NASA restores Pluto to league of planets NASA has rather cheekily joined the campaign to restore Pluto to the solar system's league of planets, following the distant body's demotion to dwarf status back in 2006. The International Astronomical Union's (IAU) decision to relegate Pluto didn't go down too well in some quarters across the pond, largely due to the fact …
Ceres is a planet because it is large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning rounded by its own gravity. Nineteenth-century astronomers' telescopes were not powerful enough to resolve Ceres into a disk, which is the reason it was demoted in the first place. Now that we know Ceres is spherical, we also know that demotion was wrong and premature--just like the demotion of Pluto by four percent of the IAU. Both of these are complex, geologically differentiated worlds, very different from asteroids and most KBOs, which are shapeless rocks or iceballs. Pluto is estimated to be 70-75 percent rock.
I didn't even know those 3 new additions existed. Heard they added one or two.. but now, three?
So... officially now, if someone asks me how many planets there are in the solar system, wtf do I answer?
And... makemake? those 3 additional planets might have been called configure, make and makeinstall.... sorry. bad joke... I'm leaving.
> I didn't even know those 3 new additions existed.
The effort required to find these new pebbles being called Dwarf planets was extraordinary. That should put them in a separate class quite distinct from Pluto or any of the other planets (or even Ceres for that matter).
The fact that Pluto was found by some amateur with simple tools should count for something.
If it gets reinstated as a planet, then all those books printed in the last few years will be worth something, even if only as novelty items when our brightest and best seem to lose the plot for a bit.
They will prove that we really have far more pressing things to do like finding our way out into the universe rather than arguing about something so fucking pointless in comparison to our need to stop fucking up this planet and start heading out "there" to the great unknown!
I agree. Eris/Xena is also a planet as it meets all the proper criterion of a planet. The clear the field criterion is absurd as the further a planet is from the Sun, the harder it is to clear its field. In fact, if Earth was as far out of Pluto, it would not be able to clear its field and thus, given the current IAU criteria, Earth wouldn't be a planet.
An adjective modifies a noun. In Pluto's case, the noun is "planet" and the adjective is "dwarf". In Earth's case, the adjective is "terrestrial", and in Jupiter's case, the adjective is "gas giant". But always, the noun is "planet". What's the fuss all about? Pluto is still a planet. It was different enough that it needed an adjective anyhow.
Wikipedia does not set the record straight--they do exactly the opposite, a disservice to the public by presenting only one view in an ongoing debate as fact when this is not the case. From the beginning, Wikipedia has refused to recognize that the vote by four percent of the IAU to demote Pluto was not the last word on this matter. Only four percent of the IAU even voted on this, and most are not planetary scientists. An equal number of professional astronomers formally opposed the demotion in a formal petition led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern. Stern is the person who coined the term "dwarf planet," back in 1991, to refer to a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians, objects large enough to be rounded by their own gravity but not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. He never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. Significantly, in astronomy, dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. It is disingenuous for you to support Wikipedia's one-sided coverage of this issue and refusal to acknowledge that this debate is far from settled, and it also promotes authoritarianism because the message is, the IAU voted; therefore something is fact. Science does not work this way. It is a perfectly legitimate scientific position to regard dwarf planets as a subclass of planets.
"A rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet" If it makes you happy to call Pluto a "planet", then call it a planet! That doesn't mean others who disagree are right or wrong.
I personally think of Pluto as a planet, simply because it was classified as such when I learned the 9 planets in elementary school. So they changed it! Big F'ing deal! Get a life and get back to work!
This "they" you speak about were never in a position to dictate their interpretation to the world and expect the world to accept it as fact. They also violated their group's own bylaws by conducting this vote and are now refusing to reopen the discussion on the matter. Who appointed these 424 individuals, most of whom are not planetary scientists, as the "deciders" for seven billion people. What happened in 2006 was politics, not science. I'm getting back to work all right--work on a book about why Pluto is a planet and why the 2006 vote should be either ignored or overturned.
Speaking of "cheek," to say Pluto was first "eyeballed" by Clyde Tombaugh is certainly cheeky. Americans do not have a monopoly on cheek. Mr. Tombaugh worked very hard to find Pluto, as did Mr. Piazzi. The team that discovered the other planets that are also dwarf planets also worked hard, and it is unfortunate that Mike Brown is going around saying he is the sole discoverer of Eris. If you look up Eris on Wikipedia, you will see two other men also co-discovered it, and also you will note that it is not larger than Pluto, but merely has more mass. When the final calculations of the November 2010 stellar occultation of Eris are published very soon, Pluto will probably be found to be larger than Eris beyond any margin of error, too. Yes, one of Pluto's three moons can also perhaps be called a binary planet, or a satellite planet, but is still smaller than Pluto. Pluto is certainly the King of the Plutonian System, and most certainly clears its path for all intents and purposes. I watched on video the 2006 IAU session in which Pluto was deplanetized, and pro-Pluto speakers were cut off and treated with an utter lack of respect. Not to mention the vote was done without proper notice and vetting. It was wholly unscientific and undemocratic. In fact, one IAU member posted on Facebook that he was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to vote in favor of continued planethood for Pluto. The deplanetization of Pluto is a travesty that must be corrected forthwith. Anyone who bothers to study the issue will realize that Pluto got the shaft.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
