What is Pluto?

[Guest]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4789531.stm

Given that an international group of scientists are spending the next fortnight deciding its fate, I thought it'd be an idea to see what TransFans thought the outcome should be.


The 'Other' option of the poll should not be used for "Mickey Mouse's Dog (har! har!)"

[Brendocon]

The 'Other' option of the poll should not be used for "Mickey Mouse's Dog (har! har!)"

I think it should be given its own unique hybrid classification - that of a "Ploon."

Or, alternatively, Monet. Because that would be monet. I mean money.

[Kaylee]

I vote for Kuiper Belt Object- I think planets need to be of a certain size which excludes most asteroids (although 'Xena' may qualify [wait for Warrior Princess jokes]). Far as I can tell the only major opponents of coming up with a practical definition are the American astronomers keen to hang on to the only 'planet' they've discovered and the common populace who don't like it when Science decides new things (even though self correction is surely it's point?)

[spiderfrommars]

Interesting read. However Pluto's obviously larger than an asteroid plus it has a moon of its own. But I didn't realise Pluto was part of the Kuiper Belt. Have any objects been found beyond Pluto?

[Brendocon]

Have any objects been found beyond Pluto?

Yes, but fortunately Mickey has a good supply of plastic bags with him.

[/will not be denied!]

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Isnt it a lump of ice trapped in an orbit around the sun? so I guess it has a 'solar' orbit unlike moons yet its not in orbit like the other bodies.

hmm I guess it still falls under the rule of planets...

[Pissin' Poonani]

I want to say 'planet', as I resist and fear change, but the potential for messing with people who believe in their horoscopes is just too great.

As Ms. Imbruglia once said, "nothing's right, I'm torn".

[Impactor returns 2.0]

ok thats good enough reason for me - if it messes with the old horo thats good.

[Kaylee]

Interesting read. However Pluto's obviously larger than an asteroid plus it has a moon of its own. But I didn't realise Pluto was part of the Kuiper Belt. Have any objects been found beyond Pluto?

Many many many many. Several close to the same size and at least one larger.

If pluto is a planet, then we need to classify many other objects also (bringing the number up to at least 10, probably more planets).

I'm inclined personally to think Pluto is too small, although we could always class it as a sub-planet or somesuch to please both parties.

[inflatable dalek]

If Sir Patrick Moore says it's not a planet then it's not a planet- end of story.

Though if Pluto is kept as a planet then horoscopes are still screwed because the recently discovered bodies near Pluto would have to be classed as planets as well as they're both larger than Mickey's dog. Still, Mistic Meg was quoted in the Sun as saying it doesn't matter because people like Sir Pat only care about size...

[saysadie]

I wanted to make the Mickey joke, as well...

Have any objects been found beyond Pluto?

Yes, but fortunately Mickey has a good supply of plastic bags with him.

I have no serious answer. I'm just here for the obvious jokes, sorry.

[Legion]

Yes, well if we make Pluto a 'planet' then yeah, we're going to have to pump up the number of planet's in the system quite a bit, as there are a few other 'bodies' out there larger than pluto if i remember correctly.
(i've always thought there should be at least 14 'planets' anyway...soooo)

i think the definition of 'planet' needs some clarification first.

but there's something inside of me which doesn't think pluto should be 'downgraded'!

As Ms. Imbruglia once said, "nothing's right, I'm torn".

which i apologuised to her for profusely.

[Guest]

Well, I see the Disney references didn't stay away very long.


Some interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/sola ... ndex.shtml

http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option= ... 8&Itemid=1

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/pluto_worldbook.html

Personally, I think the "icy dwarf" sub-classification sounds ok, although I'd probably go for something like "dwarf planet", so as not to confuse with the various stellar and sub-stellar dwarves, whose sub-class is defined by a prefix.

Oh, and to avoid confusion with Disney's dwarves, obviously.


Unrelated, but still kinda cool:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyag ... 60815.html

100 AUs, baby! That's just over a day's lightspeed travel there and back!

[Kaylee]

[Predabot]

If it dun' fit into the classification of an asteroid or a plaanut, then new classification baby!

[Aaron Hong]

I just pushed 'planet' into 50% majority. Word.

[Guest]

Not that anyone is aware of this, or if they are, they're not bothered, but two days after I made that post about calling Pluto a "dwarf planet", they announced it on the news as the potential name for the new classification.

Not that those crazy international scientists lurk on TransFans, or anything...

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I noticed that and thought of you - it also took my over to Nasa's website to notice that any kinds of cool warp travel isnt possible with our current science, which is what I expected I guess... was still depresing.

Its a shame we cant understand quantum physics.

[Legion]

Its a shame we cant understand quantum physics.

you mean you can't?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I can but I didnt want to see clever...

[Stormwolf]

The 'Other' option of the poll should not be used for "Mickey Mouse's Dog (har! har!)"

Damm, there goes my response

[Brendocon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm

It's not a planet.

[spiderfrommars]

Yeah, just heard.

[Legion]

HEATHENS!!!

Pluto was automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.

what a crap reason!


But is Ceres now a dwarf planet or whatever instead of an asteroid?!

[Shanti418]

Yeah, I think Ceres is going to end up being a dwarf planet.

I have no problem with it. If the option is Pluto not being a planet, or asteroids AND planetary moons being named planets, I'm with the former.

[spiderfrommars]

The definition is fairly clear, but.... is it inconceivable that larger planets somewhere could have oblong orbits too? Just cause there's none in our system...

[Guest]

The definition is fairly clear, but.... is it inconceivable that larger planets somewhere could have oblong orbits too? Just cause there's none in our system...

It is possible, but the star that planet orbits would have to be very, very large for the difference in mass to allow for the orbit to be sufficiently eccentric.

The other problem with a larger planet having an orbit that would cross an inner planet's is that the larger planet's mass would severely disrupt that inner planet's orbit with disasterous results, probably for both.


Of course, aside from having to 'airbrush' Pluto out of all the textbooks, they'll need to come up with another model of the solar system, as historically, there've been 4 rocky inner planets, 4 gassy outer planets, and 1 icy planet, whereas now, we have 4 rocky inner planets, a rocky dwarf planet, 4 gassy outer planets, then a whole host of icy dwarf planets, and dwarf planets don't seem to mind where in the solar system they reside.

[Legion]

The definition is fairly clear, but.... is it inconceivable that larger planets somewhere could have oblong orbits too? Just cause there's none in our system...

That's what's bugging me, just because a planet has an oblong orbit means it's not a planet? that's a crock of **** if you ask me.

[Guest]

The definition is fairly clear, but.... is it inconceivable that larger planets somewhere could have oblong orbits too? Just cause there's none in our system...

That's what's bugging me, just because a planet has an oblong orbit means it's not a planet? that's a crock of **** if you ask me.

It's a result of the laws of gravity and relativity.

Whatever orbit(s) it's original components had, the planet will almost always have a near-circular orbit when its orbit stabilises as a result of all the different orbits coalescing upon each other.

Also, although not a rule of thumb, just an observation, a circular orbit is much less likely to be destabilised as the region for potential interaction is much smaller than for an eccentric orbit.

[sprunkner]

The real reason is that if one makes Pluto a planet, one must pretty much make every icy object at the end of the solar system a planet. It's a matter of not making exceptions.