Political Crossfire Forums

[Gremlin]

Pluto's status attacked


Quote: PRAGUE (Reuters) - Despite being the farthest planet from Earth in our solar system, Pluto has come under attack from astronomers and may be about to lose its status in the battle.
ADVERTISEMENT

Some 3,000 astronomers and scientists from around the world will meet in Prague this week to decide whether Pluto, discovered in 1930, measures up to the definition of a planet.

In defining for the first time what exactly a planet is, the International Astronomers Union (IAU) may be forced to downgrade Pluto's status, or add as many as 14 others.

Such a decision would send shockwaves through the scientific community, instantly outdate textbooks, and cause educators to re-teach the basics of our solar system.

"The pivotal question is the status of Pluto, which is clearly very different from Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune," Owen Gingerich, professor of Astronomy and History of Science emeritus a the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics told Reuters.

Debate has raged within the scientific community over the status of Pluto for decades after the planet was found to be only one four-hundredths of the mass of the earth.

That discussion intensified in 2003 when astronomers at the California Institute of Technology discovered UB 313. Nicknamed Xena after the character in the television show, UB 313 is one of more than a dozen celestial bodies in our solar system found to be larger than Pluto.

Xena and Pluto are large icy bodies that reside in the Kuiper Belt -- where thousands of floating bodies travel -- beyond Neptune. Images from the
Hubble Space Telescope put Xena's diameter at 1,490 miles or so. That is slightly bigger than Pluto, which measures 1,422 miles across.

Gingerich is the chair of a committee that was asked to come up with a definition of a planet and hand it to the IAU general assembly, which runs August 14-25.

In the run-up to the assembly, emotions have been running high in both directions.

Some have appealed to Gingerich's group not to downgrade Pluto, saying it would disappoint children and throw our understanding of the universe into chaos.

Others say let the chips fall where they may and seem to relish the idea of overturning our current view of the universe.

Gingerich said that modern technologies have allowed scientists to delve into the solar system further, and in more detail, than ever before. Therefore, it is no surprise that questions on the fundamental assumptions of it are arising.

"Should it (Pluto), for historical reasons, be considered a planet like the rest?" Gingerich asks, refusing to tip his hand on how the seven-member group has agreed after deciding on the wording in June.

Scientists say the group may make a new class of planets that accepts large bodies such as Xena and Pluto that do not measure up to the eight larger planets. They could also drop Pluto's status as a planet or expand the list of planets to include many similarly-sized bodies found in the solar system.




Not the most interesting story in the world, but what do you think?

I haven't done a whole lot of reading on it but i heard threw the grapevine that Pluto could be a long lost moon in itself. If that is the case i defiantly would have to say the planetary status should be taken for a more accurate description. IMHO Planets should be defined by main bodies created from the gravitational pull of its star. If i was a brain and had more of a base i probably could elaborate a bit more.

[Pzatchok]

The real argument is what is the definition of a planet.

I would accept that a planet was massive enough to form itself gravitaionally into a sphere.

Anything smaller that orbits something else would be called a planetoid.

Our Moon would then technicly be called a planet.

[cap'n queasy]

Pluto is definitely on the borderline.

I see no real reason to go to the trouble to change it's designation though.

[Selfish_Meme]

cap'n queasy wrote: Pluto is definitely on the borderline.

I see no real reason to go to the trouble to change it's designation though.
It didn't get changed, other bodies may gain planetary status though.

[Stevv]

Gremlin wrote:

... i heard threw the grapevine that Pluto could be a long lost moon in itself. If that is the case i defiantly would have to say the planetary status should be taken for a more accurate description. IMHO Planets should be defined by main bodies created from the gravitational pull of its star. If i was a brain and had more of a base i probably could elaborate a bit more.

Yes some scientists say that Pluto may be a former moon of Neptune, but finally came out of its gravitational pull. But next time neptune and pluto come very close to each other, who knows? Maybe it will re-become a moon.

And from a Yahoo news I heard that Pluto, and maybe Xena, will be given a planetary status called something like "icy dwarf planets," as Jupiter and Saturn are called "gas giants."

Personally, I think we should wait till the space probe to pluto gets there (hasn't it already been launched?). Then we can tell if it is just a very cold piece of rock and therefore most likely called a planet, unless it is more like a big asteroid... then it would probably be an asteroid. But who knows? Maybe when the pluto probe gets there, we'll discover it is a comet or something. And then we can worry about Xena being the 10th planet or not.

[Kumar]

Planets plan boosts tally to 12

The plan would also introduce a former asteroid named Ceres as a planet between Mars and Jupiter.

[ubikk]

They will probably come to some compromise and have some quasi-planetary status, like "planetoid" or "sub planet" or something.

[micfranklin]

Pzatchok wrote: The real argument is what is the definition of a planet.

I would accept that a planet was massive enough to form itself gravitaionally into a sphere.

Anything smaller that orbits something else would be called a planetoid.

Our Moon would then technicly be called a planet.

I'd say a planet is any massive object that cannot generate its own light, and since Pluto can't, then its a planet. The moon of Pluto, however, is questionable.

Plus, shouldn't we also think about other planets in the other galaxies?

[Kumar]

micfranklin wrote: Pzatchok wrote: The real argument is what is the definition of a planet.

I would accept that a planet was massive enough to form itself gravitaionally into a sphere.

Anything smaller that orbits something else would be called a planetoid.

Our Moon would then technicly be called a planet.

I'd say a planet is any massive object that cannot generate its own light, and since Pluto can't, then its a planet. The moon of Pluto, however, is questionable.

Plus, shouldn't we also think about other planets in the other galaxies?
It's not that simple. What do you define as massive?

Here is what the IAU is leaning toward:
* The object must be in orbit around a star, but must not itself be a star
* It must have enough mass for the body's own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape

Pluto would be known as a "pluton".

[Stevv]

micfranklin wrote: Pzatchok wrote: The real argument is what is the definition of a planet.

I would accept that a planet was massive enough to form itself gravitaionally into a sphere.

Anything smaller that orbits something else would be called a planetoid.

Our Moon would then technicly be called a planet.

I'd say a planet is any massive object that cannot generate its own light, and since Pluto can't, then its a planet. The moon of Pluto, however, is questionable.

Plus, shouldn't we also think about other planets in the other galaxies?


Yeah Pzatchok our moon can't be considered a planet since it dosen't revolve around a star. In my opioion, I highly disagree with Charon, Pluto's moon, to be considered a planet. It orbits a planet, not a star! Some people call it a double planet because its so close and its half the size, but I truly believe it should be a moon and not a planet.

Quote: Plus, shouldn't we also think about other planets in the other galaxies?


I believe you mean other solar systems, I don't think our technology is sufficiant enough to see planets in the Andromeda Galaxy.

But here is a link for planetquest, a NASA thing that searches for Earth-like planets in the rest of the galaxy (Most of the planets are huge (waaay bigger than juputer) and Gas Giants, but they found at least 1 terrestrial planet so far... it's rocky and its 13 times the size of earth. There Are also some smaller planets (but still gas giants) that are maybe half the size of jupiter, or one I think was 2 or 3 times the size of Earth.):

planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov

[toddytodd]

More interesting 'stuff' on Pluto and our solar system:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/16/new.planets.ap/index.html

Much-maligned Pluto would remain a planet -- and its largest moon plus two other heavenly bodies would join Earth's neighborhood -- under a draft resolution to be formally presented Wednesday to the International Astronomical Union, the arbiter of what is and is not a planet.

"Yes, Virginia, Pluto is a planet," quipped Richard Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Watch an expert explain how a planet can just be a big, round thing -- 5:11)

The proposal could change, however: Binzel and the other nearly 2,500 astronomers from 75 nations meeting in Prague to hammer out a universal definition of a planet will hold two brainstorming sessions before they vote on the resolution next week. But the draft comes from the IAU's executive committee, which only submits recommendations likely to get two-thirds approval from the group.

Besides reaffirming the status of puny Pluto -- whose detractors insist should not be a planet at all -- the new lineup would include 2003 UB313, the farthest-known object in the solar system and nicknamed Xena; Pluto's largest moon, Charon; and the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s before it was demoted.

The panel also proposed a new category of planets called "plutons," referring to Pluto-like objects that reside in the Kuiper Belt, a mysterious, disc-shaped zone beyond Neptune containing thousands of comets and planetary objects. Pluto itself and two of the potential newcomers -- Charon and 2003 UB313 -- would be plutons.

Astronomers also were being asked to get rid of the term "minor planets," which long has been used to collectively describe asteroids, comets and other non-planetary objects. Instead, those would become collectively known as "small solar system bodies."

If the resolution is approved, the 12 planets in our solar system listed in order of their proximity to the sun would be Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, and the provisionally named 2003 UB313. Its discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology, nicknamed it Xena after the warrior princess of TV fame, but it likely would be rechristened something else later, the panel said.

The galactic shift would force publishers to update encyclopedias and school textbooks, and elementary school teachers to rejigger the planet mobiles hanging from classroom ceilings. Far outside the realm of science, astrologers accustomed to making predictions based on the classic nine might have to tweak their formulas.

Even if the list of planets is officially lengthened when astronomers vote on Aug. 24, it is not likely to stay that way for long: The IAU has a "watchlist" of at least a dozen other potential candidates that could become planets once more is known about their sizes and orbits.

"The solar system is a middle-aged star, and like all middle-aged things, its waistline is expanding," said Jack Horkheimer, director of the Miami Space Transit Planetarium in the United States and host of Public Broadcasting's Stargazer television show.

Opponents of Pluto, which was named a planet in 1930, still might spoil for a fight. Earth's moon is larger; so is 2003 UB313 (Xena), about 70 miles (113 kilometers) wider.

But the IAU said Pluto meets its proposed new definition of a planet: any round object larger than 800 kilometers (nearly 500 miles) in diameter that orbits the sun and has a mass roughly one-12,000th that of Earth. Moons and asteroids will make the grade if they meet those basic tests.

Roundness is key, experts said, because it indicates an object has enough self-gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape. Yet Earth's moon would not qualify because the two bodies' common center of gravity lies below the surface of the Earth.

"There are as many opinions about Pluto as there are astronomers," Binzel said. "But Pluto has gravity on its side. By the physics of our proposed definition, Pluto makes it by a long shot."

IAU President Ronald D. Ekers said the draft definition, two years in the making, was an attempt to reach a cosmic consensus and end decades of quarreling. "We don't want an American version, a European version and a Japanese version" of what constitutes a planet, he said.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at New York's American Museum of Natural History -- miscast as a "Pluto-hater," he contends, merely because Pluto was excluded from a planetarium solar system exhibit -- said the new guidelines would clear up the fuzzier aspects of the Milky Way.

"For the first time since ancient Greece, we have an unambiguous definition," he said. "Now, when an object is debated as a possible planet, the answer can be swift and clear."

[Stevv]

I just found out how charon could be called a planet: It's something to do if the centger of gravity is outside of the planet it orbits, then its a planet. Not sure how that works with charon though...

But anyway, that means in a few billion years, if the earth and moon are still around, the moon would be considered a planet!

[cap'n queasy]

Kumar wrote: micfranklin wrote: Pzatchok wrote: The real argument is what is the definition of a planet.

I would accept that a planet was massive enough to form itself gravitaionally into a sphere.

Anything smaller that orbits something else would be called a planetoid.

Our Moon would then technicly be called a planet.

I'd say a planet is any massive object that cannot generate its own light, and since Pluto can't, then its a planet. The moon of Pluto, however, is questionable.

Plus, shouldn't we also think about other planets in the other galaxies?
It's not that simple. What do you define as massive?

Here is what the IAU is leaning toward:
* The object must be in orbit around a star, but must not itself be a star
* It must have enough mass for the body's own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape

Pluto would be known as a "pluton".

Well Pluto orbits Sol and it has a spherical shape.

[Kumar]

cap'n queasy wrote: Kumar wrote: micfranklin wrote: Pzatchok wrote: The real argument is what is the definition of a planet.

I would accept that a planet was massive enough to form itself gravitaionally into a sphere.

Anything smaller that orbits something else would be called a planetoid.

Our Moon would then technicly be called a planet.

I'd say a planet is any massive object that cannot generate its own light, and since Pluto can't, then its a planet. The moon of Pluto, however, is questionable.

Plus, shouldn't we also think about other planets in the other galaxies?
It's not that simple. What do you define as massive?

Here is what the IAU is leaning toward:
* The object must be in orbit around a star, but must not itself be a star
* It must have enough mass for the body's own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape

Pluto would be known as a "pluton".

Well Pluto orbits Sol and it has a spherical shape.
Hence why it would be classified as a planet. Pluton simply means that its orbit is greater than 200 Earth years.

[temple of vitriol]

Here's the latest:

.....

Astronomers Say Pluto Is Not a Planet

Aug 24, 12:20 PM (ET)

By WILLIAM J. KOLE

PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) - Leading astronomers declared Thursday that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.

After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930. The new definition of what is - and isn't - a planet fills a centuries-old black hole for scientists who have labored since Copernicus without one.

Although astronomers applauded after the vote, Jocelyn Bell Burnell - a specialist in neutron stars from Northern Ireland who oversaw the proceedings - urged those who might be "quite disappointed" to look on the bright side.

"It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet' under which the dwarf planets exist," she said, drawing laughter by waving a stuffed Pluto of Walt Disney fame beneath a real umbrella.

"Many more Plutos wait to be discovered," added Richard Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The decision by the prestigious international group spells out the basic tests that celestial objects will have to meet before they can be considered for admission to the elite cosmic club.

For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

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.

Experts said there could be dozens of dwarf planets catalogued across the solar system in the next few years.

NASA said Thursday that Pluto's demotion would not affect its US$700 million New Horizons spacecraft mission, which earlier this year began a 9 1/2-year journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets.

"We will continue pursuing exploration of the most scientifically interesting objects in the solar system, regardless of how they are categorized," Paul Hertz, chief scientist for the science mission directorate, said in a statement.

The decision on Pluto at a conference of 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries was a dramatic shift from just a week ago, when the group's leaders floated a proposal that would have reaffirmed Pluto's planetary status and made planets of its largest moon and two other objects.

That plan proved highly unpopular, splitting astronomers into factions and triggering days of sometimes combative debate that led to Pluto's undoing. In the end, only about 300 astronomers cast ballots.

Now, two of the objects that at one point were cruising toward possible full-fledged planethood will join Pluto as dwarfs: the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s before it got demoted, and 2003 UB313, an icy object slightly larger than Pluto whose discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology, has nicknamed Xena.

Charon, the largest of Pluto's three moons, is no longer under consideration for any special designation.

Brown, who watched the proceedings from Cal Tech, took Thursday's vote in stride - even though his discovery won't be christened a planet.

"UB313 is the largest dwarf planet. That's kind of cool," he said.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060824/D8JMT3I00.html

.....

After millions of school kids learned

My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas

now we find out it's just

My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine...

That's bogus.