5 ms·
I'm in the same camp. I believe the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet was arbitrary and inconsistent. I mean, it's been known as a planet for almost 80
by hn_submit 1mo ago
I'm in the same camp. I believe the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet was arbitrary and inconsistent. I mean, it's been known as a planet for almost 80 years and suddenly we demote it?
I believe someone was trying to make a name for themselves here and ignoring the history of Pluto and its discovery.
- space_fountain 1mo agoThe issue is that when we discovered Pluto we thought it was much bigger than it turned out to be. If it was as big as they thought then sure it would be a planet. As it is it isn’t even the most massive dwarf planet
- hn_submit 1mo agoThey saw a problem with the discovery of other Kuiper Belt Objects and came up with a pseudo-scientific definition to "solve" the discrepancy.
- vova_hn2 1mo ago> pseudo-scientific definition How is it pseudo-scientific?
- jerf 1mo agoOr alternatively, how would any conceivable definition not be equally "psuedo-scientific"? There isn't going to be a bright, shining line. Our own Solar System is complicated enough and if we could see out into the cosmos with equal detail the lines would get even fuzzier. Judgment calls are inevitable.
- nemomarx 1mo agoHow to keep Pluto as a planet but say larger objects than it that also orbit the sun aren't planets, is the question I guess?
- elictronic 1mo agoLiterally say Pluto is a planet through the collective statements of parties involved. This is like when English professors gripe about word usage in books. That's wrong, you can't do that. Then society at large does it and it becomes correct usage. We define our world.
- hn_submit 1mo agoIt's basically a question of definition: we define Pluto as a planet and the others as Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO) As human beings we're allowed to make these kind of decisions. We define ourselves to be outside of the animal kingdom when we're clearly part of it and a type of animal ourselves.
- wolrah 1mo agoThe question would be what are the specific rules that lead to that, and how you'd apply those rules outside of our own solar system. Any rule that just calls those distant objects KBOs is specific to our own solar system which is a silly rule to be making in a world where we already knew about hundreds of exoplanets. The question at hand is "how do we define a planet" from a universal standpoint, because it hadn't really been defined beyond an "I know it when I see it" level and that was becoming a problem. Objective rules that do not assume you're talking about our solar system are key here, and the serious proposals basically come down to 8 planets or dozens and growing, and from a practical standpoint the former was the obvious choice IMO since all it really affects is what gets focused on in general education environments. If you just want to make an arbitrary decision that these things are planets because you want them to be as opposed to because they meet certain criteria, that's not useful to anyone.
- ChrisClark 1mo agoBut why? There is no reason to care about the classification of Pluto. Why don't you just define that you're okay with it not being a planet?
- cobbzilla 1mo agoIf you must insist on squaring the circle: Pluto is the Princeps of Kuiper Belt Objects, the First Among Equals. It is the most honored KBO, even if it is not a planet.
- tanseydavid 1mo agoMy Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine...uhhhm... !?
- chuckadams 1mo agoMary's Violet Eyes Make John Stay Up Nights. still works, how bout that?
- andrewflnr 1mo agoNachos. She served us nachos.
- Avshalom 1mo agoI'm on team Pluto here but no, the problem was that Mike Brown found like a dozen 'planets' and no one wanted to deal with that. It was closer to preventing someone from making a name for themselves.
- hn_submit 1mo agoWe could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that. Why bother coming up with a pseudo-scientific requirements list for planets when these don't work for a large number of cases.
- bryanlarsen 1mo agoThat would include Ceres, Quaoar and Orcus as planets. It's really hard to come up with a definition of a planet that includes Pluto but doesn't include Orcus. Orcus is very close to a mirror of Pluto that is 120 degrees out of phase. Even in name: Orcus is the Roman name for the Greek god Pluto.
- hn_submit 1mo agoWhat part of "we define it so" did you not understand?!
- bryanlarsen 1mo agoThe three I listed are inside Pluto's orbit. Part of the time for the latter 2. If you want to say that Pluto is a planet for historical reasons, that's fine. Just don't try to invent pseudo-scientific nonsense to justify it at the same time you are decrying psuedo-scientific nonsense.
- vova_hn2 1mo ago> We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. A Kuiper Belt Object not being a part of Solar System doesn't make any sense. A star system is the star + all objects that orbit it. Why would you arbitrarily exclude some objects that orbit the Sun?
- cobbzilla 1mo agoIt was fine and dandy until Eris came along. Eris is bigger than Pluto, so if Pluto’s a planet then so is Eris. So you have 10 planets. And then how many other Erises are still hiding? How many planets do we have then? It must be some very large unknown number! Holding the true number of planets to be a large unknown number was anathema to many. The demotion of Pluto was primarily motivated by a desire for the word “planet” to refer to a fixed, never-changing number of large bodies orbiting the sun.
- Izkata 1mo ago> Eris is bigger than Pluto, so if Pluto’s a planet then so is Eris. So you have 10 planets. Which is exactly how I remember learning it at the end of highschool (discovered during my junior year): Hey, did you know we just discovered a tenth planet?
- odyssey7 1mo ago> someone was trying to make a name for themselves 100% Scientists try to coin new terms all the time. It’s great for the researcher if people actually use it. But why do that when you can just sign your name on a term everyone already uses? Redefining “planet,” from the 9 culturally accepted symbols into something else, was a swindle. “Things that clear their orbits” could have been TTCTOs. It happens all the time, coining precise terms for things. Why should this one have been any different? The public was right to push back and to protect their mythology.
- wat10000 1mo agoA swindle, really? Who got cheated out of money?
- odyssey7 1mo agoThe asset lost in this in this case is from the commons. That is, the ability to say "the ninth planet" or "the planet Pluto" without incurring smug harassment from legions who probably couldn't explain what the IAU is.
- wat10000 1mo agoRather ironic to complain about redefining a word by abusing another word beyond recognition.
- odyssey7 1mo agoIt’s completely unsurprising to deal with grammar policing over substance, but… In terms of financial motives, I would reason that a motive for extending the term “planet” to cover the innumerable large objects orbiting other stars would have been as a better sales pitch to Congress. Studying “planets” lightyears away was a sort of brand hack which would have driven more funding. And when the “planets” was established as comprising a virtually infinite set, rather than simply a list of 9 known objects, the nomenclature collapsed in its usefulness, which is why the IAU started looking for a way out of its own hole. However, as the article here discusses, the IAU’s approach has pretty much failed. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny as a thing that’s meant to be usefully applied. How exactly do you confirm that all of those exoplanets have actually cleared their neighborhoods, or is the truth that it never actually mattered to anyone in the field? Have any scientists or agencies written papers or reported to Congress that they discovered or studied some exoplanet — using public funds — when in fact they had no way of confirming whether its neighborhood was cleared? It sounds completely improper to me, but the reality is that it never really mattered.
- sixothree 1mo agoThe problem with demoting it lies in its beauty. Pluto is beautiful and interesting. We want it to be important. But instead of being the "last of the planets", maybe instead it should be the first of the dwarf planets.
- saati 1mo agoOkay, so Pluto should be a planet, but then are you fighting for planetary classification of Ceres? Eris? Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong? Quaoar, Orcus, Sedna, Mani, Achlys, Aya, Chiminigugua, Varda, Ixion, Goibniu, Ritona, Uno, Varuna? 2005QY182? 2002XW93? The other 200-10000 that is very likely to lurk out there? If you aren't you are totally inconsistent and just want what you were taught in elementary school be true.