Pluto is not worth it.

Other scientific, philosophical, mathematical etc. topics go here.

Pluto is not worth it.

Postby moonlord » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:24 pm

I've heard on the TV a few minutes ago that Pluto is no more considered a planet. It's not even considered part of the solar system. So from now on, there are 8 planets orbiting the Sun.

Off-topic: I suggest subscribing to the Softpedia newsletter (softpedia.com). Although most of the entries are IT-related, there are many related to science, in general.
Last edited by moonlord on Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Re: TV: Pluto is not worth it.

Postby jinydu » Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:39 am

moonlord wrote:It's not even considered part of the solar system.


Surely that's an exagerration. Pluto's trajectory is still dominated by the Sun's gravitational field.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby houserichichi » Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:52 am

I agree...but then would Halley's comet part of our solar system too?

Sean Carroll made a very good point that the news about Pluto has been making its rounds much more efficiently and quickly than the news about dark matter, something that actually has importance. And I quote,

Sean Carroll wrote:the Bullet Cluster data [re: dark matter] have taught us something profound about the constituents and forces of our universe, while the “planet” business has taught us about the vote of a committee on what to call stuff. Why is that?
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: TV: Pluto is not worth it.

Postby Hugh » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:46 am

jinydu wrote:
moonlord wrote:It's not even considered part of the solar system.


Surely that's an exagerration. Pluto's trajectory is still dominated by the Sun's gravitational field.

Here is what the Science & Space article at CNN.com said about this:
CNN wrote:Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: "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."

Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.

Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets," similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun -- "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other natural satellites.

Check out 2003 UB3113 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313, it's actually bigger than Pluto.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby moonlord » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:09 am

Softpedia news - 20 aug (link):

Should Pluto be considered a planet? What about "Xena" which is even further away from the Sun but which proved to be even larger than Pluto. The International Astronomical Union debated such issues and tried to come up with a definition of "planet". Insofar, their proposal states that anything which is round and orbits the Sun is a planet.

This allows Pluto to remain a planet but also grants the former asteroid Ceres, which is between Mars and Jupiter, the planetary status. Moreover, astronomers noted that Charon, previously considered Pluto's satellite, is in fact so big compared to Pluto that it doesn't really revolve around Pluto - rather, both Pluto and Charon revolve around their center of mass which is somewhere in space outside Pluto itself. Thus, they want to call Charon a planet too - the Pluto-Charon system becomes a "binary planet".

"Xena", still waiting for an official name, is also labeled a planet. And probably there are many more planets to come... At least if this draft definition gets accepted.


Read the full article here.

However, it seems this has not been accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_redefinition_of_planet

Like this, there are eight planets and four dwarf planets (Ceres, Pluto, Charon and "Xena").

I believe this is final.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

Re: TV: Pluto is not worth it.

Postby Nick » Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:17 am

jinydu wrote:
moonlord wrote:It's not even considered part of the solar system.


Surely that's an exagerration. Pluto's trajectory is still dominated by the Sun's gravitational field.


I heard about this the other day to. Haven't read any articles in detail, though.
It's part of something new called the Kuipper belt; sort of like a second asteroid belt. Apparently, it's not a planet if its own gravity can't make it somewhat round ;)
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby houserichichi » Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:55 am

The Kuiper belt is a region of space directly after Neptune which has always included Pluto. Pluto's gravity is enough to make it roughly spherical. In fact, there was another possible planet when they were still deliberating over the definition that looks less spherical than the others in this photograph (top-left). What killed Pluto as a planet is that its orbit brings it back across that of Neptune's rather than off on its own around the sun.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: Pluto is not worth it.

Postby papernuke » Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:32 pm

moonlord wrote:there are 8 planets orbiting the Sun.


I thought they found like 2 more orbiting the sun.
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

Postby houserichichi » Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:26 am

Here's the little picture to help out and tell you who's who in the solar system.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0608/planets_iau.jpg
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby Hugh » Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:08 pm

moonlord wrote:there are eight planets and four dwarf planets (Ceres, Pluto, Charon and "Xena").

I believe this is final.

"Xena", or 2003 UB3113 now has a new name; Eris, (officially 136199 Eris). See http://www.physorg.com/news77463802.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/136199_Eris.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby houserichichi » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:58 am

Three cheers for Eris!!!
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby Nick » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:08 am

Edited the Eris wiki page to read "Kuipper Belt", instead of "Scattered Belt". This is interesting stuff, though. I wonder what we'll find next in our solar system? Think this might be it?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Hugh » Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:43 pm

irockyou wrote:I wonder what we'll find next in our solar system? Think this might be it?

Nope. There are all kinds of ways that things could be hidden from our present view.

I remember as a kid hearing about various ideas of the time. The Earth's moon always faces the Earth with the same face. People wondered if there was some higher civilization living on "the far side".

Another one was that there was another planet directly opposite the Earth on the other side of the Sun which we never saw because the Sun was in the way. Our probes eventually found that both ideas are false, or so we think with our current technology.

Who knows? With several hundred more years of technological advancement, future humans would be able to hide themselves completely from the technology of today. Who is to say that it is impossible that advanced civilizations aren't already present in our solar system now... even here on Earth? :shock: :)
Last edited by Hugh on Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Postby papernuke » Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:22 pm

I heard on the news yesterday that pluto and that other planet they found were considered dwarf planets, at least better than an asteroid. Also, they named the planet somthing like Eiuion.
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron