8 planets, not 9. Deal with it. (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:50 pm

This may just be the most enlightened comment on the matter, yet.

wing · Post by **wing** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:39 pm

personally, i dont really care about it too much. i mean, they're re-titling pluto. its not like it affects us at all. we just have to get used to 8 planets instead of 9. not too big of a deal. to think that we're making a big deal about this, when a couple thousand years ago they thought that the earth was the middle of the universe, with the sun orbiting around it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:49 pm

wing wrote:personally, i dont really care about it too much. i mean, they're re-titling pluto. its not like it affects us at all. we just have to get used to 8 planets instead of 9. not too big of a deal. to think that we're making a big deal about this, when a couple thousand years ago they thought that the earth was the middle of the universe, with the sun orbiting around it.

There were competing theories about the solar system. At no time was the earth-as-the-center-of-the-universe the only one in the house, though it fit beautifully into the Christian medieval theological position of a well-organized universe, with everything clearly related to in a neat, hierarchal order. -In its favor, it also took an optimistic, positive view of humanity, as "God's chosen representatives." (The Calvinist/Puritans threw out the positive stuff, and regarded humanity as deranged and evil, only saved--possibly--if they were baptized and rejected all sinful things.) On the negative side, of course, it was dead wrong.

But back to now. Does anybody here think defining what constitutes a planet vs a dwarf planet really matters in an astronomical sense?

wing · Post by **wing** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:41 pm

it might. it could give the astronomers a basis so that they can make a decision easier. for example: "A small planet is a subplanet, and a big one is a planet" kinda gray. but if they use a number or two, it helps.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:45 pm

I'm really not sure what significance even to astronomers this really has. Planet, sub-planet, dwarf planet... does this classification really do anything for them? No matter what classification they ultimately get, they are still celestial bodies to be observed and studied. I can understand if you want to classify something like a gas giant or a moon, considering that gas giants have a specific make-up and a moon is--essentially--a body which rotates around a planet (let's not split hairs, people; you aren't astronomers, either). But is it absolutely necessary to classify planets as planets, subplanets, dwarf planets, mega-planets (I don't know if that last one exists... yet)? On the other hand, I don't see why so many astronomers are up in arms about Pluto's new classification. It just doesn't strike me as a major difference.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:02 pm

Chimaera182 wrote:gas giants have a specific make-up and a moon is--essentially--a body which rotates around a planet (let's not split hairs, people; you aren't astronomers, either)...

Oh, why not split hairs?

Moons don't "rotate" around planets; they revolve around (i.e., orbit) planets. "Rotate" means to spin on its own axis. I just thought that needed to be clarified.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:08 am

VonDondu wrote:Oh, why not split hairs? Moons don't "rotate" around planets; they revolve around (i.e., orbit) planets. "Rotate" means to spin on its own axis. I just thought that needed to be clarified.

ROFL thank you. That probably sounds sarcastic, but I'm serious; I couldn't for the life of me think of the right word last night. Yes, revolve.

Athena · Post by **Athena** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:01 pm

wing wrote:personally, i dont really care about it too much. i mean, they're re-titling pluto. its not like it affects us at all. we just have to get used to 8 planets instead of 9. not too big of a deal. to think that we're making a big deal about this, when a couple thousand years ago they thought that the earth was the middle of the universe, with the sun orbiting around it.

:laugh: my thoughts exactally.

Greg. · Post by **Greg.** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:26 am

fable wrote:But back to now. Does anybody here think defining what constitutes a planet vs a dwarf planet really matters in an astronomical sense?

Not really.

It will only matter to publishing companies, as all their textbooks wiil be reprinted, and the new versions bought. This will increase their revenues.

Why bother changing it? It will just confuse people.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:30 am

Greg. wrote:Not really.

It will only matter to publishing companies, as all their textbooks wiil be reprinted, and the new versions bought. This will increase their revenues.

Why bother changing it? It will just confuse people.

Well, changing it now this way will make it so less books need to be reprinted in the future when we discover the 13, 14 or 15 planet in the solar system

If Pluto is a planet, then we have what ...12? known "planets" now, and thus the books should have been rewritten anyway.
We can't say Pluto is and the other 3 same-size/characteristic objects aren't planets either.

Darmort · Post by **Darmort** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:29 am

I don't care if I'm going to be scientifically incorrect, but I don't give a damn; if there is one, I'm going to this Hell place anyway, but I'm going to use the word planet when referring to a planet. No matter it's size.

As to what Xandex said, I agree. We can't not say that Pluto isn't a planet; when it was found, and was discovered to be smaller than all the other planets, why not have put it into the "Dwarf-Planet" files then and there?

And why the hell did only 4% of all Astromoners get any say about it?! For a majority, you need a minimum of 51% of all parties. Technically, it's been wrongly named until the entirity of the parties get their votes in as well...
Damn scientists...

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:18 pm

Xandax wrote:We can't say Pluto is and the other 3 same-size/characteristic objects aren't planets either.

Sure we can.

Remember that article you linked to ("Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt")? The new definition of "planet", which may or may not be adopted or accepted by the scientfic community at large, supposedly disqualifies Pluto as a planet but does not disqualify the other objects now identified as planets, such as Earth, Jupiter, and Neptune. The inconsistency is glaring, and all of it is very arbitrary. If people still want to call Earth a planet yet insist that the new definition disqualifies Pluto or any other object, then you might as well say that people call the Earth a planet just because they want to and they don't call Pluto a planet just because they don't want to. It's as simple as that.

The article made a point similar to the one I made earlier:

Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition; it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons.

"Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for some arbitrary reason, like 'they tend to live in groups'.

"Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's inconsistent."

One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the Solar System will either collect together material in their path or fling it out of the way with a gravitational swipe.

Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with that of Neptune.

But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path.

These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.

"If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.