TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pluto no longer a planet.

Pluto no longer a planet.

Oh well, he had a good run.

quote:

PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) -- The ninth rock from the sun faces the prospect of being demoted to a "dwarf planet" on Thursday if the International Astronomical Union approves new planetary definitions. Some scientists say Pluto never deserved to be a planet in the first place. It's smaller than Earth's moon, has a funky way of orbiting the sun, and lurks so far out on the fringes of the solar system even the powerful Hubble Space Telescope has to squint to see it. Pluto is no stranger to controversy. In fact, it's been dogged by disputes ever since its discovery in 1930. (Watch why some think planet size doesn't matter -- 3:39) Discovered by Clyde Tombaugh of Arizona's Lowell Observatory, Pluto was classified as a planet because scientists initially believed it was the same size as Earth. It remained one because for years, it was the only known object in the Kuiper Belt, an enigmatic zone beyond Neptune that's teeming with comets and other planetary objects. Pluto got an ego boost in 1978 when it was found to have a moon that was later named Charon. The Hubble turned up two more, which this past June were christened Nix and Hydra. But in the 1990s, more powerful telescopes revealed numerous bodies similar to Pluto in the neighborhood. New observations also showed that Pluto's orbit was oblong, sending it soaring well above and beyond the main plane of the solar system where Earth and the other seven planets circle the sun. That prompted some galactic grumbling from astronomers who began openly attacking Pluto's planethood. At one point, things looked so bad for Pluto, the international union said publicly in 1999 that rumors of Pluto's imminent demise were greatly exaggerated and there were no plans to kick it out of the cosmic club. A year later, the Hayden Planetarium at New York's American Museum of Natural History was accused of snubbing Pluto by excluding it from a solar system exhibition. Pluto took another hit after Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology discovered 2003 UB313, a slightly larger Kuiper Belt object. What's the point, some astronomers wondered, in keeping Pluto as a planet? Its future brightened earlier this year, when NASA sent the New Horizons spacecraft to Pluto to get a closer look at the ball of rock and ice. The Hubble has managed to glimpse only its most prominent surface features; New Horizons, if all goes well, will arrive in 2015. As recently as last week, the IAU -- the official arbiter of heavenly bodies -- appeared ready to reaffirm Pluto's planet status. Richard Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the international union's planet definition committee, had contended that Pluto met key tests of planetary physics "by a long shot" and had earned its status. On Thursday, looking weary, he was asked whether he'll mourn if Pluto winds up demoted. "I don't know. Ask me later," he said.

Pluto always was the bastard stepchild of the solar system.

Maybe one of you can answer this question for me: Is it possible that there are planets that circle the sun vertically?

Here's the resolution:

quote:

RESOLUTIONS Resolution 5A is the principal definition for the IAU usage of "planet" and related terms. Resolution 5B adds the word "classical" to the collective name of the eight planets Mercury through Neptune. Resolution 6A creates for IAU usage a new class of objects, for which Pluto is the prototype. Resolution 6B introduces the name "plutonian objects" for this class. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "plutonian" as: Main Entry: plu � to � ni � an Pronunciation: pl�-'tO-nE-&n Function: adjective Usage: often capitalized : of, relating to, or characteristic of Pluto or the lower world After having received inputs from many sides -- especially the geological community -- the term "Pluton" is no longer being considered. IAU Resolution: Definition of a Planet in the Solar System Contemporary observations are changing our understanding of planetary systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect our current understanding. This applies, in particular, to the designation 'planets'. The word 'planet' originally described 'wanderers' that were known only as moving lights in the sky. Recent discoveries lead us to create a new definition, which we can make using currently available scientific information. RESOLUTION 5A The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way: (1) A planet1 is 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. (2) A dwarf planet is 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) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite. (3) All other objects3 orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies". 1The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. 2An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories. 3These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies. RESOLUTION 5B Insert the word "classical" before the word "planet" in Resolution 5A, Section (1), and footnote 1. Thus reading: (1) A classical planet1 is a celestial body . . . and 1The eight classical planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. IAU Resolution: Pluto RESOLUTION 6A The IAU further resolves: Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects. RESOLUTION 6B The following sentence is added to Resolution 6A: This category is to be called "plutonian objects."

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.i...0602/index.html

Pluto only got shafted because of its eccentric orbit, which seems a bit silly to me because most of the extrasolar planets we've discoved also have an eccentric orbit. According to this definition, a body 10x the size of Jupiter can't be considered a planet if its orbit intersects the orbit of some other body!

edit: cheers renegade.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Maybe one of you can answer this question for me: Is it possible that there are planets that circle the sun vertically?

from which perspective

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Maybe one of you can answer this question for me: Is it possible that there are planets that circle the sun vertically?

Very unlikely. For two reasons.

1.) We probably would have detected it by now.

2.) The solar system originated through an initial cloud of gaseous matter. The center of it condensed and became the sun, while the outer regions of the cloud became more and more attracted to that massive sun at the center. This caused the whole cloud to spin, faster and faster, naturally flattening the cloud out into a disk. Out of that flat, rotating disk originated the planets. That's why they're all orbitting in one plane and one direction.

1)"Vertical" is irrelevant in space. I think the way to pose that question would be to ask if there are planets that orbit the sun on a perpendicular plane relative to the other planets.

2)George Bush doesn't care about Pluto. Unless of course we're talking about PLUTO!

George Bush doesn't care about black holes.

Can't they grandfather clause it?

I miss it already

i never knew enough about it to be yay or nay, but i do think its good we now have a working definition. id prefer pluto to be in or out, instead of this 50-50 debate thats been occuring.

i can see why its been demoted, kinda sad in a way but im a sentimental person hehe

quote:

Originally posted by StanVoid This caused the whole cloud to spin, faster and faster, naturally flattening the cloud out into a disk. Out of that flat, rotating disk originated the planets.

not necessarily....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.