Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pluto Could Lose Planet Status
PhysOrg.com ^ | 21 June 2006 | Staff

Posted on 06/22/2006 4:11:12 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

At its conference this August, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) will make a decision that could see Pluto lose its status as a planet.

For the first time, the organisation will be officially defining the word "planet", and it is causing much debate in the world of astronomy.

There is only one thing that everyone seems to agree on: there are no longer nine planets in the Solar System.

The debate has been brought to a head by the discovery of a potential 10th planet, temporarily named 2003 UB313 in January 2005. This new candidate planet is bigger than Pluto.

The question now facing the IAU is whether to make this new discovery a planet.

Pluto is an unusual planet as it is made predominantly of ice and is smaller even than the Earth's Moon.

There is a group of astronomers that are arguing for an eight-planet SolarSystem, with neither Pluto or 2003 UB313 making the grade as a planet; but a number of astronomers are arguing for a more specific definition of a planet.

One of these; Kuiper Belt researcher Dr Marc Buie, of the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, has come up with a clear planetary definition he would like to see the IAU adopt.

I believe the definition of planet should be as simple as possible, so I've come up with two criteria," he said.

"One is that it can't be big enough to burn its own matter - that's what a star does. On the small end, I think the boundary between a planet and not a planet should be, is the gravity of the object stronger than the strength of the material of the object? That's a fancy way of saying is it round?"

This definition could lead to our Solar System having as many as 20 planets, including Pluto, 2003 UB313, and many objects that were previously classified as moons or asteroids.

One possible resolution to the debate is for new categories of planet to be introduced. Mercury, Venus, the Earth and Mars would be "rocky planets". The gas-giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would be a second category.

Whatever the outcome of this debate there is only one thing that we can be certain of; by September 2006 there will no longer be just nine planets in our Solar System.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: artbell; kbo; planetx; xplanets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-178 last
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Okay, you lost it. Changing from a rational discussion to an ad hominem attack (calling my suggested definition "silly") is the sign of failure on your part.

Of course, like any other high-handed declaration you choose to make, you don't have to agree with me, but if you think using a liberal approach to debate - i.e. ad homimen attacks - contributes to a discussion, you'll have to find someone else because I won't play your silly game.
151 posted on 06/23/2006 5:57:16 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Sol and Luna are Latin.


152 posted on 06/23/2006 6:04:31 AM PDT by ffusco (Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Nature doesn't recognize the category "planet", nor is there any "Aristotelian essence of planethood", it's simply a manmade category, a shorthand descriptive term which, as the argument in the article makes clear, runs into more and more problems as one attempts to delineate its (imaginary) limits.

If the term is man-made, and refers to no objective and universal reality, then how can you know that we're both speaking of the same thing when we use the term "planet," or any other term?

The fact is that scientists, like all people, can't help but use terms when speaking. If terms do not refer to universals or essences, then we're left with nominalism and ultimately solipsism or absolute skepticism.

Nominalism

I realize that you have no interest in Aristotelianism and Thomism, but I post this info for the benefit of others.

153 posted on 06/23/2006 7:52:35 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
I believe it's Gaea in modern Greek.

Antichthon was the counter-earth in an earlier scheme.

154 posted on 06/23/2006 8:19:47 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
Okay, you lost it. Changing from a rational discussion to an ad hominem attack (calling my suggested definition "silly") is the sign of failure on your part.

"Ad hominem" means "to the man". An ad hominem is an attempt to discredit an argument by discrediting you. Every characterization of an argument is not an ad hominem on the person making it. And frankly, your argument was ad hoc and therefore silly. Its purpose (and I know that you did not originate it so this imputation of bad motive, which would be an ad hominem attack, is not an ad hominem on you) is to confuse the debate over what is a planet by dragging some long-recognized satellites into it.

Of course, like any other high-handed declaration you choose to make, you don't have to agree with me, but if you think using a liberal approach to debate - i.e. ad homimen attacks - contributes to a discussion, you'll have to find someone else because I won't play your silly game.

You are free to be the pot calling the kettle black, but declaring victory and leaving smacks of the same liberalism. I can only assume you are being intentionally ironic :-)
155 posted on 06/23/2006 8:47:28 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Antichthon was the counter-earth in an earlier scheme.

Teach the controversy!

156 posted on 06/23/2006 10:17:39 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

LOL!


157 posted on 06/23/2006 10:21:06 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

What about Planet Claire?


158 posted on 06/23/2006 10:22:46 AM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; FreedomCalls
Yeah, I thought there was something like that about Jupiter. Under his definitions I think Jupiter is too big to be a planet.

What if we call it a tiny brown dwarf star?

159 posted on 06/23/2006 10:26:07 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
"What if we call it a tiny brown dwarf star?"

That would be consistent with the link you posted where they named a Jupiter sized object incapable of fusion orbiting another star a brown dwarf. But I don't like it for two reasons.

Jupiter is in our back yard and has been a planet all this time. I don't really want to be in a two star system, especially if one star is a dud.

Which brings me to the second reason. Stars ought to glow. I think one of the defining characteristics for a star should be that it produces visibile light. Or at least produced light at one time and burned out.

160 posted on 06/23/2006 10:37:38 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Stars ought to glow.

In what wavelength? Even the earth glows in infrared, microwave and radio.

But that's the problem planetary scientists find themselves in. They have a lot more data now and there are objects that cover every size from a pimple to galactic superclusters.

I think they should make a contest out of what to call all these objects and give away scholarship money to kids for science degrees. ;)

161 posted on 06/23/2006 10:54:25 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
"In what wavelength? Even the earth glows in infrared, microwave and radio."

Visible spectrum. There's bound to be some object that glows barely, so some definite measure of luminosity in the visible spectrum should be set.

"They have a lot more data now and there are objects that cover every size from a pimple to galactic superclusters."

yeah, which is why they really need to come up with some definitions. Even if they end up tweaking them later. Up till now, I think they've relied on obvious differences. Planets were clearly not stars, asteroids were clearly not planets. Comets were neither. And then there was pluto.

I like your idea of the contest.

162 posted on 06/23/2006 11:00:36 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; <1/1,000,000th%

13 Jupiter masses are required for deuterium fusion.
Planets have less mass.
Brown dwarf stars have more and may only burn briefly (~10 million years).
That is the cutoff. (see my other posts re moons and low end planets)


163 posted on 06/23/2006 11:18:27 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

Pluto Might Have Rings
Space.com | 22 February 2006 | Ker Than
Posted on 02/23/2006 1:16:50 PM EST by nickcarraway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584209/posts

Pluto Has Three Moons, Hubble Images Show
ap on Yahoo | 10/31/05 | Alex Dominguez - ap
Posted on 10/31/2005 9:22:32 PM EST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513000/posts

Rethinking the Planets
Popular Science | January 2006 issue (I believe) | Michael Stroh
Posted on 12/28/2005 5:36:18 PM EST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1548344/posts

10 Planets? Why Not 11?
NY Times | August 23, 2005 | KENNETH CHANG
Posted on 08/23/2005 7:39:11 PM EDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1469281/posts

and just for fun:

2012: the piano-sized ‘New Horizons’ probe of NASA nears Pluto (will it find ET there?)
India Daily | Jan. 6, 2006
Posted on 01/10/2006 11:29:19 AM EST by presidio9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555353/posts


164 posted on 06/24/2006 9:21:24 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To Pluto -- And Far Beyond "To Pluto And Far Beyond" By David H. Levy, Parade, January 15, 2006 -- We don't have a dictionary definition yet that includes all the contingencies. In the wake of the new discovery, however, the International Astronomical Union has set up a group to develop a workable definition of planet. For our part, in consultation with several experienced planetary astronomers, Parade offers this definition: A planet is a body large enough that, when it formed, it condensed under its own gravity to be shaped like a sphere. It orbits a star directly and is not a moon of another planet.

165 posted on 06/24/2006 9:49:42 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The discovery of 2003 UB313, the 10th planet
by Michael Brown
Is this object really a planet? Is Pluto a planet? What makes a planet?

Even after all of these years of debate on the subject of whether or not Pluto should be considered a planet, astronomers appear no closer to agreement. I wrote extensively about this at the time of the discovery of Sedna in March 2004. My thoughts have evolved since then, so it might be amusing to see what I said 1 1/2 years ago... The main stumbling block in defining planets in our solar system is that, scientifically, it is quite clear that Pluto should certainly not be put in the same category as the other planets... There is no good scientific way to keep Pluto a planet without doing serious disservice to the remainder of the solar system. Culturally, however, the idea that Pluto is a planet is enshrined in a million different ways, from plastic placemats depicting the solar system that include the nine planets, to official NASA web sites, to mnemonics that all school children learn to keep the nine planets straight, to U.S. postage stamps. Our culture has fully embraced the idea that Pluto is a planet and also fully embraced the idea that things like large asteroids and large Kuiper belt objects are not planets. In my view scientists should not be trying to legislate an entirely new definition of the word "planet." They should be trying to determine what it means. To the vast majority of society, "planet" means those large objects we call Mercury through Pluto. We are then left with two cultural choices. (1) Draw the line at Pluto and say there are no more planets; or (2) Draw the line at Pluto and say only things bigger are planets. Both would be culturally acceptable, but to me only the second makes sense for what I think we mean when we say the word planet... Thus, we declare that the new object, with a size larger than Pluto, is indeed a planet. A cultural planet, a historical planet. I will not argue that it is a scientific planet, because there is no good scientific definition which fits our solar system and our culture, and I have decided to let culture win this one. We scientists will continue our debates, but I hope we are generally ignored.

166 posted on 06/24/2006 9:56:10 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

I agree with you, and so does David Levy and Michael Brown. :')

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653562/posts?page=165#165


167 posted on 06/24/2006 10:10:07 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Not only that, but Pluto is much too interesting to be dismissed as a planet: 3 moons, an atmosphere, its history either as a former moon of Neptune or having been placed in its current orbit by an encounter with Neptune and, culturally, we have a spacecraft en route to it.


168 posted on 06/24/2006 10:51:37 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: DainBramage
They should kick Uranus out.

Yeah, but with the Klingons in the way, it could be a sticky situation.

169 posted on 06/24/2006 10:54:58 AM PDT by JamesWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I think that we might consider designating Massachusetts as the new "ninth planet" in the case that we do lose Pluto!


170 posted on 06/24/2006 10:59:17 AM PDT by Radix (Stop domestic violence. Beat abroad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Bulwinkle planets?

Gas giants. Doesn't seem appropriate that Uranus is a gas giant?

171 posted on 06/24/2006 11:13:45 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan
If you're an astrologist will this mean a cut in pay? Less reliable horoscopes?

Classical astrology didn't even include Uranus and Neptune.

Pluto is the only planet discovered by an American. If it had been discovered by a Mayan or an Aztec or an African, I doubt that we'd be having this conversation right now.

At one time the asteroid Ceres was considered a planet, but when dozens (now thousands) of similar "main belt" asteroids were found, it was demoted.

Clearly, one way, the current way, to define planets is by roster. I'm just glad that Clyde Tombaugh didn't live to see this day.

172 posted on 06/24/2006 11:21:32 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

And perhaps a ring. I'd not be surprised if more moons / moonlets are found. Boring old tiny little Pluto will wind up one of the most interesting, precisely because of where it is and (by 2012) its many siblings (such as Brown's Planet, Quaoar, Sedna, 2003 EL61, 2004 DW, and those to come in the next six years).

[to all]

The satellites of Neptune and the origin of Pluto
Authors: Harrington, R. S.; van Flandern, T. C.
http://tinyurl.com/qsozh


173 posted on 06/24/2006 3:26:09 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]


174 posted on 06/24/2006 3:33:38 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Thanks for the info. Read your homepage. You'd be surprised (or not) at how many times I tell people what Nazi is a translated acronym for and they dismiss it as right wing propaganda. Just shows who has studied their history.
175 posted on 06/24/2006 7:12:23 PM PDT by CrazyIvan (If you read only one book this year, read "Stolen Valor".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; All
Some latest News... Pluto Reclassification Could Change Number of Solar System's Planets
176 posted on 08/14/2006 10:11:24 AM PDT by Sopater (Creatio Ex Nihilo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

Thanks. Let's wait until they make a decision. Then a new thread will be appropriate.


177 posted on 08/14/2006 10:24:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Everything is blasphemy to somebody.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Festival of the Seventh Planet placemarker
178 posted on 08/14/2006 10:31:31 AM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-178 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson