Two weeks ago, while on my amazingly cool Astronomy course, my teacher decided the class to debate about wether or not Pluto should be a planet. before we started arguing though, she gave us the three definitions of a planet, according to the IAU:
1. It orbits the Sun 2. has enough mass and gravity to become almost spherical (hydrostatic equilibrium) 3. Has cleared the neighborhood around it
Now, if you look closely you may realize that number 3 is highly debatable (Number 2 in a sense as well): What is the definition of cleared up? You'd think it were 'the planet has absorbed, or thrown out of orbit all nearby objects. If that were true, then Jupiter wouldn't be a planet, because it has two asteroid groups orbiting with it.
I don't want to get into a lengthy tale about what happened in our classroom (It was mostly one group saying 'You're racists against little planets' and 'If we took out number three, we'd have 500,000 planets in the Solar System). Now I ask you:
Is Pluto a planet?
P.S: I don't want to hear a simple 'yes' or 'no', I want to hear why. This is a very debatable topic (So is everything else in Astronomy, but...), and I just want to hear what everyone thinks. I might debate a bit myself if this gets interesting.
As for if Pluto was part of this process or was pulled in later I don't know.
It was created very slowly over the eons through collision (Like the planets, only wayyyyyyy slower). It's unlikely it came somewhere from beyond, too big (If a dust particle traveled to the Solar System, that would be breaking news).
Whatever you say it's still not a planet, its a dwarf planet for the tenth time, it does not meet the criteria to be a planet like I stated already.
That depends if you agree with the criteria. The opposing group in my class said the criteria was 'flawed, racist against little planets and biased'.
I say pluto is a planet because I want to and a bunch of dudes saying it doesnt fit the bill matters not to me.
... This is were science stops being fun and becomes religion.
It's not that the planets and other solar bodies came from the sun, but it's the left overs that didn't form into the sun or get pulled in afterwords.
ALL stars start in huge gas clouds. As gas starts to condense, it pulls in more and more material due to gravity (forming a proto star), until nuclear fusion begins and pressure from fusion is equal to gravity (Keeping the star the same size). Everything else is pushed away by Solar wind, and in the case of our Sun, it became a bunch of planets. Heavier elements that were close to the Sun became to terrestrial planets, while lighter elements that were in abundance farther from the Sun became the Jovian gas giants.
At least, that's we think at the moment. They also thought stars could only be 150 times more massive than the Sun, and look what they found now... Might make a thread on that, it's pretty cool.
They said the criteria was "flawed"? And that it was racist and biased against little planets that are DWARF PLANETS such as PLUTO.
... This is were science stops being fun and becomes religion.
Science is a religion (Scientology), but not mine. I am a christian. I believe that got created the universe and life in seven days. But, science isn't supposed to be fun its supposed to be work. I study a lot in science because i want a good education in that area.
[quote="DrPepperRain"]Science is a religion (Scientology), but not mine.[/quote] Scientology isn't science. Not even a little bit. And it's only a religion because a bloke wrote a book, someone believed it was real when it's not (it was a science-fiction book, not remotely close to prophecy), and they formed 'Scientology'.
[quote="unlimitedpower"]]That depends if you agree with the criteria. The opposing group in my class said the criteria was 'flawed, racist against little planets and biased'.[/quote] Oh, good point... except that I don't think it's 'racist'. Planets are not exactly a race.
However, the criteria are what they are. I said it once, I'll say it again: a dwarf planet is still a planet. Verne Troyer is a dwarf, but he's still a human.
Considering that our universe is kinda large and kinda vast, I think the more categories they have for placing celestial bodies and stars and objects of suspicious origin... the better. Astronomy has evolved immensely in the last ten, twenty, fifty years, and it will continue to become just as intricate and advanced as molecular sciences (though, it probably is already).
Just as scientist redefined and renamed animals, plants, protozoans, and bacteria, so shall scientists redefine and rename even what we think of as settled and decided upon 'common' objects. As our science evolves, we must accept it and evolve with it, or we can simply remain traditional and disagree. (Though, I suppose, that is why we have this thread.)
That's not the religion of science. If I were you, I would be very careful when making references to that. Read more about the religion before spouting facts like that.
They said the criteria was "flawed"? And that it was racist and biased against little planets that are DWARF PLANETS such as PLUTO.
Yeah, a lot in science (especially in the field of Astronomy) can be argued like politics and religion. Since nothing can be 100% proven, everything is debatable. Also, the definition of a planet is opinion, it can't actually be defined by science and math.
Oh, good point... except that I don't think it's 'racist'. Planets are not exactly a race.
Then again, there isn't a good way to put it:
"You're a planitist!"
Fail
Just as scientist redefined and renamed animals, plants, protozoans, and bacteria, so shall scientists redefine and rename even what we think of as settled and decided upon 'common' objects.
But plants and animals can be organized by similarities, like mammals with the pair of holes behind their jawbone (Am I right?) or birds with feathers. In space, those methods would be too broad, because then we would be comparing asteroids and comets with planets, and our Sun with brown dwarfs, and cosmic string with black holes... Technically, because everything consists of energy, we are all the same (Can you imagine comparing a human and bacteria with the Milky Way?).
I agree with yielle. How can something for so long, be suddenly changed. It may be regarded as a comet, but then why start calling it one when it was originally a planet. I think pluto is a planet
[quote="unlimitedpower"]But plants and animals can be organized by similarities, like mammals with the pair of holes behind their jawbone (Am I right?) or birds with feathers. In space, those methods would be too broad, because then we would be comparing asteroids and comets with planets, and our Sun with brown dwarfs, and cosmic string with black holes... Technically, because everything consists of energy, we are all the same (Can you imagine comparing a human and bacteria with the Milky Way?).[/quote] But it's all based on the knowledge at hand. The 'tree' that consists of all categorised life on this planet has been restructured and reorganised with the discovery of new information, new theories, the evolution of science, and so on. I don't think space is as simple as we assume it is--we will always be finding more and more to it the more we study it and the more we focus on those details.
We've barely tapped the diversity of rain forests and the ocean, I cannot imagine all of the untouched areas of space we've yet to put our fingers on. When it comes to space, we're infants. We've barely managed to scrap the surface as to what's truly out there. If Star Trek was real--if we were really able to study even just our own galaxy--we would have more information than we may know what to do with, at least initially.
Calling Pluto something else is a minor change in the overall realm of astronomy. Various sciences are constantly being rearranged and changed and redefined; then new sciences emerge and we have to figure out where they go specifically. Sure, I can understand a traditionalist feeling as though this change was unnecessary or unfair, but like unlimitedpower said, it depends on if you accept or agree with the new criteria. It should not be an issue at all.
It seems silly, but I think Pluto being a planet is more of a personal decision (even though, technically, it's not). Woody and Buzz were more than just toys to Andy, but they were still just toys.
y does it need to be a planet or not doesn't make munch of a difference either ways it's there what beinfit does that do to humanity wheater it's a planet or not
Yes, who cares? Not even Pluto! Planets, dwarf planets, thingummywut, they are just names! Just like Americans called toilet restroom and British called them toilet. Or soccer in American and football in British. Even though there are different names, the thing being described is still basically the same. Pluto won't change in size if I call Pluto a thingummywut, planet, or dwarf planet.
Pluto IS a planet, and there is no need to shed any tears. Mike Brown is absolutely wrong in saying the IAU "got the right answer." What he is not saying is that this is an ongoing debate with two legitimate sides. Many astronomers do not believe "clearing its orbit" should be a requirement for an object to be considered a planet. And Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet" never intended it to mean not a planet at all. . Only four percent of the IAU voted on this, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASAâs New Horizons mission to Pluto. Stern and like-minded scientists favor a broader planet definition that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star. The spherical part is important because objects become spherical when they attain a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they are large enough for their own gravity to pull them into a round shape. This is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. Pluto meets this criterion and is therefore a planet. Under this definition, our solar system has 13 planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.
