GameBanshee Forums

(Arrrg - here I was about to start posting the same thing and you stole it from me... grrrr.)


I can fully understand "them" and the need for classification of objects.
If Pluto was a planet, many other rocks would be as well, as they also mention in the article, and we'd have 12 planets so far in our solar system, and likely many more.
As for actual consequence, well then there isn't really any other then how we define the universe.
Astrologists would likely be the most hit by this D), but many in Denmark have already said that they would not stop calculating with Pluto because it has a large effect on people. And I'd almost expect such a opinion is pretty worldspread for such a field.

I think it was a good decision. As was pointed out, if Pluto is a planet then others would have to be as well. I can live with 8 planets.
All they have done is to create a new classification of small solar system bodies (SSSBs?) to gather up the larger objects into one pot. Pluto now fits better in this class then with the big boys.

Xandax wrote:(Arrrg - here I was about to start posting the same thing and you stole it from me... grrrr.)

I live to serve.

Astrologists would likely be the most hit by this D),

In fact, Radio Nederland had an astrologist on a month or two ago when a Pluto-like object was discovered, and it was thought we'd have 10 planets, rather than 9. He was expansive, claiming that astronomers are now proving what astrologers have known all along, of course: that there are actually 12 planets, and we're playing catch-up. Of course, now that we're down to 8, the astrologers will probably shrug, complain about "blind scientists," and go on studying their charts that were out of date thousands of years ago. At least, such is my opinion, based on the fact that their first sign, Aries, is now several months into the year, instead of at its start, as it was when Babylon was staring at the skies.

IMO it's just semantics anyway, but I'm no astronomer

Seriously, I've taken a few courses in astronomy because it interests me, and from what I recall the distinction between moons and planets, not to mention all of those other lumps of rock in the galaxies, is a very grey area.

The traditional view of the solar system--i.e., a star with a few large objects in orbit on a single plane--has already been dismissed for good. Now we know that there are at least 180,000 sizable objects circling the sun and countless dust particles and other small objects. It just isn't a clean, neat diagram anymore.

Resolutions being considered by the group, the official arbiter of heavenly bodies, would define a planet as "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."

I still see problems with this new definition. The last part about clearing the neighborhood around its orbit helps to clarify the distinction between the "classical planets" (which have supposedly cleared the neighborhood around their orbits) and Pluto (which has many "neighbors" in the Kuiper Belt). But the terminology is very imprecise. For example, what about moons? Can we really say that Jupiter has "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" when it has at least 63 moons that we know of? Jupiter is surrounded by "neighbors" that it hasn't gobbled up. Saturn, with its famous rings, is even worse. The rings might look like pretty discs from a telescope, but they're actually a mess. What about the Earth itself (gasp) which is gradually losing its own moon (it will no longer circle the Earth in a few billion years)?

Besides, in the case of the inner planets, do they really deserve all the credit for clearing their respective neighborhoods? They never would have made it on their own if they were stuck in the Kuiper Belt. They had so much help from the sun, we're looking at favoritism on an astronomical scale.

On the flip side, doesn't Pluto deserve some credit for capturing a moon of its own? Essentially, Pluto is being discriminated against for being so far away from the sun. I really don't know the answer to this question, but how far away is Pluto's closest neighbor (excluding its own moon like all the other planets get to do, of course)? Is it any closer than the Earth's closest neighbor (not counting the Moon)? Are we saying that Pluto isn't a planet just because some object crosses its orbital path from such a distance that not even Jupiter could snag it up? If that's the case, then a planet's status essentially depends on its location, not merely on its own physical attributes. If you put Venus in the Kuiper Belt, it wouldn't be a planet anymore because there's no way it could ever clear the neighborhood around its new orbit. This definition stinks of cronyism, and I have a problem with it.

I'm not suggesting that we should call Pluto a "planet" just because some people want it to be called a planet or because we have sentimental reasons or because we've called it a "planet" since 1930 and we shouldn't change now. All I'm saying is that the new definition of "planet" leaves a lot to be desired and I would like to see it clarified with better, more precise scientific language.

I am inclined to agree with you, VD. The new definition seems to do little to clear up the murky waters that already exisited within this issue. In fact, without going over what has already been said again, it almost appears as though the astronomical community is deflecting the whole issue.

I couldn't care less about pluto being a planet or not. It doesn't change anything.

I'm not that bothered by the fact there are only 8 planets but I feel sorry for all the writers of science text books and teachers as all their materials will be wrong

I've never really understood what makes a planet a planet rather than just a big rock in space. The thing that makes me curious is what would they do if they ever discovered evidence of life on these 'rocks'. Would they then be classed as a planet or just a rock with life on it? I can understand classifying rocks as moons if they orbit a planet, but how do they decide if something that orbits a star is actually a planet? It must be a pretty hard thing to classify.

I'm really with Masa on this one. Pluto could be classified as a sun or a neutron star or a black hole, it doesn't change anything. People really don't need to be focusing so much on the outside when they should really be focusing within.

mr_sir: if a mass had life on it, it wouldn't change its classification. The presence of life doesn't change whether a planetary body is a planet or a moon; if humans develop cities on the moon like in several science fiction books/shows/movies, that won't make the moon a planet. The guidelines are based on the physical make-up of the "rock" itself. To draw from Star Wars, both Yavin IV and Endor were teeming with life, but they were still just moons, but then that's science fiction after all and can just as easily be wrong. But I just don't see astrologists calling a moon a planet just because there's life on it.

mr_sir wrote:I can understand classifying rocks as moons if they orbit a planet, but how do they decide if something that orbits a star is actually a planet? It must be a pretty hard thing to classify.

Um, that's what this discussion is all about.

Chimaera182 wrote:mr_sir: if a mass had life on it, it wouldn't change its classification. The presence of life doesn't change whether a planetary body is a planet or a moon... The guidelines are based on the physical make-up of the "rock" itself...

That's not correct. The previous guidelines that dealt strictly with an object's physical characteritics (namely, having enough mass to make it round) never settled the question of whether Pluto or other Kuiper Belt objects should be called "planets". Under the old guidelines, even some of the moons out there were big enough to be called "planets". That was the whole problem. The new guidelines also include the stipulation that a "planet" is an object that "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit". That has nothing to do with the physical make-up of the "rock" itself.

The way I read it, we're also talking about the location of the "rock" and its proximity to neighboring bodies, since only "rocks" that were lucky enough to be close enough to the sun to end up by themselves in their own "neighborhoods" can qualify as "planets". (For some reason, moons don't count as "neighbors".)

Chimaera182 wrote:I'm really with Masa on this one. Pluto could be classified as a sun or a neutron star or a black hole, it doesn't change anything. People really don't need to be focusing so much on the outside when they should really be focusing within.
<snip>

Well neither does defining a tree as a tree instead of a fish, yet we define every single aspect of existance we can, and lable it to create a common ground of understanding and communication.
As for what actual effect this will give - if any - is hard to predict, but currently I think the consequences are rather limitied, yet it is about the same to me as when they named a tree a tree.

I do however from a person interested in space and such find it interesting and fascinating that we now only have 8 planets in our solar system, as I would have if we suddenly had 12. (I'm more happy with 8 then 12, but mostly because it is easier to remember the names of the 8 then of the 12 )

Chimaera182 wrote:mr_sir: if a mass had life on it, it wouldn't change its classification. The presence of life doesn't change whether a planetary body is a planet or a moon; if humans develop cities on the moon like in several science fiction books/shows/movies, that won't make the moon a planet.

What I meant was, what if in the future they discovered evidence of life forms on Pluto? Would this make them reconsider if it is a planet or just a giant oversized rock? Humans suddenly inhabiting a moon is a different situation. Its also different if there is evidence of life found on an asteroid or comet. I'm meaning a rock which is on the borderline between not being a planet and being a planet.

mr_sir wrote:What I meant was, what if in the future they discovered evidence of life forms on Pluto? Would this make them reconsider if it is a planet or just a giant oversized rock?

Not if I underdstand this change correctly. They appear to be trying to come up with a formula for separating the planets created at the time of the solar system's formation from those objects that were "caught" from elsewhere, or spun out of a planet's orbit. So if life was discovered on a mini-planet, or a rock, or in the United States Congress, it would still count as life, however unusual that occurence might be.

i'm just glad that they are still studying the universe

Chimaera182 wrote:People really don't need to be focusing so much on the outside when they should really be focusing within.

i've always been interested in the universe, and to hear that they are trying to classify objects in space gives me hope for the future. i don't agree with just focusing within. if that was the case then we would live our lives never going further than our solar system. the human race (because i belive in aliens) in conjunction with the earth, would be sheltered. that is if you could take in the possibility of other solar systems that are more advanced in their solar system evolution. And assuming that there could be other life that is overall further along in their planetary life span that got further into space than the pathetic evolution of our planet. Eventually the earth will be gone or life will cease, and tell me if i am right, the sooner we develope better technology the sooner we can prepare to evacuate this planet if need be. this of course wouldn't happen during our life but would benifit the existence of our race millions or billions of years from now.

i think that we need to get out there into the unknown and discover life already. pluto aroused many subjects and influenced many thoughts for discovering the creation of want to learn ethics. thats just my opinion though.

What if the human race survived the ultimate hazard, pluto could be on the flag that stands for the way we live (chaotic but with purpose) and the reason we will continue to live.

mr_sir wrote:.... but I feel sorry for all the writers of science text books and teachers as all their materials will be wrong

I feel quite the opposite. They must be loving it. This must actually be a very exciting time for teachers of all sorts. This is a nice juicy tidbit that they can use to frame larger discussions about astronomy. I would love to be in an astronomy class right now.

Yep, everyones solar system maps are now obselete, but since a US craft "New horizons" is on it's way we'll definately be hearing from Pluto again (2015)

Here's the new look SS


(Mods if this isn't allowed feel free to remove and accept my apologise)

I hear you, Gwally.

Gwalchmai wrote:I feel quite the opposite. They must be loving it. This must actually be a very exciting time for teachers of all sorts. This is a nice juicy tidbit that they can use to frame larger discussions about astronomy. I would love to be in an astronomy class right now.

Just today, while we were having our deliberations, our Headmaster informed the faculty present, about this issue. He has instructed the Science Department to change the content accordingly and explain to the students.

Well - I wouldn't change just yet as there is opposition to this

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt

Xandax wrote:Well - I wouldn't change just yet as there is opposition to this

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt

*cheers*

Well I for one was not happy at all! I could be just downright stubborn and say I want my nine planets but seriously I am unhappy about the way it was done. There was no feel of concensus and actualy agreement for me in the sense of - ok this is a planet, like we have math theorems - and that's it, no way around it. This still seems like an interpretation that leaves many problems and therefore I am in the club of return it to where it was, ie it's status as a planet, until such time we can actually agree on something for real.