Should Pluto be classed as a planet again ?

[UM-Bot]

Researchers have called into question the reasoning behind Pluto's demotion from planet to dwarf planet.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/321322/should-pluto-be-classed-as-a-planet-again

[Orphalesion]

Well if Pluto becomes a planet again, then Eris, Makemake, Haumea and Ceres will have to be planets too.

My suspicion is that the only reason this team tries to depute the Dwarf Planet classification is because Pluto used to be a planet during their childhoods and they want it

[XenoFish]

It's okay Pluto. No matter what they say, no matter what they think. You'll always be a planet to me.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

4 hours ago, seanjo said:

@Waspie_Dwarf  1802?

The year after the discovery of the first asteroid Ceres, but 5 years before the discovery of the next 3, which lead to the demotion of Ceres from planet to asteroid.

[Seti42]

Isn't there real science that needs doing? Shut up about Pluto being called a planet or not, already...

Edited September 10, 2018 by Seti42

[paperdoll]

YES!

[kartikg]

Should we really invest so much brain power / man hours into this?? 

[Waspie_Dwarf]

3 hours ago, kartikg said:

Should we really invest so much brain power / man hours into this?? 

The vast majority of professional astronomers aren't investing any brain power/man hours.They made a decision, and have moved on.

The argument this team gives is nonsense. The definition of a planet can't include any reference to clearing an orbit because old literature doesn't mention it? Illogical beyond belief. Are they using dictionaries that have had words such as "change" and "progress" removed? If we are to follow their example then no new decisions can be made because they haven't been made before.

The International Astronomical Union, a body of more than 13,000 professional astronomers with at least a relevant Ph.D. are the ONLY body which is recognised as being able to decide the definition of astronomical objects such as planets. When they decided, by a massive majority, to adopt the current definition, which demoted Pluto to Dwarf Planet status, then any previous definitions were superseded and became irrelevant. Hence this research group's argument is null and void.

They are also cherry picking, ignoring past precedents that don't fit their case. On discovery in 1801 Ceres was classified as a planet. In 1807 3 more asteroids were discovered and it became clear that, unlike true planets, Ceres was simply one small body sharing a region of the solar system with many other small bodies... the asteroid belt.

That is an important precedent because, before the IAU decision on a new definition of a planet, it had become clear that, unlike a true planet, Pluto was simply one small body sharing a region of the solar system with many other small bodies... the Kuiper belt.

There is nothing new in what happened to Pluto,it had already happened to Ceres. What is new is the amount of non-scientific whinging and whining about the decision.

The other piece of nonsense put forward is that Pluto must be a Planet because it is geologically active... well so is (or at least was) Ceres. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have no visible surfaces at all and therefore no observable geology. Does that mean that  they aren't planets? I'm not sure you will get that one past the IAU.

The, "it looks like a planet so it must be a planet," argument is one also favoured by Alan Stern, principal investigator on the New Horizons mission (and an engineer and planetary scientist, not an astronomer, so he had no say on the IAU decision). This argument is demonstrably wrong with ss can be shown with one simple example... a dolphin. A dolphin looks like a fish. If we are to follow the logic of this research group and Alan Stern then we would have to ignore the fact that a dolphin is a mammal simply because it looks like a fish... an obvious nonsense.

I suspect that emotional reasons and not logic are a large part of Alan Stern's drive to have Pluto reclassified as a planet again. When New Horizon's was launched they could boast that is was the first mission to the furthest known planet, by the time it arrived at Pluto it was only the second mission to a dwarf planet... Dawn having already arrived at Ceres.

The geological activity argument also throws up a huge problem... we simply would not know what was, and what wasn't a planet without visiting them. Under the IAU definitions it is possible to determine what constitutes a planet, what constitutes a dwarf planet and what constitutes a small body with just a few simple parameters such as mass, and diameter. As such it has been possible to classify, alongside Ceres and Pluto, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake as dwarf planets. If geological activity has to be taken into account then we need a new set of solar system bodies, the "b*****ed if I know," worlds, because until we send spacecraft there we simply won't be able to classify them.

There were good, logical, scientific reasons why the IAU chose it's definitions of planets and dwarf planets in 2006, those reason have not changed.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Waspie_Dwarf
multiple typos.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

1 hour ago, paperdoll said:

YES!

Would you care to elaborate?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

I don't really get all the fuss about Pluto. Who am I to argue with professionel astronomers on what should be classed a planet ? Just like I wouldn't argue with zoologists on taxonomy, a medical doctor on disease or physicists on atomic theory. Just accept that sometimes (Very often) there are people who know more than you on a topic. Learn from them instead of trying to lecture them. This is of course just a suggestion, but it will prevent you from looking very silly.  

[paperdoll]

1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Would you care to elaborate?

if size is a factor then they should classify jupiter as a jumbo planet.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

10 minutes ago, paperdoll said:

if size is a factor then they should classify jupiter as a jumbo planet.

The definition of a planet makes no direct reference to size.

[paperdoll]

then why do they call pluto a "dwarf planet"?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

IAU definition of a planet:

A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

5 minutes ago, paperdoll said:

then why do they call pluto a "dwarf planet"?

They had to call it something. Minor planet and planetoid were already in use.

By the way, are you going to elaborate on why you think Pluto should still be called a planet, you seem to be deliberately avoiding answering the question. 

[paperdoll]

i thought i did elaborate.

here is the definition of a planet:

planet |ˈplanət| nouna celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.that's pluto.

[Jon the frog]

Whatever is etiquette, It's still Pluto and Pluto is small, far and awesome.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

2 hours ago, paperdoll said:

i thought i did elaborate.

Then you have the same grasp of what "elaborate" means as you do what the term "planet" means... none at all.

2 hours ago, paperdoll said:

here is the definition of a planet:

planet |ˈplanət| nouna celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.that's pluto.

That is NOT the definition of a planet, it is just a dictionary definition of the word planet, not the same thing at all.

Let me explain this:

A dictionary DOESN'T get to make the OFFICIAL definition of a planet as a dictionary is not the recognised world authority on all things astronomical.

The IAU DOES get to make the OFFICIAL definition of a planet as the IAU is the recognised world authority on all things astronomical.

The definition I gave earlier is the IAU definition and therefore the ONLY official definition. That DOESN'T include Pluto.

[XenoFish]

What if pluto's a gas giant but decide it was just too cold to let it all hang out.

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, paperdoll said:

i thought i did elaborate.

here is the definition of a planet:

planet |ˈplanət| nouna celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.that's pluto.

According to that comets are also planets.

[+Hammerclaw]

It's still a planet--it was just sent down to the Minor League.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

14 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

According to that comets are also planets.

As are many satellite, discarded rocket stages and asteroids. 

It's clearly not a very good definition.

2 hours ago, paperdoll said:

i thought i did elaborate.

here is the definition of a planet:

planet |ˈplanət| nouna celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star.that's pluto.

 

[rashore]

I'll always think of Pluto as a planet regardless of what the IAU classifies it as. Simply because I grew up knowing it as a planet. I'm sure there are some folks out there that have grown up knowing it as a dwarf planet that would still not think of it as a regular planet if the IAU classified it as a planet again.

But then I'm just a layman with no skin in the game- so I think the IAU should classify Pluto however they like and that would be the correct classification for it. But even as a layman I know better than to use the random dictionary definition of planet to classify Pluto rather than the IAU definition. As others have mentioned, if one goes by a random dictionary definition, asteroids, comets, meteoroids, and probably some other natural stuff orbiting the sun I'm not aware of are all planets.

[paperdoll]

8 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

As are many satellite, discarded rocket stages and asteroids. 

It's clearly not a very good definition.

 

a celestial body is natural, not manmade.

 

8 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

As are many satellite, discarded rocket stages and asteroids. 

It's clearly not a very good definition.

 

 

[paperdoll]

today's "scientists" have too much time on their hands.