Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Pluto is a planet again

- Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:08:55 EST CLrN9E3V No.54501
File: 1413220135538.jpg -(56602B / 55.28KB, 600x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Pluto is a planet again
as of oct 2nd 2014 pluto's a planet what are your thoughts /sagan/
Johan Galle - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:11:32 EST YHjXylC8 No.54504 Reply
1413234692233.jpg -(1065090B / 1.02MB, 11060x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
So what exactly is the cut-off size for planet vs dwarf planet?
Charles Messier - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:15:21 EST 0PqgsQ8H No.54505 Reply
I don't care what you call it, it's a piece of shit rock that doesn't even compare to numerous satellites orbiting the gas giants.
Bruon Rossi - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:37:19 EST h1NupmlQ No.54506 Reply
1413254239965.png -(152372B / 148.80KB, 480x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Just because a majority of people like to Think its a planet, that does not make it a planet.

The IAU set very clear definitions of what a planet is:

>is in orbit around the Sun,

>has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium

>has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit.

Pluto takes the first two, but not the last one, due to the Kuiper Belt. As you can see in the image attached, the sheer volume of object in similar orbits clearly points to Pluto NOT having cleared its neighborhood.

Also if, in theory, we are going to call Pluto a planet, then we'd do well to include other objects with similar characteristics, such as: Ceres, Haumea, Sedna, Eris, and Makemake. This would bring the number of planets up from eight to a whopping 14 or so. And that would most likely create a bigger shitstorm of classical planetists.
Charles Bolton - Tue, 14 Oct 2014 05:55:17 EST t1vMK9Uc No.54507 Reply
Remember back when every asteroid was another planet? Good times~
James Christy - Tue, 14 Oct 2014 21:29:01 EST Zbe0PVOU No.54508 Reply
I remember back in the day when all of the planets (besides the moon and sun) were deceitful spirits. Always disobeying Aristotle's rules for heavenly bodies, fucking with people's heads and shit.
Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:54:57 EST 004m+Zml No.54509 Reply
>As you can see in the image attached, the sheer volume of object in similar orbits clearly points to Pluto NOT having cleared its neighborhood.
Does this mean if we have enough junk in our orbit, Earth won't be a planet either.
Ejnar Hertzprung - Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:54:37 EST W19G6Cz7 No.54510 Reply
Yes, because "junk" in your orbit is the leftovers from your unsuccessful attempt at planetary coalescence. If Earth's orbit had "junk" in it, there wouldn't be much of an Earth to speak of, or at least not one you'd want to live on.
William de Sitter - Wed, 15 Oct 2014 15:40:14 EST DgOfYnAl No.54511 Reply
errr, I think he's talking about man-made junk or even natural objects that migrate into the neighborhood. There is a metric-fuck-tonne of shit around Earth.

I'm surprised nobody ITT has posted any reference to the origin of this rumor. Apparently the Chairmen of the IAU committee which defines planets, Owen Gingerich, said that planet is a "culturally defined word", and that spurred a myriad of click-bait articles hailing Pluto as a planet again. I tend to agree with the sentiment that planet is a pretty meaningless distinction academically.

Walter Adams - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:20:34 EST YHjXylC8 No.54516 Reply
1413501634650.png -(354579B / 346.27KB, 600x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It's not about number, it's about mass relative to the planet.
Jupiter related.
George Herbig - Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:02:06 EST DgOfYnAl No.54532 Reply
who said anything about numbers? I just thought the post I referenced misunderstood what the other was trying to say. Not that he seemed to have any real point.

Their discussion seemed to be heading in a silly direction so I then tried to get back on topic.
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Thu, 23 Oct 2014 04:46:00 EST yZpPrhjN No.54543 Reply
>I tend to agree with the sentiment that planet is a pretty meaningless distinction academically.

I had more issues with "dwarf planets" not being "planets", then I had with whether Pluto is a "planet".

It's like "dwarf elephants" are still classed as "elephants" and "dwarf goats" are still classed as "goats".

When naming things, it's all nice and good to have more classifications for things to be named with, but it's mighty confusing to not follow some form of name hierarchy.
John Riccioli - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 22:17:35 EST XJHlYsmW No.54550 Reply

Are you also mad that sea cucumbers are actually marine invertebrates?
Johann Bode - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:18:10 EST diJG2mNU No.54551 Reply
comparison is not fair because sea cucumbers are not made of the stuff that makes a cucumber a cucumber, while dwarf planets are made of stuff that makes planet a planet.
its also not a great move to use an obviously and purposefully retarded name as an example thats supposed to defend validity of another name, unless youre defending the right to be retarded when it comes to scientific semantics.
Lemaitre has a point
Floyd Haywood. R. - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:37:08 EST NWMxbtWw No.54552 Reply
God witty scientific debate gives me a hard-on. You go guys!
John Riccioli - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:39:45 EST XJHlYsmW No.54553 Reply

I actually was pointing out that scientific naming is kind of silly in some cases. I was asking if you were okay with one silly naming ("sea cucumber") while not being okay with a different one ("dwarf planet"), and if so, pointing out that if your premise is that "dwarf planets" is a stupid name because it doesn't follow a hierarchy, that premise also applies to "sea cucumber" and therefore you contradict yourself by being okay with "sea cucumber" being a valid name for a thing.
Alan Guth - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:20:27 EST t1vMK9Uc No.54554 Reply
this is a stupid argument
William Fowler - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 02:27:32 EST H3af7FdZ No.54555 Reply
I merely pointed out that sea cucumber is sufficiently removed from a real cucumber that it is virtually impossible to confuse the two, whether youre a scientist or not, while dwarf planet is still clearly a planet thats small.
its perfectly possible to be ok with established, abstract nomenclature, and getting worked up into a murderous fury when motherfuckers try to tell you that dwarf planet is not a planet because its too small, while "dwarf thing" is precisely how science describes a "thing" that is smaller than average.
its a whole new kind of retarded
James van Allen - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 14:40:35 EST Lp7v36RE No.54556 Reply
It's a ball of rock floating around our sun.
With no interesting features other than it's non-elliptical plane orbit.

Call it what ever you like, I'll just call it Pluto.
Floyd Haywood. R. - Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:11:39 EST NWMxbtWw No.54557 Reply
no it's not, this is great, i love it. pluto's fate hangs in the balance and you think that an argument about it, at a time like this, is a load of poppycock? get your fucking together man, this is important ass shit right here
William Herschel - Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:13:33 EST t1vMK9Uc No.54558 Reply
You're arguing about a line in the sand and you know it. A bug's a creepy crawly, error, or via synecdoche sickness, but such imprecise language isn't useful for science, so it's arbitrarily but exactly the name of hemiptera. Magma becomes lava above ground, meteors and meteoroids and even asteroids and even comets get conflated except when it's needed to be precise.

Let science draw its practical line in the sand so it can move on and do science. When not science do whatever the fuck you want its a line in the sand and doesn't change anything about the fucking dwarf

this is a stupid argument
Margaret Burbidge - Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:26:45 EST h1NupmlQ No.54559 Reply
1414502805228.png -(68232B / 66.63KB, 800x538) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>with no interesting features other than it's non-elliptical plane orbit.

Well, you're quick to judge. How can you say it has no interesting features when our best imagery of it can barely distinguish light and dark regions? I'm sure NASA saw it as at least somewhat interesting considering they have a probe speeding its way to the Pluto-Charon system.

Moreover, Pluto-Charon is the first true binary [dwarf] planet system, where the barycenter (point about which both planets are seen to orbit around) lies above the surface of both worlds. This in itself is a novel arrangement of celestial bodies.

In addition to those points, exploration of Pluto can tell us about the origin of Kuiper Belt objects, which are so numerous it is mind numbing. Hell, even the Neptunian moon Triton may be a captured Kuiper Belt object. And if so, the processes apparent on it, such as Cryovolcanism, are likely to be apparent on Pluto as well. I'd wager, due to the tidal forces in a binary system, there is most likely very active cryovolcanos blasting nitrogen out of the crust.

On top of all that other cool shit, the surface is most likely coated with a layer of reddish brown organic molecules known as tholins, which arise from the bombardment of cosmic rays onto the surface of a planet, spurring chemical change in the constituents. There is a ton of cool shit happening in the Pluto area!

I don't get why people believe that since Pluto is a dwarf planet, it merits less interest and more regularity. No way, Pluto is the leading dwarf planet in its class, a distinction that is awesome.

>tl;dr It seems that being the first discovered dwarf planet is way cooler than being the ninth regular planet.
Chushiro Hayashi - Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:59:54 EST ng7uFEBM No.54577 Reply
>some dildo claims that the word planet should be defined culturally
>the IAU doesn't give a fuck

it's not a planet, and probably won't be anytime soon.

pluto's classification debate is a matter of people being stupid.
it is a dwarf planet, but people are offended at that fact because they want to think that they know "all the planets", but since it's a dwarf planet, they feel stupid now because they can't name the other dwarves like eris or quoar...

so fuck it being a planet.
Wilhelm Beer - Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:49:41 EST yZpPrhjN No.54684 Reply
>Are you also mad that sea cucumbers are actually marine invertebrates?
Since "sea" is a clear superclass separation rather than a subclass modifier, as can be seen in "sea lion", "seahorse", "sea hare", etc., so no.
Wilhelm Beer - Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:55:35 EST yZpPrhjN No.54685 Reply
PS: Also, I recently stumbled in trying to explain to other people how "dwarf stars" is "stars" while "dwarf planets" is not "planets". The classification is a mess.
Riccardo Giacconi - Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:37:45 EST 5O93DDXg No.54686 Reply
It's one of millions, maybe even billions of crappy little balls of ice haning out with pluto. It's part of the kuiper belt, fucking dumb asses don't understand science is about finding new things and reclassifying as necessary. When Pluto was found that was all there was to see. Now we see more. Unless you want to go around calling asteroids planets too.
Wilhelm Beer - Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:19:39 EST yZpPrhjN No.54687 Reply
Early drafts had the "plutoid" name for the new class.

Somewhere along the way, the class became known as "dwarf planet" and include Ceres while exclude a bunch of trans-Neptunian objects.
Thomas Gold - Sat, 22 Nov 2014 01:05:52 EST KCC23SOp No.54723 Reply
What, stealing Pluto's planethood wasn't enough for youu? You have to go an objectify Neptune for being transexual?
Karl Jansky - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:46:02 EST 5O93DDXg No.54730 Reply
Well Neptune did come out of the closet with that extra moon, you know, the gay moon.
Mike Brown - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:42:16 EST yZpPrhjN No.54735 Reply
The Force of Troll Logic is strong in this one.
Christiaan Huygens - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:53:34 EST 3dhJAQX4 No.54736 Reply
So basically scientific classification is being dictated by a bunch of nostalgic idiots?
Maximilian Wolf - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:46:40 EST yZpPrhjN No.54737 Reply
I'm still trying to figure out why "dwarf planet" class isn't called "giant planetoid".
Allan Sandage - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 05:53:03 EST zknn7B0i No.54749 Reply
Hey man taxonomy ain't easy... I mean look at the standard model. Sometimes reality isn't neat.
Chushiro Hayashi - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:08:48 EST ksAXy5yQ No.54772 Reply
Here's some exciting news about Pluto!

>NASA craft to probe Pluto after nine-year journey
>An American probe that will explore Pluto woke up from its slumber Saturday, after a nine-year journey to take a close look at the distant body for the first time.

New Horizons is finally almost at Pluto.
I can't wait to get a closer look at our smallest planet.
Bernhard Schmidt - Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:14:18 EST lzBKxHS0 No.55878 Reply


Margaret Burbidge - Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:42:20 EST oigSnnJc No.55879 Reply
Damnit Bernhard why did you ressurect this year old thread?
William Hartmann - Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:27:07 EST tQX5ylFX No.55893 Reply
I don't even care he did that. I'm here to say Pluto is the lucky Kuiper belt object that got named by basic observations. If pluto is a planet then rev up the auto celestial object namer becaue there are well more than a few million Kiuper belt objects to name.
Fred Whipple - Sat, 02 Jan 2016 06:42:22 EST vH3CaGpi No.55909 Reply
It'll be around 200, and won't go to the millions, if we re-classed all the dwarf planets under planets. Not all Kuiper belt objects will be classed as dwarf planets.
Anders Angstrom - Thu, 07 Jan 2016 07:03:06 EST AZhYjTPv No.55917 Reply
>has cleared the neighborhood

Alas, as is the opinion of many people I have spoken to, including planetary scientists, this is really fuzzy. Neptune, seems to have not cleared its orbit: Pluto is there.

Earth clearly has not cleared its orbit, look at all the near Earth asteroids.

No planet has completely cleared its orbit. Say what you will about mass or number of objects, those may be valid lines to make a definition along, but they are not part of the IAU defenition.

To me, the fact that Pluto is not a planet is fine, really. The annoyance is from the defenition that is really, in the end, arbitrary.
Arthur Eddington - Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:10:14 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.55920 Reply
While I mostly agree that the definition should have been more, well defined, I don't really think it is an issue. Near Earth objects are not in the same orbit as Earth, they're highly elliptical, only crossing paths with Earth's orbit in maybe 5 decades or usually alot more. Hell, most of them are long term objects, meaning they're from the fucking kuiper belt and will not be seen again for LITERALLY millions of years. Those should not be taken into a consideration of cleared orbits.

Same with Pluto and Neptune, with their orbits so slow, large and Pluto's orbit being tilted to all hell, the probability of Neptune being able to clear Pluto is basically nil. Its the same as with the near Earth objects.

Though Neptune certainly could fling Pluto away if it got close, but Neptune is the smallest Jovian planet so it doesn't really have the reach to do that considering they never get anywhere close to each other. Actual collision, while fucking rad, is so improbable that it can pretty much be dismissed.

As for Pluto's designation, I heard it put well somewhere, which is better, Pluto being the smallest planet or the King of the dwarf planets?
I know I prefer the latter.
Anders Angstrom - Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:38:07 EST AZhYjTPv No.55921 Reply
My dear Comrade, I fear you may have been somewhere mislead. There are thousands of discovered asteroids whose orbits are highly similar to the Earths, such that they cros the Earth's path, roughly, just about once every six months.

NEAs are classed into a couple of categories, the largest class by population, Apollo, is defined as those asteroids with a semimajor axis higher than 1AU, and a perihelion distance less than Earth's aphelion.

The Apollo class Asteroid has more than 7000 members. Some of these fit you class of being 'comet like', but they are not. The highest has a semimajor axis of 17AU and an orbit of a mere 75.36 years. But it is an outlying member of a group that is far more generally close to the Earth. Most of these objects are less cometary.

That does not mean that there are not other objects that meat some of your description. They just are not usually what we call Near Earth Objects.

Actual collision between Pluto and Neptune would take some serious work to make possible. They currently are in a nifty orbital resonance.
Neptune's orbital period x 3/2 very nearly equals Pluto's period. They are not getting close any time soon. It is likely that certain gravtational effects are at play that maintain this arrangement.

To your last point, OK. My frustration lies not in Pluto's classification, but in the classification system. The standing defenition, makes sense, sort of, but is imprecise. For all I care they could just say that anything that
>Orbits the Sun,
>has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and
>Is larger than Pluto
would be good.

And, finally, I think the choice is not how you, and others, have stated it. It could well just be that Pluto is a smaller planet among a Solar System of 16, or 20 planets. Who really cares? I just think the defenition is vauge and should be clarified.
Arthur Eddington - Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:34:22 EST fDZ3h+Vd No.55922 Reply
I apoligize, I confused NEAs to include the long term objects which cross Earth's orbital plane at some point.
But, though I admit I maybe more ill informed still, but the NEAs still aren't in the same orbital neighbourhood, which is what the definition is going for and therefore don't count. It would be unresonable to expect planets to clear such objects because of the infrequency(though relatively frequent in the grand scheme) that they get close to each other, I mean all planets have such objects crossing their orbits.
(The orbit thing also doesn't take into account the objects stuck in Lagrange points)

Also, I think we've missed a key part of the definiton, which does make it more precise. The "Clearing the neighbourhood" definition says that a planet has cleared its orbital zone of objects that are comparable to it in size and has such gravitational dominance of its orbit. This narrows the definition to not even include asteroids or comets because they're not considered comparable in size to the planets. Pluto has kuiper belt objects in its neighbourhood that are comparable to it.

I do agree that the "larger than Pluto" might be a better definition, but as our telescopes get better and we get to look at the kuiper belt better, we might discover that there is a shitload of larger objects out there than Pluto. But them having cleared their orbit of comparable objects in the kuiper belt would probably be less likely. I think it still is a better definiton, though not perfect.

And I understood you don't care about the classification, that last bit was aimed at everyone else fussing over Pluto being a planet.
John Bahcall - Sat, 16 Jan 2016 15:36:04 EST vB+y87GU No.55929 Reply
>objects stuck in lagrange points
Open your eyes and see that infinite abundance is right on our door step.
Sokath, his eyes uncovered.
James Christy - Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:12:18 EST cQBIryFa No.56014 Reply
1454699538949.jpg -(86710B / 84.68KB, 960x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Despite what you've heard, size doesn't matter.
All "dwarf" planets don't as real planets because they haven't cleared their orbits of other bodies, NOT because of their size.
BTW, a "dwarf hippo" is still a hippo, a "dwarf maple" is still a maple, etc.
Even "Dwarf stars" are still real stars.
So why is a thing that's not a planet a "dwarf planet"?
Alan Guth - Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:31:29 EST sky71Ye7 No.56015 Reply

Any strict border of planet/dwarf planet would be arbitrary. It's just a tool to avoid having to acknowledge that the solar system contains thousands of planets. Better then to say that a system has a few planets and thousands of celestial objects.
Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Sat, 06 Feb 2016 05:48:03 EST cQBIryFa No.56016 Reply
1454755683748.jpg -(22429B / 21.90KB, 500x322) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Any strict border of planet/dwarf planet would be arbitrary.
Not really.
The IAU defines a planet as having enough mass so that it's gravity pulls it into a roughly spherical shape.
Pluto clearly meets this qualification (as does Ceres and many others), but fails on the second requirement: that it has cleared its orbit of similar sized bodies.
Rudolph Minkowski - Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:35:45 EST s6y07R4Z No.56018 Reply
>fails on the second requirement: that it has cleared its orbit of similar sized bodies

I'm sure we'll find earth-sized bodies sharing the same orbit and rethink that silly notion.
Henry Draper - Sun, 07 Feb 2016 04:00:14 EST YHjXylC8 No.56021 Reply
1454835614254.png -(168472B / 164.52KB, 740x697) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Unless they were directly opposed, they'd collide or fling eachother into funny orbits eventually. Though smaller planets further out would take longer.
There's a reason planets tend to fall into an orbital resonance.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.