, into it would be classed geniuses and such, these folks REALLY come up with absolutely new things. They're the ones that strive to invent or discover often the most obscure fact, those discoveries alone meaning little, yet their work supplying the second group with the foundations and little keys that make the difference. Yet often they do nothing really practical with it, that not their interest, yet they are invaluable as well....Lets call them 1/100th of 1%.

Lastly we have the fourth group, eating up the last 14.XXX% of people. This group is often highly educated, and to the rest of the population be placed in relation to others as the MOST important. Truth is they are often the least, their status simply due to their own politicking. This group, makes their way through the efforts of the first 3. They claim to know best, group 1 not caring, 2 too busy, 3 concerned with their specific things....This group pretty much spends their time "defining things, dictating, repeating the discoveries of the third, and claiming the creation of subsequent building from it by politicking their way to be in an administrative position of the second and first.

In the end, they do nothing, create nothing, nor discover anything, yet take the credit for it as they might put a name to it then stating "This is what I have determined and decided".

Such events are clearly seen in politics, less so in big business, and even more vague in scientific/educational arenas. Yet it is all the same thing.

So yes, when a group spends a week in heated debates no doubt making a fortune doing it, while the others do the work, create, make discoveries, yet call themselves the experts and so the others can get their work done are allowed to take the glory....Their only answer being, "it is a planet, but not, maybe, kinda, give us a bit longer and we'll come up with a new name"..........Well, it's like when the world leaders spend billions of dollars to meet, and after weeks of talks come to the conclusion "we agree at this point we don't agree"......

To not realize that is how the world works is showing your ignorance of man........As groups 1-3 are too busy to "jerk" like the 4th.....They get such authority "most" often through politicking....When all said and done their declaration makes nothing, creates nothing, discovers nothing, accomplishes nothing..........Its called semantics, and a rose by any other name smells as sweet........I'd be more impressed if they discovered something about it, not just "redefined" it.



Oh, p.s.......I fall into the ULTRA rare 5th group, we're absolutly expendable and in fact groups 1-4 would be much better of if we didn't exist. Yet, they keep us around as we understnd the meaning of the word "ignorant" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

erco415
08-25-2006, 11:23 AM
If 'they' want to say Pluto's not a planet, fine. But I know enough to call a Brontosaur a Brontosaur. So, Pluto, you'll always be a planet to me.

MEGILE
08-25-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:


Actually ignorance has nothing to do with taste yet simply being innocent to, or unaware of something........

Billfish, knowing your love of words, vis-a-vis your verbose posts I am sure you will be interested to know that the word ignorant has been attributed the colloquial meaning of "ill-mannered" since the late 19th century.

ie. you are ignorant of Astronomy and you are an ignorant person.

elphifou
08-25-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Then there is a third group, into it would be classed geniuses and such, these folks REALLY come up with absolutely new things. (...)


they do nothing, create nothing, (...)


Oh, p.s.......I fall into the ULTRA rare 5th group, we're absolutly expendable and in fact groups 1-4 would be much better of if we didn't exist.

- Nobody in this universe can come up with "absolutely new" things or ideas. You always get inspiration from something, never out of the blue.

- Nobody (or nothing) in this universe does "nothing" or creates "nothing". Everything has a cause and an effect.

- Nobody is expendable. You must be a very depressed person to be so hard on yourself...

LStarosta
08-25-2006, 01:10 PM
Billfish, the internet has way too many self-certified psychologists. You were just protesting the needlessness of classification while, quite ironically and pompously, stating your ideas on the classification of human beings.

I am not an expert on astronomy seeing as I have only taken a few geological and astronomical science classes in my life, but I know enough to realize that what these scientists decided has more to do with science than semantics (read the definition of a dwarf planet). Obviously this has more implications with further space exploration studies and is not limited to only our solar system.


P.S. You can do better than pen1s-size jokes to try to "strike a nerve". Really, it's borderline sexual harassment. Obviously I would never make comments about your reproductive organs, nevermind mammaries.

MEGILE
08-25-2006, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
You were just protesting the needlessness of classification while, quite ironically and pompously, stating your ideas on the classification of human beings.


Billy was obviously demonstrating his extensive knowledge of irony.

Word to your mother Luke, and happy birthday as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
08-25-2006, 03:32 PM
I surely will tell her on your behalf. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEBillfish
08-25-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:


Actually ignorance has nothing to do with taste yet simply being innocent to, or unaware of something........

Billfish, knowing your love of words, vis-a-vis your verbose posts I am sure you will be interested to know that the word ignorant has been attributed the colloquial meaning of "ill-mannered" since the late 19th century.

ie. you are ignorant of Astronomy and you are an ignorant person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Colloquial?........Call me old fashioned, and no, I am ignorant of astronomy and a jerk. Lets call a spade a spade here.


Originally posted by LStarosta:
..........but I know enough to realize that what these scientists decided has more to do with science than semantics (read the definition of a dwarf planet). Obviously this has more implications with further space exploration studies and is not limited to only our solar system.


P.S. You can do better than pen1s-size jokes to try to "strike a nerve". Really, it's borderline sexual harassment. Obviously I would never make comments about your reproductive organs, nevermind mammaries.

No, it really does simply deal with semantics and in fact if you had looked into it to any degree, what they are essentially saying is "we aren't sure, therefore we will reclassify it as something else".....Okie dokie, how bout instead they state ""we aren't sure, therefore we will investigate it more fully and rule on this classification when we have more information"?

Because, then those involved could not tag themselves onto a firm decision.

........and what makes you so sure I'm above genital jokes?.....If you feel sexually harassed, well contact your attorney..OR..Get used to it....Funny how PC is suddenly an issue when on the other foot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LStarosta
08-25-2006, 06:00 PM
Okay, Bill, why don't you go write them a letter and tell them why exactly they're wrong.

Be sure to post their reply here.

In the meantime, why don't we just call all round things in space "stars". I mean, it's just semantics after all.

LEBillfish
08-25-2006, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Okay, Bill, why don't you go write them a letter and tell them why exactly they're wrong.

Be sure to post their reply here.

In the meantime, why don't we just call all round things in space "stars". I mean, it's just semantics after all.

Did you not read any of the reports or articles on this, what part of me not finding the activity worthy of note are you not getting and what aspect are you finding so worth while?

Point blank, they don't know exactly what it is arguments being comparison to Ceres & Pallas when they were first believed to be planets later discovered not. Yet when they were, folks did not say "ah there it is, not sure so lets call it a planet"...They waited.

Based upon their logic, let me further define objects in our solar system in addition to their criteria.....

Size:
A=Dwarf Planet, no larger then Mercury
B=Planet, No smaller then Mars no larger then Earth
C=Super Planet, No smaller the Neptune, No larger then Uranus
D=Mega Planet, Saturn size and up

Environment:
1=Planet, Temperature should range from -150 to +150F. Atmosphere should support human life, Weather should be no more violent then Earth's.
2=Hostile Planet, Tempture can range from -500 to +500, Atmosphere should support human life, Weather should would be considerably more violent then Earth's.
3=Violent Planet, Tempture can range from -1,500 to +1,500, Atmosphere should not support human life, Weather should would be extremely more violent then Earth's.

Gravity:
X=Light Planet, gravity = 0-75% of Earths.
Y=Planet, gravity = 75-150% of Earths.
Z=Heavy Planet, gravity = 151-infitesimal% of Earths.

Okie dokie, based on all that lets see, hmmm, must be a class B1Y body to be considered a "Planet"........OMG!! Earth is the only planet in the solar system....

So there we have it, conclusive PROOF there is only 1 planet........and I'm sure of that based on the above, not guessing.

So, send that off and because "I" said so, you can tell them they're wrong there is only really 1.

Get it now, I can say anything, classify things however I want, yet in the end it means nothing. More so, my criteria is based on logical fact....Not maybe sorta kinda, ok, lets call it something else.

Point is it is not anymore worthy of CNN/BBC/NBC/ESPN then our thread here. More so, in the end, we could call earth Bob so it's no longer a planet either. Yet they make some big stink about their decision, announce that the world needs to change their way of thinking not based on fact knowing if it is an asteroid, or a premature planet, yet simply because they don't know so have decided to call it something else.......

Pleeeeease....... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Top_Gun_1_0_1
08-25-2006, 09:07 PM
The new Planet #9 is coming to Encyclopedias... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

fordfan25
08-25-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
uh....yea......If it's the size that matters, then earth compared to Jupiter as the standard would fall into that catagory......

Besides think about it, do you all really want size to matter?

In any case it sounds like a few folks with too many degrees having not enough sense and too much time on their hands desperate to make their mark in this world.......

In other words........http://www.babesandstuff.com/forum/images/smilies/jerkit.gif hay if size doesnt matter i lose all my advantge's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Uh uh uh uh you said Uranus!

LEBillfish
08-25-2006, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
hay if size doesnt matter i lose all my advantge's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Uh uh uh uh you said Uranus!

hehe, now that's the spirit....an appropriate response on par with the announcement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LStarosta
08-26-2006, 05:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Billfish, NOWHERE in the resolution does it mention the relative size of the planet-candidate as a classification factor. The only thing that separates planets from dwarf planets (the category to which Pluto belongs to) is that dwarf planets have not cleared the proximity of their orbits of smaller bodies.

If you think that is irrelevant, then a) you don't know much about how planets are formed and b) you should try to imagine what it would be like if Earth shared its orbit with a large number of large chunks of rock.





Apparently Pluto has not cleared its orbit of other significant bodies, therefore it has been reclassified.


Whatever though, you must have a college degree in the field since you know your sh*t so well.

Friendly_flyer
08-26-2006, 08:17 AM
The reason they saw the need to take away Pluto's planet status was that they had discovered at least one body bigger than Pluto (Xena), and possibly one more in orbits past Pluto. They expect there to be 10 - 20 similar sized objects just waiting to be discovered in the next 20 or so years. It's a matter of simplicity: Do we want to learn 20-something planet names in school, or can we do without our smallest planet, which has a dubious orbit and size in the first place.

Pluto as a celestial body is really more like a very big, dirty snow ball with rocks in it than a planet.

The class of "Dwarf planets" will probably start of with three members: Pluto, Xena and Ceres, the latter having also had planetary status in the past.

DuxCorvan
08-26-2006, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by erco415:
If 'they' want to say Pluto's not a planet, fine. But I know enough to call a Brontosaur a Brontosaur. So, Pluto, you'll always be a planet to me.

Brontosaur never existed. Someone reconstructed a sauropod skeleton in a wrong way, and assigned it a theropod head that didn't belong at all.

The true skull was discovered some years ago: the true full skeleton now belongs to a Jurassic sauropod called Apatosaurus.

Brontosaurus has just been erased from Linneus classifications.

Pluto is, indeed, a very particular object to be considered just a planet:

1) It is a double-object system. Charonte is so big and is so near Pluto that if fact, it doesn't turn around it, but both turn around a common axis.

2) It is the only solid planet-like object beyond Neptune, while all the other distant planets are giant gas balls.

3) It has an extremely eccentric orbit around the sun. It crosses Neptunian orbit in its path, and in fact, Neptune is briefly further from Sun that Pluto, while its perihelio point is so far you may think it's gonna lose in open space.

For all these facts, yes, I agree that it well may be a big asteroid that went astray and found a stable, yet pronounced orbit around the Sun.

BSS_CUDA
08-26-2006, 08:58 AM
there is more to this classification than just size. Our moon is bigger than Pluto, also Saturns Moon Titan is bigger than Mercury. but since they are both in orbit around other planets they are not givin the status of a planet. since Pluto shares a common axis with its own moon should it be classified as a planet? not if you go by the criteria of the remaining 8 planets in our Solar system.

LEBillfish
08-26-2006, 09:19 AM
Well I'm not basing my statements upon just the clip in the lead post above yet also it inspiring me to do further checking on the issue before even making my lead post. I cannot ever imagine Ceres or Pallas being shifted to "Dwarf Planet" Status as suggested above being asteroids, yet can see Pluto being reclassified as an asteroid, dwarf planet, or big frozen pile of cwap........That not the point.

Ex. look here...Then look at the dates http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/ .......Binary Planet, etc. etc., whatever you want to call it at this point "no one is sure" nor sure about Xena and the other objects we're getting a hint of.

Ok, in 9 years we'll begin to find out.....So responsibility would dictate you state "After careful consideration we don't know, yet will be finding out. So in that light, have decided to develop some new possible classifications to further define objects as we learn of them. They are, and based on the following criteria...blah blah blah."

Nope, can't do that, in fact I really need to look into the IAU, it's leadership and their associated ages......As what they have done is made a wild determination based on assumtion, yet then "APPLIED IT" before the facts are in.

That is wrong, more so they have made it final, and even hedged it to CYA.....The point being, to get their 2 cents worth in, to be a controlling factor in how the world see's space, and be tied to something the public well knows, though pathetically don't realize they're already considered as such.

It's simple, simply state "we don't know for sure yet are about to find out, and we're preparing for the possibilities".....Yet that won't get your name in the news or the astronomical journals....That being the point as the public, including us now on this forum hoptoad around on a guess.


p.s. I'd also be more impressed if such announcements were made to simply promote/advertise/build up the excitement, yet again as said above that does not place the glory on you but the other.

EURO_Snoopy
08-26-2006, 09:36 AM
Like it or not there had to be a change in the planet count, Pluto's position as a planet has always been a bit dodgy due to its small size and unusual orbit, as said before if Pluto was to be classified as a planet then Ceres and Xena would also have to be included.

Now, to my question in post #2 in this thread:

How many moons does the Earth have?

Some may find the answer to that one upsetting too

_VR_ScorpionWorm
08-26-2006, 09:45 AM
Does Pluto know about this?

panther3485
08-26-2006, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by _VR_ScorpionWorm:
Does Pluto know about this?

Shhhhhhh! Not so loud! We don't want Pluto to get upset!

DuxCorvan
08-26-2006, 09:54 AM
Of course, all these names and concepts are nothing but labels we use to put things in folders for our own purposes. Earth, Mercury and Jupiter have nothing in common except being round objects that orbit the Sun.

Reality, this is, the intrinsecal nature of things, don't change only because we thinking creatures assign different labels and names to them.

In fact, assigning names to planets and stars always looked to me an arrogant thing to do, as if we, poor short-handed creatures, owned them at all.

Udidtoo
08-26-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
Like it or not there had to be a change in the planet count, Pluto's position as a planet has always been a bit dodgy due to its small size and unusual orbit, as said before if Pluto was to be classified as a planet then Ceres and Xena would also have to be included.

Now, to my question in post #2 in this thread:

How many moons does the Earth have?

Some may find the answer to that one upsetting too

Temporary or permanent?

NonWonderDog
08-26-2006, 10:13 AM
The more important fact is that there are potentially hundreds of objects just like Pluto. Several have already been found. Rather than keep on adding tiny dust balls to the list of planets, they removed the one tiny dust ball from the list of planets. This was really just to put an end to the hypocracy.

Honestly, if Pluto was any closer to the sun it would have a tail. It's not very round. Pluto and Charon are nearly the same size and orbit a barycenter. Their orbit is full of dust and such because their gravities are too low to clear it. Their orbits around the sun are rather eccentric, and Pluto and Charon often cross within Neptune's orbit.

Pluto's been seen as an oddity for 15 years at least, and it has never fit with or influenced the pattern for any future planets that may be found. I'm not surprised by this decision at all.


LEBillfish, you're just upset because this messes up your horoscope, aren't you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Don't those astrologists say that Pluto has something to do with change, anyway? I don't know, they're all nuts.

LEBillfish
08-26-2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Of course, all these names and concepts are nothing but labels we use to put things in folders for our own purposes. Earth, Mercury and Jupiter have nothing in common except being round objects that orbit the Sun.

Reality, this is, the intrinsecal nature of things, don't change only because we thinking creatures assign different labels and names to them.

In fact, assigning names to planets and stars always looked to me an arrogant thing to do, as if we, poor short-handed creatures, owned them at all.

Agree absolutely, there in my point and we "don't know" Pluto is like Ceres or it would have been called an asteroid (the hedging I noted above).........Yet what does define us is our language and the ability to convey vast, very detailed bits of information which is important......So classifying things is fine, in fact very worth while.....The responsibility though to not be too anxious to be the one to do it jumping the gun. Then vacillating back and forth.

All that makes for is "headlines" and keeping ones own name in the news as though trying to overshadow the point at hand.........It's about doing things responsibly when in a leadership role, that my only point.

Pluto the issue, not the IAU edict which they are trying to make it.........It will be exciting to find out....What say we pick this up again in 10 years when we know something.

LEBillfish
08-26-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
LEBillfish, you're just upset because this messes up your horoscope, aren't you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Don't those astrologists say that Pluto has something to do with change, anyway? I don't know, they're all nuts.

Grrrrr....the change....where's my estrogen, I feel a hot flash coming on I just knew it was Pluto's fault http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

DuxCorvan
08-26-2006, 10:36 AM
One question about Pluto:

If it's Mickey Mouse's dog, and as every dog, is naked, can't talk and walks on four legs...

how is it that Mickey has a friend, Goofy, who is also a dog, but dresses, talks and walks like humans? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

http://www.mda.dds.nl/film/shorts/pluto.gif

http://psc.disney.go.com/abcnetworks/toondisney/help/404/images/goofy.gif

LEBillfish
08-26-2006, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
One question about Pluto:

If it's Mickey Mouse's dog, and as every dog, is naked, can't talk and walks on four legs...

how is it that Mickey has a friend, Goofy, who is also a dog, but dresses, talks and walks like humans? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif



Mutant.....How do you think Foghorn Leghorn got so smart?.....Chernobyl

http://www.wiseacre-gardens.com/buttons/pics/fogsite2.gif

http://www.wiseacre-gardens.com/buttons/pics/sounds/foghorn03.wav

BSS_CUDA
08-26-2006, 11:40 AM
My question is how in the H3LL did a rabbit get smarter than Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam?!?!?!?!?!?!

DuxCorvan
08-26-2006, 11:43 AM
Well, it isn't said, but most probably is a rabbit of Spanish origin.

On the other way, Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam, aren't an example of human smartness.

EURO_Snoopy
08-26-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Udidtoo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
Now, to my question in post #2 in this thread:

How many moons does the Earth have?

Some may find the answer to that one upsetting too

Temporary or permanent? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, none of them are really permanent, let me re-phrase the question.

How many moons (non artificial, obviously only including those we know of) are currently orbiting the Earth?

EURO_Snoopy
08-26-2006, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish

we "don't know" Pluto is like Ceres or it would have been called an asteroid

Ceres is made of rock and is an asteroid, Pluto is a ball of dirty ice and should in fact be grouped with other objects in the Kuiper belt which contains millions of objects from particles of dust to objects probably greater in size than Pluto.

LEBillfish
08-26-2006, 04:16 PM
http://www.nineplanets.org/pluto.html

Ok, theyr'e saying 70% rock, 30% water on the very first site I'm looking at as an example.....Ok, we could call it "muddy ice" instead of dirty ice.....

Anyone care to venture a guess at the percentage of water to soil of the "densest planet Earth"?



http://www.nineplanets.org/

NonWonderDog
08-26-2006, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
Well, none of them are really permanent, let me re-phrase the question.

How many moons (non artificial, obviously only including those we know of) are currently orbiting the Earth?

Err... one. The Moon. Luna. Selene, if you prefer.

There may or may not be trojan objects in the Lagrange points, but none have been reliably observed.

There are at least two "companions" that are heavily influenced by Earth's gravity, but neither really orbits Earth. They both follow crazy horseshoe-type orbits around the sun. Maybe the one is currently spinning round Earth, and that's what you're referring to?

Or are you talking about micrometeorites? Asteroids on hyperbolic orbits? Is there something big I'm missing? I only have a passing interest in this kind of stuff.

Don't say Lilith.

NonWonderDog
08-26-2006, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Anyone care to venture a guess at the percentage of water to soil of the "densest planet Earth"?


0.023%

1.35 x 10^18 metric tons water out of 6 x 10^21 metric tons. 1:4400.

Less than you thought?

LStarosta
08-26-2006, 08:27 PM
Seems like the oceans are but a drop of water on this giant rock.

AFJ_Locust
08-26-2006, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
It's been argued for many years that Pluto and Charon were KBOs (Kupier Belt Objects) that have gone astray, and I've tended to agree with this.

That€s like saying there€s an Ort Cloud where the never-ending supply of comets come from, hahahahah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud "Although no direct observations have been made of such a cloud" Ya that€s called FANTASEY NOT SCIENCE, ITS NOT EVEN A HYPOTHISIS ITS A THEORY IF THAT EVEN!

These Scientists amaze me they have nothing better to do then change Pluto's position as a planet on paper, It probly cost 3million dollars too acomplish this assininity!!! Why in the BLEEEEEEEPPPPPPPP don€t they work on alternative fuels so we can stop funding terrorist states, destroying the planet and funding the multibilliondollarultraelite or something important like finding a way to help feed all these starving poor children/people and in those same third world country€s that hate our arrogant and indulgent lifestyles, maybe we could make some friends instead of these blathering idiots worrying about weather or not €œPluto€ something they will never touch with there bare hands is a planet or not!!!

It just burns my *** that there using tax funds to accomplish this madness!!!

We should have riots for this kind of stupidity, maybe another Boston Tea Party of sorts !!!!

WAKE UP USA!!!

EURO_Snoopy
08-27-2006, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
That€s like saying there€s an Ort Cloud where the never-ending supply of comets come from, hahahahah.

In astronomical terms the lifespan of a comet is quite short, as the solar system is approx 4 billion years old it stands to reason there must be a 'supply' of comets coming from somewhere and the orbit of comets points to an origin point, the Ort cloud


Why in the BLEEEEEEEPPPPPPPP don€t they work on alternative fuels

In what way would an astronomer be qualified to undertake such research?

EURO_Snoopy
08-27-2006, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
Well, none of them are really permanent, let me re-phrase the question.

How many moons (non artificial, obviously only including those we know of) are currently orbiting the Earth?

There are at least two "companions" that are heavily influenced by Earth's gravity, but neither really orbits Earth. They both follow crazy horseshoe-type orbits around the sun. Maybe the one is currently spinning round Earth, and that's what you're referring to?

Don't say Lilith. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Friendly_flyer
08-27-2006, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Ok, theyr'e saying 70% rock, 30% water on the very first site I'm looking at as an example.....Ok, we could call it "muddy ice" instead of dirty ice...


Spot on, that's a description I have even seen grey-bearded scientists use! Pluto (and most comets) are really like those "war" snowballs we made as children with half and half ice and snow and some gravel in them, apart from the ice and snow being made from methane, CO2 and ammonia in addition to water. If someone laid Pluto (or rather a part of it) on earth, it would turn into cloud of noxious gas and leave a stinking puddle and a heap of gravel.

DuxCorvan
08-27-2006, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
...those "war" snowballs we made as children with half and half ice and snow and some gravel in them...

I see you were a dangerous little bast*rd when you were a kid! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

dugong
08-27-2006, 06:56 PM
Never mind that - I heard we are causing global warming on Pluto. Just too much hot air here on earth. Pretty soon Pluto's surface will be a soup of recently melted gases.

There goes the neighborhood.

LStarosta
08-27-2006, 07:13 PM
Well, I imagine it would be very much like a hot tub in the winter time.

AFJ_Locust
08-28-2006, 01:09 PM
EURO_Snoopy:
"the solar system is approx 4 billion years old"



no it is not 4 billion years old, you've been brainwashed

erco415
08-28-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erco415:
If 'they' want to say Pluto's not a planet, fine. But I know enough to call a Brontosaur a Brontosaur. So, Pluto, you'll always be a planet to me.

Brontosaur never existed. Someone reconstructed a sauropod skeleton in a wrong way, and assigned it a theropod head that didn't belong at all.

The true skull was discovered some years ago: the true full skeleton now belongs to a Jurassic sauropod called Apatosaurus.

Brontosaurus has just been erased from Linneus classifications. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've got a point there, but there's more to it than that, and you've missed my point. Charles O. Marsh found a critter in 1877 that he named Apatosaurus. In 1879 he finds a critter that he calls Brontosaurus. In 1903, paleontologist Elmer Riggs figures out that these two critters are, in fact, the same critter, so scientificly, Apatosaurus it is. Except, the 1879 skeleton was one of the most complete found at the time and it's display under the name Brontosaurus (with the wrong skull) made quite an impression - so much so that even though the name was changed in the early 1900's, when the Flintstones rolled into the drive-in in the 60's they ordered Bronto-burgers. Your average non-dino-fanatic joe will be hard pressed to identify Apatosaurus, but lots more will id a Brontosaurus. I went through my son's dino book collection, books published from the 70's (my old ones) to 2000. All make some mention of Brontosaurus, some never mentioning Apatosaurus at all, others saying that there's two names, and just one that says, in the index, "Brontosaurus, see Apatosaurus".

The point I was trying to make, too cleverly it seems, is that while it's all well and good for the scientific community to change things around, there's a great deal of inertia throughout the general public resisting the acceptance of these changes. Especially when the subject of change is particularly well-established. And so it is with Pluto. Everything from Blue's Clues to every astronomy and science text published (up until now) says that Pluto is the ninth planet (with some texts hedging with the 'scientists are re-examining the status...'). So I'd expect that Pluto will be a planet for some time, despite efforts to educate us otherwise.

And what of the possibility that someone is trying to screw Clyde Tombaugh out of his planet?

And just for grins: Charles O. Marsh? He always called it Brontosaurus...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WTE_Googly
08-29-2006, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
It's been argued for many years that Pluto and Charon were KBOs (Kupier Belt Objects) that have gone astray, and I've tended to agree with this.

That€s like saying there€s an Ort Cloud where the never-ending supply of comets come from, hahahahah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud "Although no direct observations have been made of such a cloud" Ya that€s called FANTASEY NOT SCIENCE, ITS NOT EVEN A HYPOTHISIS ITS A THEORY IF THAT EVEN!

These Scientists amaze me they have nothing better to do then change Pluto's position as a planet on paper, It probly cost 3million dollars too acomplish this assininity!!! Why in the BLEEEEEEEPPPPPPPP don€t they work on alternative fuels so we can stop funding terrorist states, destroying the planet and funding the multibilliondollarultraelite or something important like finding a way to help feed all these starving poor children/people and in those same third world country€s that hate our arrogant and indulgent lifestyles, maybe we could make some friends instead of these blathering idiots worrying about weather or not €œPluto€ something they will never touch with there bare hands is a planet or not!!!

It just burns my *** that there using tax funds to accomplish this madness!!!

We should have riots for this kind of stupidity, maybe another Boston Tea Party of sorts !!!!

WAKE UP USA!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Say hi to one of those blathering idiots in training http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AFJ_Locust
08-29-2006, 08:49 AM
Hi WTE

Dont get me wrong I love Science, real Science.

The underlying goal or purpose of science to society and individuals is to produce USEFUL reality. People can form hypotheses based on observations that they make in the real world. By analyzing a number of related hypotheses, we can form general theories. These theories should benefit society.

In my honest opinion the whole Pluto thing is a waste of time & money, benefits no one & shows the absolute stupidity of such "Smart Individuals" I love space, science, rockets the USA and Apple Pie but there€s many more pressing issues at hand that need resolving ASAP instead of worrying about Pluto.

The brain has the size and appearance of a small cauliflower. But thanks to its 100 billion nerve cells (as many as there are stars in our galaxy!), we can think, plan, talk, imagine, use common scene and so much more. Wouldn€t it be amazing if we could get 10,000 Billion nerve cells together and start resolving some real issues, Like a THINK TANK, then once we have those resolutions we don€t let politics, money, power etc get in the way of actually making those resolutions come to pass.

DuxCorvan
08-29-2006, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
The brain has the size and appearance of a small cauliflower.

I actually eat brains instead of vegetables.

WTE_Googly
08-29-2006, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
Hi WTE

Dont get me wrong I love Science, real Science.

The underlying goal or purpose of science to society and individuals is to produce USEFUL reality. People can form hypotheses based on observations that they make in the real world. By analyzing a number of related hypotheses, we can form general theories. These theories should benefit society.

In my honest opinion the whole Pluto thing is a waste of time & money, benefits no one & shows the absolute stupidity of such "Smart Individuals" I love space, science, rockets the USA and Apple Pie but there€s many more pressing issues at hand that need resolving ASAP instead of worrying about Pluto.

The brain has the size and appearance of a small cauliflower. But thanks to its 100 billion nerve cells (as many as there are stars in our galaxy!), we can think, plan, talk, imagine, use common scene and so much more. Wouldn€t it be amazing if we could get 10,000 Billion nerve cells together and start resolving some real issues, Like a THINK TANK, then once we have those resolutions we don€t let politics, money, power etc get in the way of actually making those resolutions come to pass.

too be honest, my brain is more like cauliflower http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Didn't get you wrong mate, no offense was taken, but it was a pretty accurate description of me (appart from the old bit, unless you classify 19 as old http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif )

Edit: oh you didn't say old... I've had more to drink than i thought....