6 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm#Scientific_rejection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm#Scientific_re... If Pluto is #9, what number

by dalke 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm#Scientific_rejection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm#Scientific_re... If Pluto is #9, what numbers are Ceres, Sedna, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake? Ceres was considered a planet until the 1850s. Astronomers think there are a few hundred more such dwarf planets, with 2007 OR10, Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, (307261) 2002 MS4 and Salacia as likely candidates. Which numbers are those? The hypothetical planet the New Yorker mentions has an orbital period between twelve and twenty thousand years. Sitchin says the Babylonian religious texts say the period is 3,600 years. These are not the same planet.

sandworm101 10y ago
>> If Pluto is #9, what numbers are Ceres, Sedna, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake? I don't care about them. This is a cultural issue. There is no fundamental principal governing how humans are to name space rocks. This is map making. Exceptions and one-off special rules are made all the time. We accept europe and asia as separate continents. If that can be a thing, then Pluto can remain a planet.
- dalke 10y ago
  Then it's a good thing I was asking Cozumel, who does care and believes it to be significant, instead of someone who doesn't care.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    You put them up to illustrate the consequences of a change to the planet-naming rule. I dismiss those consequences as irrelevant to the issue given how our culture is already so accepting of similar situation ... just in simpler words.
    - dalke 10y ago
      I was certainly not trying to do as you proposed. I put them up there to illustrate that the views stated by Cozumel were contradictory, and to give Cozumel a chance to re-think the validity of the proposed tin foil scenario. If Cozumel believes Pluto is really #9, then why does Cozumel not think that Ceres is a planet, making Pluto #10, which is the foretold doomsday planet X = Nibiru? Or if Cozumel prefers the fringe views of Sitchin's twelfth planet, then why don't Makemake and the other dwarf planets count while Pluto, according to Cozumel, does?
- nkrisc 10y ago
  Or not remain a planet because it's all arbitrary anyway. The classification is not meant to align to some sort of cosmic ordering, but to classify things in ways that are currently useful to science.
Houshalter 10y ago
I don't like the classification of dwarf planet. The classification should be based on its size, shape, and make up. Instead they classified it based on the number of objects in its orbit, which is so arbitrary and weird. If hypothetically we cleared up the objects and dumped them in Earths orbit, Pluto would suddenly become a planet and Earth would lose its classification. Just bite the bullet and accept there are a lot of small planets in our solar system, or classify them based on size.
- dalke 10y ago
  The odd phrase "clearing the neighborhood around its orbit" exists because people want to think of Ganymede (which is bigger than Mercury) as a moon, not a planet, which your proposal would do. If hypothetically we moved the Earth so it orbits Jupiter, then it would be a moon, yes? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#Dis... .
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    Yes I accept orbiting the sun and not another object, as a reasonable criteria of a planet. That's included in the old definition. The new definition goes well beyond that though. If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet. It's really weird, and it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification.
    - dalke 10y ago
      Yes, it is weird, but I disagree with your interpretation. You wrote: "If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet." That Wikipedia link I pointed to says: "As to the extent of orbit clearing required, Jean-Luc Margot emphasises "a planet can never completely clear its orbital zone, because gravitational and radiative forces continually perturb the orbits of asteroids and comets into planet-crossing orbits" and states that the IAU did not intend the impossible standard of impeccable orbit clearing.[2] It further lists a few attempts to define things more rigorously. You write: "it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification". The same page also points out "In 2015, a proposal was made to use the criterion in extending the definition to exoplanets". This is from the same Margot, whose proposed criteria can "categorise a body based only on its own mass, its semi-major axis, and its star's mass."

by dalke 10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago

>> If Pluto is #9, what numbers are Ceres, Sedna, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake? I don't care about them. This is a cultural issue. There is no fundamental principal governing how humans are to name space rocks. This is map making. Exceptions and one-off special rules are made all the time. We accept europe and asia as separate continents. If that can be a thing, then Pluto can remain a planet.

dalke 10y ago
Then it's a good thing I was asking Cozumel, who does care and believes it to be significant, instead of someone who doesn't care.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  You put them up to illustrate the consequences of a change to the planet-naming rule. I dismiss those consequences as irrelevant to the issue given how our culture is already so accepting of similar situation ... just in simpler words.
  - dalke 10y ago
    I was certainly not trying to do as you proposed. I put them up there to illustrate that the views stated by Cozumel were contradictory, and to give Cozumel a chance to re-think the validity of the proposed tin foil scenario. If Cozumel believes Pluto is really #9, then why does Cozumel not think that Ceres is a planet, making Pluto #10, which is the foretold doomsday planet X = Nibiru? Or if Cozumel prefers the fringe views of Sitchin's twelfth planet, then why don't Makemake and the other dwarf planets count while Pluto, according to Cozumel, does?
nkrisc 10y ago
Or not remain a planet because it's all arbitrary anyway. The classification is not meant to align to some sort of cosmic ordering, but to classify things in ways that are currently useful to science.

Houshalter 10y ago

I don't like the classification of dwarf planet. The classification should be based on its size, shape, and make up. Instead they classified it based on the number of objects in its orbit, which is so arbitrary and weird. If hypothetically we cleared up the objects and dumped them in Earths orbit, Pluto would suddenly become a planet and Earth would lose its classification. Just bite the bullet and accept there are a lot of small planets in our solar system, or classify them based on size.

dalke 10y ago
The odd phrase "clearing the neighborhood around its orbit" exists because people want to think of Ganymede (which is bigger than Mercury) as a moon, not a planet, which your proposal would do. If hypothetically we moved the Earth so it orbits Jupiter, then it would be a moon, yes? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#Dis... .
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Yes I accept orbiting the sun and not another object, as a reasonable criteria of a planet. That's included in the old definition. The new definition goes well beyond that though. If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet. It's really weird, and it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Yes, it is weird, but I disagree with your interpretation. You wrote: "If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet." That Wikipedia link I pointed to says: "As to the extent of orbit clearing required, Jean-Luc Margot emphasises "a planet can never completely clear its orbital zone, because gravitational and radiative forces continually perturb the orbits of asteroids and comets into planet-crossing orbits" and states that the IAU did not intend the impossible standard of impeccable orbit clearing.[2] It further lists a few attempts to define things more rigorously. You write: "it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification". The same page also points out "In 2015, a proposal was made to use the criterion in extending the definition to exoplanets". This is from the same Margot, whose proposed criteria can "categorise a body based only on its own mass, its semi-major axis, and its star's mass."