The International Astronomical Union has finally come to a consensus in a meeting of over 2,500 astronomers, deciding to demote Pluto from its status as a planet.

 

The resolution has created a new class of planets, "dwarf planets," that includes Pluto and two other objects. This should clear up most ambiguity, as the definition of "planet" now requires the planet to clear the area around its orbit of debris - giving astronomers something to look for specifically to determine just what is a planet.

 

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9824

The resolution has created a new class of planets, "dwarf planets,"

 

So they say its not a planet then they say its a "Dwarf Planet."

Why isn't a dwarf planet a planet?

It's big and round, but it hasn't cleared up the area around its orbit.

I don't like that definition. Much too vague. What counts as "clearing?" Even Jupiter has the Trojan asteroids. And what if we find some 10 Jupiter-mass object waaaay out in the Kuiper belt? Will that be a "dwarf planet" as well?

I don't like that definition. Much too vague. What counts as "clearing?" Even Jupiter has the Trojan asteroids. And what if we find some 10 Jupiter-mass object waaaay out in the Kuiper belt? Will that be a "dwarf planet" as well?

If there was a 10 Jupiter-mass object in the Kuiper belt, it would have sucked up everything it passed by.

If there was a 10 Jupiter-mass object in the Kuiper belt, it would have sucked up everything it passed by.

 

That still dosn't answer the Trojan question; and dosn't this new definition discount Neptune as a planet? It has failed to clear Pluto, Charon, and UB313 from the area around it's orbit.

If there was a 10 Jupiter-mass object in the Kuiper belt, it would have sucked up everything it passed by.

 

Not if it was far enough out there. It would be far too big an orbit to clear. Sure, it would suck stuff in in the immediate area, but so would anything else, just in different sized areas.

Not if it was far enough out there. It would be far too big an orbit to clear. Sure, it would suck stuff in in the immediate area, but so would anything else, just in different sized areas.

 

Yes, "clear the area around its orbit" is too vague.

What is the cut off, Pluto could be said to clear the area around its orbit but just a very small area proportional to its gravity. Whats the break off point of the area size it has to clear? Is that even addressed or specified at all?

Shouldn't Pluto have "earned" its status by now? I would like to think it deserves its "status" as a planet, like a Honoris Causa.

Pluto demoted? My astrologer totally did not see this coming.

Shouldn't Pluto have "earned" its status by now? I would like to think it deserves its "status" as a planet, like a Honoris Causa.

 

I think it will likely stay a planet in common speak. But the whole point of classifying things is so that there is a clear line, so people dont call things whatever they want. It makes sense from a science point of view anyway.

That still dosn't answer the Trojan question; and dosn't this new definition discount Neptune as a planet? It has failed to clear Pluto, Charon, and UB313 from the area around it's orbit.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

The fact of the matter is that they've made a definition to clarify what exactly a planet is, but instead they've caused far more confusion then it's worth.

 

Someone is just trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of the general public. From what research I've done on planetary orbits, it's incredibly rare to find a circular orbit... in fact all others found have been eliptical. (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

So why not say planets must have an eliptical orbit? It's equally as rational as what has already been proposed. I think it'd be fun to have our solar system "cease to exist" so to speak.

 

Besides what is the nonsense about "dwarf planets" not being real planets? Does that mean midgets aren't real people? I know they currently are considered real people but we could get together and make sure this error is corrected. I hope we can declassify them soon so I can toss them more freely.

 

Or how about we get together and argue about how "aint" isn't a word even thought the only people who never use it are English major elitists. Then we can pat each other on the backs for telling the general public they are stupid again, and remind everyone that "To boldy go" is horrible syntax, yet worship Shakespeare for butchering every rule the english language ever had.

 

I guess that's the real problem I have with some intellectuals. They can't accept that layman actually have a voice and they should... Just not on important issues.

Does that mean midgets aren't real people?

Interesting question.

 

Has anyone tested their path clearing abilities?

 

Do they "dominate" their "neighbourhood"?

 

I think some research needs to be done on this.

 

I really think they should have left Pluto alone. If we have to add the other dwarves to the list because they are closer to what Pluto is in definition then I'd be fine with that. I'd rather have more planets than less.

Good ol' California has resolved to condemn the IAU:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/hr_36_bill_20060824_introduced.html

 

Some of the whereas clauses are good for some laughs.

 

WHEREAS, The mean-spirited International Astronomical Union decided on August 24, 2006, to disrespect Pluto by stripping Pluto of its planetary status and reclassifying it as a lowly dwarf planet; and

 

WHEREAS, Pluto affectionately [ shares ] the name of California's most famous animated dog; and

 

WHEREAS, Downgrading Pluto's status will cause psychological harm to some Californians who question their place in the universe and worry about the instability of universal constants; and

 

WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet is a hasty, ill-considered scientific heresy similar to questioning the Copernican theory, drawing maps of a round world, and proving the existence of the time and space continuum; and

 

WHEREAS, The downgrading of Pluto reduces the number of planets available for legislative leaders to hide redistricting legislation and other inconvenient political reform measures; and

 

WHEREAS, The California Legislature, in the closing days of the 2005-06 session, has been considering few matters important to the future of California, and the status of Pluto takes precedence and is worthy of this body's immediate attention ...

 

Not to be outdone, Madison Wisconsin has declared Pluto as its ninth planet:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21993

 

WHEREAS, one of the reasons for this demotion is that Pluto is small, which they call being a "dwarf," suggesting the IAU does not tolerate diversity; and

 

WHEREAS, Pluto's orbit intersects the orbit of Neptune and is somewhat elliptical, which also is being used as a reason for disqualifying it as a planet, suggesting that the IAU really does not tolerate planets pursuing different lifestyles; and

 

WHEREAS, while UB313 has been nicknamed Xena after a noted television character very popular with the lesbian and gay community, the IAU has resisted making this name official, again suggesting a level of intolerance; and

 

WHEREAS, "plutocracy" means the reign of wealth or the wealthy; and

 

WHEREAS, the Mayor has expressed concerns that, should this resolution pass, Madison might be perceived as a plutocracy;

I liked how John Gibson, from Fox news, gloriously displayed his short-sighted stupidity politicizing the pluto planetary status issue by calling the IAU "historical revisionists" and argued that he learned pluto was a planet in the 3rd grade...

 

I got a great laugh watching the world's whitest conservative moron whine about astronomy.

Originally Posted by Dr. Dalek

That still dosn't answer the Trojan question; and dosn't this new definition discount Neptune as a planet? It has failed to clear Pluto, Charon, and UB313 from the area around it's orbit.

Yes' date=' "clear the area around its orbit" is too vague.

What is the cut off, Pluto could be said to clear the area around its orbit but just a very small area proportional to its gravity. Whats the break off point of the area size it has to clear? Is that even addressed or specified at all?[/quote']

True, how can someone even pretend to be a scientist and not at least think about details like these? A few I know almost over scrutinize things like this, rather than just ignoring them. Seems almost like novice mistakes.

 

I liked how John Gibson' date=' from Fox news, gloriously displayed his short-sighted stupidity politicizing the pluto planetary status issue by calling the IAU "historical revisionists" and argued that he learned pluto was a planet in the 3rd grade...

 

I got a great laugh watching the world's whitest conservative moron whine about astronomy.[/quote']

 

You seem so concerned about other people politicizing things yet you might be the first one on this thred to bring up politics.

You seem so concerned about other people politicizing things yet you might be the first one on this thred to bring up politics.

 

Yeah I guess it's out of place. I just thought you all might get a kick out of the 3rd grade comment. Oh well...

True, how can someone even pretend to be a scientist and not at least think about details like these? A few I know almost over scrutinize things like this, rather than just ignoring them. Seems almost like novice mistakes.

 

It's a novice mistake to think that astronomers didn't think about these details. See the first two cited articles in this search of arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+AND+what+planet. The paper by Soter is particularly pertenant.

 

The IAU did make a mistake: They failed to provide a rationale as to why their definition of the term "planet" was valid. I think the controversy would have disappeared quickly had the IAU simply provided some description of what they meant by "clearing the path". Soter's paper provides the rationale, but that paper has only been accepted for publication.

It was a conspiracy against...

 

They said that Pluto would be a dwarf planet since they discovered million other "planets" that were the same size as Pluto and so if they made Pluto a planet, those other "planets" would have to be planets too, and so they made Pluto a dwarf planet.

since the topic has been brought back from the grave I'll chime in, They shouldn't call them dwarf planets because the word planets is in the name.