Pluto

Pluto Has Tail, X-Rays

gregladen — Sat, 17 Sep 2016 11:36:23 +0000

Pluto Has Tail, X-Rays

Did you ever notice that Pluto doesn't have much of a tail? No, not that Pluto! This Pluto:

This has been known for a while. NASA noted this last year:

New Horizons has discovered a region of cold, dense ionized gas tens of thousands of miles beyond Pluto -- the planet’s atmosphere being stripped away by the solar wind and lost to space. Beginning an hour and half after closest approach, the Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) instrument observed a cavity in the solar wind -- the outflow of electrically charged particles from the Sun -- between 48,000 miles (77,000 km) and 68,000 miles (109,000 km) downstream of Pluto. SWAP data revealed this cavity to be populated with nitrogen ions forming a “plasma tail” of undetermined structure and length extending behind the planet.

Not long ago it was not known that Pluto had an atmosphere. But it does, and it is probably made from solid ice that makes up a good portion of the planet. When Pluto is nearer the Sun, this atmosphere burns off and forms an unimpressive tail. (Existentially impressive, but not fireworks impressive.) If Pluto were to come really close to the sun, like a typical comet, it would ... well, it would essentially be a a comet. A pretty big one, at first. But then after several passes...

Anyway, more recently, it has been discovered that Pluto also puts out X-rays, and if confirmed, this is interesting. The total number of X-rays that have been detected is very small. The existence of these X-rays is likely linked to the atmosphere. From NASA:

Scientists using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory have made the first detections of X-rays from Pluto. These observations offer new insight into the space environment surrounding the largest and best-known object in the solar system’s outermost regions.

While NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft was speeding toward and beyond Pluto, Chandra was aimed several times on the dwarf planet and its moons, gathering data on Pluto that the missions could compare after the flyby. Each time Chandra pointed at Pluto – four times in all, from February 2014 through August 2015 – it detected low-energy X-rays from the small planet.

Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt, a ring or belt containing a vast population of small bodies orbiting the Sun beyond Neptune. The Kuiper belt extends from the orbit of Neptune, at 30 times the distance of Earth from the Sun, to about 50 times the Earth-Sun distance. Pluto’s orbit ranges over the same span as the overall Kupier Belt.

"We've just detected, for the first time, X-rays coming from an object in our Kuiper Belt, and learned that Pluto is interacting with the solar wind in an unexpected and energetic fashion,” said Carey Lisse, an astrophysicist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, who led the Chandra observation team with APL colleague and New Horizons Co-Investigator Ralph McNutt. “We can expect other large Kuiper Belt objects to be doing the same."

The team recently published its findings online in the journal Icarus. The report details what Lisse says was a somewhat surprising detection given that Pluto – being cold, rocky and without a magnetic field – has no natural mechanism for emitting X-rays. But Lisse, having also led the team that made the first X-ray detections from a comet two decades ago, knew the interaction between the gases surrounding such planetary bodies and the solar wind – the constant streams of charged particles from the sun that speed throughout the solar system – can create X-rays.

New Horizons scientists were particularly interested in learning more about the interaction between the gases in Pluto’s atmosphere and the solar wind. The spacecraft itself carries an instrument designed to measure that activity up-close – the aptly named Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) – and scientists are using that data to craft a picture of Pluto that contains a very mild, close-in bowshock, where the solar wind first “meets” Pluto (similar to a shock wave that forms ahead of a supersonic aircraft) and a small wake or tail behind the planet.

The immediate mystery is that Chandra’s readings on the brightness of the X-rays are much higher than expected from the solar wind interacting with Pluto’s atmosphere.

“Before our observations, scientists thought it was highly unlikely that we’d detect X-rays from Pluto, causing a strong debate as to whether Chandra should observe it at all,” said co-author Scott Wolk, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. “Prior to Pluto, the most distant solar system body with detected X-ray emission was Saturn's rings and disk."

The Chandra detection is especially surprising since New Horizons discovered Pluto’s atmosphere was much more stable than the rapidly escaping, “comet-like” atmosphere that many scientists expected before the spacecraft flew past in July 2015. In fact, New Horizons found that Pluto’s interaction with the solar wind is much more like the interaction of the solar wind with Mars, than with a comet. However, although Pluto is releasing enough gas from its atmosphere to make the observed X-rays, in simple models for the intensity of the solar wind at the distance of Pluto, there isn't enough solar wind flowing directly at Pluto to make them.

Lisse and his colleagues – who also include SWAP co-investigators David McComas from Princeton University and Heather Elliott from Southwest Research Institute – suggest several possibilities for the enhanced X-ray emission from Pluto. These include a much wider and longer tail of gases trailing Pluto than New Horizons detected using its SWAP instrument. Other possibilities are that interplanetary magnetic fields are focusing more particles than expected from the solar wind into the region around Pluto, or the low density of the solar wind in the outer solar system at the distance of Pluto could allow for the formation of a doughnut, or torus, of neutral gas centered around Pluto's orbit.

That the Chandra measurements don’t quite match up with New Horizons up-close observations is the benefit – and beauty – of an opportunity like the New Horizons flyby. “When you have a chance at a once in a lifetime flyby like New Horizons at Pluto, you want to point every piece of glass – every telescope on and around Earth – at the target,” McNutt says. “The measurements come together and give you a much more complete picture you couldn’t get at any other time, from anywhere else.”

New Horizons has an opportunity to test these findings and shed even more light on this distant region – billions of miles from Earth – as part of its recently approved extended mission to survey the Kuiper Belt and encounter another smaller Kuiper Belt object, 2014 MU69, on Jan. 1, 2019. It is unlikely to be feasible to detect X-rays from MU69, but Chandra might detect X-rays from other larger and closer objects that New Horizons will observe as it flies through the Kuiper Belt towards MU69.

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, designed, built, and operates the New Horizons spacecraft and manages the mission for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, manages the Chandra program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, controls Chandra's science and flight operations.

gregladen Sat, 09/17/2016 - 07:36

Tags

Cosmos

Pluto

Cosmos

That Pluto has a tail is not exactly surprising. Venus has one, too, and the physics would be about the same if Pluto doesn't have an intrinsic magnetic field (last I heard, that was still an open question).

The X-ray result is a bigger surprise. You will get some X-rays from the interaction of solar wind electrons (which are mildly relativistic) with an atmosphere, but that apparently isn't enough to explain the observations. But you can boost the X-ray output if Pluto has an intrinsic magnetic field. There may be other ways to do it, but that's the explanation that comes to mind.

It's not just solar wind particles; it's also from cosmic rays. And it's not just Pluto. Our own moon is bright in gamma rays due to this phenomenon:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160429.html

Are you sure you mean a tail, or are you confusing the stripping of the atmosphere of Venus with a tail created from evanescent material *and particles* in a cometary tail?

Pluto doesn't have an atmosphere, and not because the sun's so close it's blowing off the atoms.

Comets have TWO tails: particles that "boil" off their surfaces, and trail in the direction of their orbits, and ions that are swept off and pushed away from the Sun due to solar wind.

Pluto DOES have an atmosphere, although rather tenuous, and subject to change (sublimation & freezing on the surface) as its orbit takes it further from the Sun.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970320.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160101.html

Note the potential differences in the angles between the two tails... Depends on where they are in their orbits.

Are you sure you mean a tail, or are you confusing the stripping of the atmosphere of Venus with a tail created from evanescent material *and particles* in a cometary tail?

These two things are the same physical process. As long as the material is volatile, it's a detail whether the picked-up ion was already a gaseous neutral atom/molecule or something that was ablated from a solid surface before it was photoionized. Either way, the particles are confined to a plasma tail by the surrounding solar wind.

My use of the word tail comes from expert comments by experts.

"These two things are the same physical process. As long as the material is volatile"

And no, they aren't being ejected because they are volatile.

We have an atmosphere, pluto doesn't. One is the result of sublimation, the other from the force of thermal motion of the gas BEFORE IT LEAVES THE PLANET.

They aren't the same thing, eric. They aren't the same thing.

The tail pluto shows has a different source from that of venus.

You can wonder if, in absence of an atmosphere, like mercury, whether it would have a tail, and THAT would be a similar one to that from pluto.

But the one you're talking of is from a different mechanism.

Indeed, a gas cannot, by definition, be volatile from its state as a gas.

So if it was a gas before it got hit by the solar wind, it can't have been volatile.

"Pluto DOES have an atmosphere, although rather tenuous"

No, it's got one in the same way the moon has one. There are molecules in gas form trapped by the planet, but it's not one thick enough to have a thermodynamic temperature, because it's far too rare.

You can wonder if, in absence of an atmosphere, like mercury, whether it would have a tail, and THAT would be a similar one to that from pluto.

We don't have to wonder whether Mercury has a tail, because such a tail has been observed. Mercury is known to have an intrinsic magnetic field.. This field is only about 1% of the strength of Earth's magnetic field, so distance and time scales of the solar wind's interaction with Mercury are considerably shorter than for Earth, but the physics is otherwise the same. Material from the sunward side of Mercury is ablated and photoionized into an ionosphere (as opposed to being dissociated and then photoionized at Earth), and these ions (Na+ being the most abundant, because sodium is relatively common and has a very low first ionization potential) are detectable downtail, in the same way we see O+ from Earth's ionosphere downtail. The chemistry may be different, but the physics is the same.

Venus does not have an intrinsic magnetic field, so the physics of how the solar wind interacts with it has important differences. The entire dayside atmosphere is exposed to the solar wind, not just the cusp and polar cap regions like at Earth and Mercury. The interaction is similar to what we see at comets, the main difference being that Venus has a much stronger gravitational field and therefore loses proportionately less material.

The unknown with Pluto is whether it has an intrinsic magnetic field or not. If yes, then the interaction will be similar to Mercury's, where an ionosphere that has formed due to ablation from the surface contributes to a magnetically confined tail. If not, then Venus is your model for the interaction. Again, it's not necessarily the same chemistry, but it is the same physics. The solar wind doesn't care whether the ion it picks up was already in the atmosphere or freshly ablated from the surface.

Pluto, King of the Underworlds

milhayser — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:37:02 +0000

Pluto, King of the Underworlds

New measurements from NASA's New Horizons spacecraft revealed that Pluto, named for the Greco-Roman god once called Hades, is a little more swollen with ice than previously thought, making it the biggest trans-Neptunian object—more voluminous than rival dwarf planet Eris, which is nevertheless more massive. Greg Laden explains why these orbs are not considered full-fledged planets on his blog.

While Eris orbits the Sun within the 'scattered disc,' Pluto orbits in the Kuiper Belt, a collection of gravelly snowballs that Ethan Siegel says outnumber all the planets in our galaxy. The Kuiper Belt begins beyond Neptune, encircling all the planets in our solar system and extending outward for a distance equal to the gap between the Sun and Uranus. It took New Horizons more than nine years to fly to Pluto from Earth, after setting a record for highest launch speed of any man-made object, after getting a massive speed boost from the gravity of Jupiter, and without any need to slow back down. It will now take sixteen months for New Horizons to stream all the scientific data from its brief flyby of Pluto back to Earth. Meanwhile the spacecraft will attempt to visit another smaller Kuiper Belt object before it runs out of fuel and falls short of the edge of our solar system.

milhayser Thu, 07/30/2015 - 08:37

Tags

Trans-Neptunian Objects

Uranus

Why is Pluto not a planet?

gregladen — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:11:13 +0000

Why is Pluto not a planet?

Short answer: Pluto has only two of the three necessary characteristics to be called a planet. Pluto has not cleared its neighborhood, or orbit. But, of course, there are additional details.

The simplest reason that Pluto is not a planet is that planet experts say so, and this is their job. But you may be looking for a more detailed explanation.

Let's look at what defines a planet. This could be a very long and tedious discussion, because "planet" is an ancient concept used long before scientists knew very much about them. Also, frankly, in many areas of science the definition of a thing, perhaps counter-intuitively to non-scientists, is often pretty irrelevant to its study. Definitions that change over time that are never quite in line with the phenomenon being observed, etc. may seem like an impediment to science, but they often are not. The definition of a "gene" has changed dramatically as we've learned more about them, but this shifting description has not hampered genetic research. To some extent this may be the same with planets. A "planetologist" who studied Pluto back when it was still counted as a planet would not have to find a new job when our solar system went from 9 to 8.

The International Astronomical Union has settled on a set of definitions of solar system bodies, which includes planets, dwarf planets (which are mostly minor planets), small solar system bodies, trans-Neptunian objects which also might be called plutoids (those are also minor planets) and some small solar system bodies (including some comets) and satellites, and satellites are, of course, things that go around things that are not the Sun. Confused? Probably, but that is not a big problem because while these various identified flying objects have complex overlapping categorical status, one type of object does not. Planets are planets and they are not anything other than planets.

To be a planet, you have to be in orbit around the Sun. This would rule out the Moon, which, if it was in orbit around the Sun instead of the Earth, could well be a planet.

To be a planet the object has to have sufficient mass to have been shaped by gravity to be (mostly) a globe. This depends on various things so at the low end of the mass spectrum there will be different masses and different sizes of things that don't quite make it to globular status.

To be a planet the object has to have cleared its orbit. In other words, as an object orbits around the sun, it is likely to bump into other objects. Over a period of time, the object has finished bumping into everything it is likely to bump into, and thereafter has only a low probability of bumping into something. That does not rule out something bumping into the object, of course.

A globe shaped object that goes around the sun but that has not cleared its orbit is classified as a "dwarf planet." This is of course historically contingent. In the early days of a solar system, perhaps there would be large star-circleing round things that have not yet cleared their orbit. This speaks to the strangeness of definitions alluded to above. The definition we use today to classify our solar system's objects applies to a solar system developed to the extent ours is developed. The IAU nomenclature would probably need revisions if applied to all planetary-star systems in the Universe.

This scheme is not without its critics and there is indeed debate. Some of that debate is a bit nitpicky but still interesting. For example, Alan Stern, with NASA, notes that many planets have not really cleared their orbit, noting in relation to the Pluto controversy, "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there." Yes, apparently heavenly bodies have irony.

Anyway, as implied, Pluto is not classed as a planet because it has not cleared its orbit. Therefore it is a Dwarf Planet. Since it is far away (farther than Neptune) it also gets classed as a Trans-Neptunian Object. Furthermore, it is a Plutoid. That is simply a newer term applied to Trans-Neptuina dwarf planets.

The term Plutoid, then, refers to a dwarf planet, which for various reasons is apparently always specifically an ice dwarf, which is a trans-Neptunian body (orbiting most of the time beyond Neptune) that is sufficiently massive to be shaped like a globe. This term, plutoid, is officially adopted A plutoid or ice dwarf is a trans-Neptunian dwarf planet, i.e. a body orbiting beyond Neptune that is large enough to be rounded in shape. The term plutoid was adopted by the International Astronomical Union's Committee on Small Bodies Nomenclature, but not by the working group on Planetary System Nomenclature. So you can use Plutoid or Dwarf Planet, or Ice Dwarf, depending on whom you wish to annoy.

Pluto, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake are the only known Plutoids. They are small enough and far enough away that more could be discovered.

gregladen Mon, 07/13/2015 - 07:11

Tags

Cosmos

Pluto

Cosmos

I would say, "the only known Plutoids that are accepted as dwarf planets by the IAU". More already have been discovered, even recommended for classification as dwarf planets, but aren't officially there yet:

Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna, Salacia, Varuna, Ixion -- and those are just one that have non-numerical names...

Then there is the first dwarf planet to be discovered -- and it's not Pluto: Ceres, the planetino whose namesake gave us "cereal". It was discovered in 1801, before even Neptune, and was initially regarded as a planet; it's now officially just another dwarf planet. (And it was visited with a spacecraft ahead of Pluto.)

The practical problem that led to the need to come up with this definition of a planet is one of sheer number: If we were to accept Pluto as "The Ninth Planet", it would immediately have to take 10th place, as Ceres would be forced to return to planetary status as #5, displacing Jupiter. Then, joining Pluto as #10, would be the above-mentioned plutinos, plus, eventually, the other existing discoveries, and then future discoveries.

Anyone up to memorizing the names of the 537 "planets"?? No, me neither. We need a manageable number, and 8 is it.

The problem with poor Pluto is that it is indistinguishable from all its other Trans-Neptunian brethren. Sentimentality does not make it special, unfortunately. Nor would it in being the first discovered, which it also isn't. Too bad Clyde Tombaugh didn't keep looking, but he was simply lucky to have spotted Pluto in the first place...

In short, Pluto is not a planet because it never was. A case of mistaken identity. (Hello, Alan Stern?) Still, paying it a visit is very cool, and this issue doesn't detract from that.

If the International Union of Heart Surgeons announces that your clavicle is a sousaphone...

Alan Stern:
"Meanwhile, in planetary science, we just call it a planet. We don’t care what the astronomers say."
http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/12/question-time-with-alan-stern-the-pl…

Elsewhere he refers to Pluto as an "unter-subdwarf" planet.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/PDF/planet_def.pdf

As for moi: Call me anything you want, just don't call me late for dinner.

"If the International Union of Heart Surgeons announces that your clavicle is a sousaphone…"

...they'd be collared for a boner that blows confusion on what instruments they'd need to conduct surgery, he noted flatly.

We already had one Red Planet, no need for another one. Imagine all the confusion over the names of science fiction novels. Now we have a Red Dwarf!

Since everyone is entitled to an opinion, I've always thought these definitions lacking any meaning. Earth and the Moon: Terra & Luna, the double planets, those big gas balls? Dark Brown Dwarf Stars (so what if they don't use fusion to power their light emissions... they still give off light in the infra-red)... and those "satelites" around those Dark Brown Dwarfs? Those are terristrial planets. That's my system, and I'm sticking to it!

We can call it a Rimmerworld!

"My concerns are slightly more meaningful than what coloured stupid smegging cardboard hat I'm wearing! I'm trying to decipher this! This is science, laddie!" AJR

[Ceres] was discovered in 1801, before even Neptune, and was initially regarded as a planet; it’s now officially just another dwarf planet.

And it's not the only dwarf planet to have been discovered before Neptune. Pallas, Vesta, and a few other big rocks in the asteroid belt would also qualify.

At Old Sturbridge Village, a recreation of a New England town circa late 1830s, the actor who plays the part of the schoolteacher mentions that (at the time) there are (were) 35 (known bodies that were considered) planets. No, I couldn't name all of them.

Brainstorms:
"The practical problem that led to the need to come up with this definition of a planet is one of sheer number: If we were to accept Pluto as “The Ninth Planet”, it would immediately have to take 10th place, as Ceres would be forced to return to planetary status as #5, displacing Jupiter. Then, joining Pluto as #10, would be the above-mentioned plutinos, plus, eventually, the other existing discoveries, and then future discoveries."

Sort of. First, the other Trans-Neptunian Ice Little Planets would have to be included. Then, once they are in the club, since Ceres is not a planet because it is the asteroid belt (the opposite of a cleared neighborhood) it would have to be added.

At that point, in my opinion, you could take a whole nuther look at planets. If we take all the planetoids and planets together and have a fresh look at them, we would probably be more likely to put Mercury together with Ceres than Mercury and Jupiter. I mean, really, they are way different.

Type one planets:
Rocky planets
Rocky planets with molten cores

Type two planets:
Gaseous polanets

Type three planets:
Icy planets

Then, like diamonds, they could get purity measures for their glob-osity and their neighborhood clearance.

If the above was done with a term other than planet, say, "celestial body," then we could later decide that some grouping of types would be called "The planets"

Here we can go back to the origional definition of a planet: A star that moves. Adding simple earth-based telescopes, if it is a star that moves that we can see most of the year, it is a planet, as long as it is round and going around the sun.

Candice: "Since everyone is entitled to an opinion, I’ve always thought these definitions lacking any meaning. Earth and the Moon: Terra & Luna, the double planets, those big gas balls? Dark Brown Dwarf Stars (so what if they don’t use fusion to power their light emissions… they still give off light in the infra-red)… and those “satelites” around those Dark Brown Dwarfs? Those are terristrial planets. That’s my system, and I’m sticking to it!"

Yes, that does point out the craziness of it all. But, there is clean definition I think between things that orbit the central star and things that orbit the things that orbit a central star.

Until something goes wrong of course.

This brings up another question .What if a star passed through our solar system and removed, say, Mars from the sun's orbit. A recent study indicated that "most planets" in the galaxy may in face be rogue planets like this.

But how can a rogue planet be a planet if it does not go around a star. I imagine a rogue planet doesn't really have a cleared orbit either.

"...rogue planet...?"

I suppose orbiting a sun and clearing a path could be considered criteria based on origin.

It all suggests to me that perhaps classifications are going to be provisional for a long time and may depend on what we learn from other "planetary" systems before better organizing principles are discovered.

As you suggest, 'planet' could even one day become one of those antique terms that people occasionally stumble across and smile at for their quaintness.

Indeed. I look forward to being able to understand the variation across sun systems. Well, not me, but somebody.

I think we should use the Holstian System for Planetary Determination:

Other planets beyond Earth are defined as such on the basis of whether or not Gustav Holst wrote a movement for them in his orchestral suite.

He explicitly declined to write a movement for Pluto (or Ceres). That seals it for me.

In due time, we'll just adopt the Vulcan system of naming celestial bodies.

@Brainstorms (#12):

> [Holst] explicitly declined to write a movement for Pluto

Not surprising, as in 1916, Pluto hadn't been noticed by humans yet.

Why is Pluto not a planet?

I) What' d'ya mean not a planet -it is a planet even if only a dwarf one justliekErath 9s arck dwarf not a gas giant!

II) Because the IAU made a horrible mistake or fifty in their illogical definition deliberatley chosen to stop a whole category of planets esp. Pluto from counting somehow.

III) Politics overcoming logic and reason -see above.

I say this for a whole lot of reasons starting with the fact that a dwarfs star is still very much considered a star so why should a dwarf planet then be considered anything other than a proper planet too?

Then there's the small fact that the IAU definition is multiply flawed failing the Copernican test (our solar system is defined as the only one that can have planets? Really C'mon!) the "reductio ad absurdum" test (Earth couldn't clear its orbit at Pluto's distance either!) plus the Occam's razor / unnecessary raising of extra questions test too! (Orbital clearance? how clear is clear? Does Neptune fail because Pluto crosses its orbit? Does Jupiter fail because of all the Trojan asteroids? Do all planets fail because of comets sweeping out from beyond Pluto to inside Mercury and crossing all orbits? etc ..)

No, sorry, Greg laden but I gotta really strongly disagree with the idea that Pluto is anything but a proper - albeit small, strange and wonderful - planet deserving of full planetary status here and ditto the other ice dwarfs that are round enough to qualify for planetary status.

Whatever we call it, this is definitely Pluto's day in Pluto's year and it is super-luminous (beyond merely brilliant) that the people from on this dwarf binary planet around our dwarf star have sent a dwarf spacecraft (piano-sized) to fly past another dwarf binary planet. One of these dwarf worlds is bigger than the other, the other is more a binary than the other. But both are remarkable and marvellous worlds and both count as planets and deserve respect and awe and discovery.

Aaargh. Typo. Fix for clarity :

I) Pluto is a planet even if only a dwarf one just like Earth is a rock dwarf not a gas giant!

My preferred definition that I think is reasonably clear and easy to determine - a planet is an object that :

I) Is rounded through its own gravity thus not a comet or asteroid.

II) Has never been self-luminous due to in internal nuclear fusion thus not a star or brown dwarf.

III) Is not directly in orbit around another planet thus not a moon.

I think that is at least one far better definition of planet that avoids the multitudinous problems and superfluous questions raised by the horribly flawed IAU definition and the "orbital clearance " rubbish in particular.

If that means we have twenty or thirty or fifty or more extra planets in our solar system (making ice dwarfs incidentally average planets not odd ones and Pluto actually larger than your average planet) then so be it.

Well, that clears that up! Now, how do we classify a moon that's shaped like Felicity Kendal's bum?

"Not surprising, as in 1916, Pluto hadn’t been noticed by humans yet."

True. And since he was still alive & composing in 1930, he was encouraged to then write an eighth movement for it. He declined to do so.

"deliberatley chosen to stop a whole category of planets esp. Pluto from counting somehow."

Pluto is NOT special (except of course for romance & sentimentality). It wasn't the first dwarf planet discovered. It wasn't the first dwarf planet visited. It's not the only dwarf planet out there. It's not the only one we've given a name to. It's not unusual for being a TNO or icy plutoid, etc.

If we adopt a definition that includes Pluto, we must include a HUGE number of other bodies (some of which are "more special" than Pluto). This is problematic... Hence the current definition which solves that problem.

And romance & sentimentality have their nose out of joint... So sorry.

Does Micky know Pluto is now a dwarf? I thought there were only 7 of them. Is Pluto now the 8th? Is 8 the Magic Kingdom number? And the magic planet number?

"Experts" DO NOT say that Pluto is not a planet--never mind the fact that science is not decided by decree of an "authority." If you're referring to the four percent of the IAU that voted in 2006, they are not "experts" because most are not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers. Their decision was opposed by hundreds of planetary scientists in a formal petition led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern.

There are not "three criteria" required for an object to be a planet unless one chooses to view a very flawed, controversial resolution by non-experts as some sort of gospel truth.

Our solar system never went from nine to eight planets because a self-appointed tiny group of people with ulterior motives said so. That is how a church works, not how science works. Just repeating a statement over and over by fiat does not make it true.

Dwarf planets are a subclass of planets just like dwarf stars are a subclass of stars, and dwarf galaxies are a subclass of galaxies.This was the intention of the person who coined the term "dwarf planet," none other than Stern. And he is far from alone. Many planetary scientists today use the term "dwarf planet" with the understanding that they are referring to a subclass of planets.

The term "plutoid" is viewed as a joke by many planetary scientists and is rarely used.

Some planets gravitationally dominate their orbits while others do not. The latter are dwarf planets. To say otherwise is to ignore objects' intrinsic properties and instead classify them solely by their location. This makes no sense. Planets further from their parent stars have larger orbits to clear. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, it would not clear that orbit either. This means the IAU definition results in the absurdity of the same object being classed as a planet in one location and as not a planet in another location.

Dwarf planets have all the same processes and structures as their larger counterparts.The only difference is they are smaller. Worlds like Ceres and Pluto have geology and weather and are differentiated into core,mantle,and crust. Lumping them in the same class as shapeless asteroids is simply bad science.

A far better definition, favored by many planetary scientists, is that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star, orbiting another planet, or free floating in space. If the object is large enough and massive enough to be squeezed into a round or nearly round shape by its own gravity, it is a planet. Spherical objects orbiting other planets are simply satellite planets. They have all the same features as planets except they orbit other planets instead of orbiting stars directly.

One has to wonder why the IAU view is yet again being imposed as the only "truth" on the very day New Horizons is flying past Pluto. This mission has already shown Pluto to have the complexity and processes common to planets--as Dawn has shown for Ceres. It seems some people are afraid that real data from a team that has actually visited Pluto could--and likely will--trump a bad definition imposed on the world by 424 people more interested in safeguarding their "authority" than in safeguarding the science of astronomy.

Ceres, Pluto, Haumea,Makemake,and Eris are all small planets. Sorry to disappoint you, but four percent of the IAU, largely NON-experts when it comes to planets, do not get the last word just because some people keep repeating what they say.

But do Kepler's 3 Planetary Laws still apply for Pluto?

Reportedly, Holst distanced himself from The Planets well before the discovery of Pluto. He didn't think it representative of his work, and was annoyed that it was his most popular effort.

In case you haven't seen it:
http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/ajnXDz1_700b.jpg

Laurel,

Good points. I sort of suspected that 'dwarf' was the modifier and not 'planet'. Those wacky anglophones and their word order, eh?

Re classification in general, you don't have to be just descriptive, which can be weak and arbitrary when you start looking at formation (all that cause and effect stuff science types go on and on about). As for imbalance of numbers of objects per category, that's kind of an argument based on symmetry. While it does put a check in the manageability column, it also puts a question mark in the false balance column. Most disturbing is that I'm coming up dry with Red Dwarf references.

Anyhoo, good to see you commenting here, Laurel!

Actually even Earth does not qualify as a planet since there is at least one near Earth objects in the same orbit or plane.

2010 TK7 at Lagrange 4. Perhaps more will be discovered. Same goes for other planets.

So this definition of planet is very weak. Moreover, the Earth has a huge Moon that has not been cleared... and perhaps never will be.

The argument of keeping the number of planets as low as possible for memory reason is unscientific.

I'm with StevoR and Laurel.

It's interesting to ponder what happens in the distant future when a "dwarf" planet may have effectively "cleared" its orbit. Does it then graduate to full planet, even if it's still dwarfish in size?

This is the problem when a definition is based on a (relatively) transient phenomenon...

And if there are more than 8 planets, so what? We don't have to remember them all. After all, I don't remember all the elements...

Laurel Kornfeld - I appreciate your very cogent comments, but it sounds like under your definition, all moons of substantial size would be considered planets, and you haven't made that totally explicit because you know nobody will be happy calling Luna a planet.

Serge -- the "clearing the orbit" criteria actually doesn't mean emptying it. Which is probably good because even *Jupiter* would not qualify. There are hundreds of things swept up into its Lagrange points.

The criteria is actually more nuanced. If the object has dictated the orbits of anything in that region, then it counts. Sweeping stuff up into the Lagrange points is, in other words, a trait of a planet. (According to the IAU.)

Truthfully, the part I liked the least about the decision was the elimination of the "minor planet" category. Now they're called "small bodies" (although dwarf planets still get minor planet numbers, even though the IAU doesn't recognize the category anymore -- even Pluto was belatedly issued one).

Incidentally latest findings like these :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-18/new-pictures-have-scientists-puzz…

Plus :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-16/nasa-releases-new--images-of-plut…

Summed up visually in this :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydU-YrG_INk

neat fly over animation albeit one with a few blanks in need of filling. (Also, wow! that was quick both to put together and have names for these features already.)

Show that Pluto has clearly got some big geology and remarkable features for a small planet!

It also boasts anatnmosphere, weather and more moons than the entire inner solar system put together.* Really how can we say it isn't a planet when it has all this and yet currently recognised planet Mercury doesn't?

What next demote Mercury? State that Mars is just a big red asteroid too - Mike Brown actually suggested the latter in a recent Aussie radio interview or something like that..

* Pluto has Charon, Nix, Hydra, Kerberos & Styx, inner solar system has zero moons for Mercury and Venus Earth has our Luna and Mars just Phobos and Deimos for a grand total of three. Pluto is described in some reports as a mini-solar system of its own which may be going a trifle far but still. If there's a checklist of planetary features Pluto actually ticks more boxes than many others!

@ ^ Typo fix :

It also boasts anatnmosphere = Pluto boasts an atmosphere ..

Sorry, afraid I suck at typing. I know what I mean to type, often I even think I've typed it typographicals-free - until after the submit button has been clicked & I see that I've stuffed up. .

Wish we could have an editing capability here if possible Greg Laden - even if on a time window eg. 5 ~15 minutes to edit out errors then fixed forever.

@ Calli Arcale : Yeah, the shift to the clunky small solar system bodies and removal of the old asteroid / comet / minor planet distinction and the idea of calling Pluto -like objects "plutoids" an ugly word which - thankfully - hasn't caught on. I think the currently IAU naming system just a mess all round.

I would suggest and hope they opt for something like :

Planets are defined as in #17 then that broad classification (sort of at the animal,mineral, vegetable level) gets split into gas giants, ice dwarfs, gas dwarfs (perhaps incl. some exoplanets sometimes described as SuperEarths & suggested by planet hunter Sara Seager), rock giants, rock dwarfs, ice dwarfs (The current dwraf planets Pluto, Ceres, Haumea etc). Then have minor planets would be split into comets, asteroids and centaurs plus meteoroids then dust /ring particles. Sort of the continuum analogous to stars in terms of supergiants, giants, subgiants, dwarfs etc ..

Interestingly just as most stars - including our daytime one -are dwarf stars, most planets are ice dwarfs like Pluto - indeed smaller than Pluto, it sort of makes sense and is easy to recall and also describes the general nature and its characteristics relative to other planets clearly..

Furthermore we can also further divide each class based on its other properties so that, for instance, we have gas giants being listed as Superjovians, Hot Jupiters / Roaster / Pegasids, Cold Jupiters, eccentric orbiters etc .. Ice dwarfs can be asteroidal (eg. Ceres) or TransNeptunian, Rock Dwarfs can be Earths, Super-Earths, super-Mercuries (Mustafar!?) Martian, carbon planets, silicon planets, etc ..

Plus we can have rogue planets, colliding & binary planets and forming planets currently actually excluded from planetary status by the current IAU definition which also limits planets to our solar system only by absurd definition!

I'm not claiming to have originated this system and I do think its one that's well worth considering for IAU or other official adoption.

http://laurelsplutoblog.blogspot..com
@Obstreperous Applesauce You're welcome!
@Jane Spherical moons of planets can be considered secondary or satellite planets. This terminology has been around as far back as the 19th century. In terms of their intrinsic properties, these worlds ARE planets--they have all the processes planets have; they just happen to orbit other planets instead of orbiting the Sun directly. Some, like Europa and Enceladus, are actually prime locations for hosting microbial life. Complex life could even exist on an exomoon (a spherical moon of a giant exoplanet) as in the film "Avatar."
@Calli Arcale The term "minor planet" is a synonym for asteroids and comets, objects not large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--those now known as Small Solar System Bodies. Pluto should not have a minor planet number because it does not fit this category, and neither should any dwarf planet.

Pluto-Charon is actually a binary planet system because the barycenter, or center of gravity they orbit, is outside of Pluto. The IAU definition makes no allowance for binary planet systems because each object in a binary does not clear its orbit of its companion.

Why think of Pluto as a planet, when it's the ideal place to take a summer break from the stress and strain of The Climate Wars !

OK, maybe Neptune shouldn't be a planet either, since it hasn't cleared its orbit (because of Pluto crossing it). But how can it be that the two haven't collided, after all these eons. I realize that both Neptune and Pluto take very long times to complete an orbit, yet.... I suspect it has something to do with Pluto having an orbit that is not on the same plane as the true planets, but this isn't a very satisfying answer in itself.

Stephen, Neptune & Pluto are in orbital resonance, with 3 orbits of Neptune completed in the time it takes Pluto to orbit twice. This resonance prevents them from ever being near the crossing points at the same time.

This resonance "passes the test" regarding clearing an orbit (otherwise no planet would be a planet). Bodies with objects orbiting around Lagrange points also pass the test.

http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/pluto.html

Thank you, Brainstorms. That certainly answers the question. And I don't want to belabor this, but can you tell me if there's any scientific reason why there are 3 Neptune orbits vs. 2 Pluto orbits, precisely? By "precisely," I mean it certainly can't simply be a coincidence. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no well-defined answer to this.

Stephen, Take a look at the link I pasted into my reply. It's not exactly 3:2, but varies slightly. (It actually wavers back & forth around 3:2 so that it averages 3:2.)

The way the physics works, Neptune controls Pluto's orbit & period, causing it to speed up or slow down slightly when it wanders too far away from the 3:2 ratio. This ability to control the other objects in its neighborhood qualifies Neptune as a planet. (It doesn't have to "eliminate" all objects around it.)

This same principle applies to the "Shepherd Moons" of Saturn that keep some of the tiny rings formed. Over time, they seem to play tag with each other.

This is a common thing with large orbiting bodies, so there are other planetary resonances, and most of the moons of Jupiter & Saturn also have resonances, etc.

How to define what a planet is:

Step 1: Define the minimum dominant mass (MDM) of a solar system

The mass of the smallest rounded celestial body in orbit around a star (or stellar remnant) that has cleared the neighborhood of [or is dynamically dominant in] its orbit using Jean-Luc Margot's planetary discriminant (where Π ≥ 1).

For example, for our solar system Mercury is the MDM; in the solar system known as Kepler-37, the MDM is Kepler-37b (which has a diameter slightly greater than Earth's moon). See the following link for a more technical explanation of Margot's practical planetary discriminant:

http://mel.ess.ucla.edu/jlm/publications/Margot15.aj.PlanetDefinition.p….

Step 2: Define the term planet

A celestial body that...

(1) orbits one or more stars or stellar remnants;
(2) is a gravitationally dominant member of its solar system, defined as follows:
(a) has cleared the neighborhood of [or is dynamically dominant in] its orbit (e.g., Margot's Π ≥ 1)
OR (Note: Skip 2b if 2a is already fulfilled, for example, to expedite exoplanet classification.)
(b) has a mass >= the MDM of its solar system;
(3) has a mass below 13 Jupiter masses, a nominal value close to the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium.

With this definition, as long as Earth and Jupiter orbit the sun directly, they will always remain planets regardless of their hypothetical location in the solar system (e.g., a "remote" Jupiter that orbits in the Oort Cloud or a "remote" Earth" that orbits at 100 AUs from the the sun). And with this definition, you don't set an arbitrary cut-off point for planethood for all other solar systems at Mercury but instead use a contextual cut-off point for planethood unique to each solar system (as in the case of Kepler-37).

Everything less than the MDM will be a dwarf planet or small solar system body (SSSB, or sub-planetary mass object) so there won't be any more Jupiter-like planets potentially mislabeled as "dwarf planets" because of their given location within a solar system. Rogue planets and large rounded satellites will remain separate categories under the classification of planetary mass objects (PMOs).

In summary, planets are by all rights the dominant players of any given solar system (after their parent star(s) of course). Dwarf planets, large rounded satellites, rogue planets, and SSSBs are, for various reasons, not dominant players of solar systems.

This website exposes the flat earth deception and proves that the earth is globe shaped. This site discusses Earth maps which prove the earth is a globe.

Incense, Fresh Air, and Plutonic Vacuum

milhayser — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:50:38 +0000

Incense, Fresh Air, and Plutonic Vacuum

On Aardvarchaeology, Martin Rundkvist compiles his best November tweets into one riotous and insightful document. First up: "This chocolate praline contains something that looks and smells like shampoo. Apparently it’s flavoured with elderflower extract." Elderberry has been used for medicinal purposes worldwide for thousands of years, but maybe the praline makers should use the delicious berry extract instead of flower. Kim Krisberg considers less odorous possibilities on The Pump Handle, citing research that says advantages such as "proximity to parks and open spaces" help children start early on the path toward well-being. Yet, Krisberg writes, "40 percent of black children and 32 percent of Hispanic children live in 'very low-opportunity' neighborhoods within their metropolitan areas, compared to only 9 percent of white children." And on Starts With a Bang!, Ethan Siegel represents for the little giant Pluto, which will soon be surveyed by the New Horizons spacecraft. Beyond Pluto, we'll have to settle for the rest of our beautiful galaxy.

milhayser Fri, 12/05/2014 - 08:50

Tags

Why there are (and should be) eight planets in the Solar System

esiegel — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:03:35 +0000

Why there are (and should be) eight planets in the Solar System

“I have announced this star as a comet, but since it is not accompanied by any nebulosity and, further, since its movement is so slow and rather uniform, it has occurred to me several times that it might be something better than a comet. But I have been careful not to advance this supposition to the public.” -Giuseppe Piazzi

So it begins again: the neverending debate about who gets to be a planet and who doesn't. Everyone can bring their own interpretation of the science to the table -- and everyone has their own preferred naming scheme -- but when I think about the Solar System, I try to think about it in the context of all star systems.

Believe it or not, as far as we're able to tell, they all have some very important things in common.

Image credit: NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration. Click for an incredible experience!

One is that -- in the grand scheme of things -- all star systems are intimately connected in the sense that no star, as far as we can tell, is ever born in true isolation. Large molecular cloud complexes eventually undergo gravitational collapse, forming large numbers of stars all at once, anywhere from hundreds to tens of millions of stars in a single cluster! Although the stars that form in these clusters will come in a wide variety of sizes and masses, they all have many similar properties, including the same rough proportion of heavy elements to one another.

But with the exception of the highest mass, globular star clusters, these large groupings of stars don't last very long.

Image credit: Fred Espenak of http://astropixels.com/, of the Hyades cluster.

The closest star cluster to us, the Hyades (just 151 light-years away), is in the process of dissociating, where repeated gravitational encounters with (or within) the disk of our galaxy drive the individual stars making a star cluster apart. Our Sun, itself, was very likely once a part of a similar cluster of thousands of stars, born some 4.5 billion years ago in one of our galaxy's ancient star-forming regions!

But when they do form, these stars aren't the only things that come about.

Image credit: C.R. O'Dell/Rice University; NASA.

What will eventually become each star, to the best of our knowledge, starts out as a triaxial ellipsoid, undergoes gravitational collapse, forming a star (or stars) near the central region, pancakes along the shortest axis, and winds up forming a protoplanetary disk around the central protostar. The entire complex rotates with some angular momentum, and the protoplanetary disk itself typically lasts for a few million years.

Image credit: NASA / FUSE / Lynette Cook.

During this time, there are a few physically interesting things fighting for superiority.

The young star (or stars) are shining brightly, emitting both intense radiation and charged particles, creating not just an inward gravitational force but also an outward flux of particles of both matter and radiation.
Small gravitational perturbations or instabilities in the disk are racing to grow as large as they can and accrue as much mass as they can before the disk boils away.
Denser objects -- as well as objects with larger mass-to-surface-area ratios -- are relatively less affected by the outward flux of the star(s), but are simultaneously subject to resistance (and mass accrual) from the particles they run into.

The net result of all this is that denser bodies and larger bodies tend to migrate inwards, and that the young star system begins to act as though there's a net buoyant force, pulling denser objects inwards and forcing the less dense objects to the new system's outskirts.

Image credit: Dr. Avi M. Mandell, NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center.

This might sound like an amazing, unique story, but -- at the end of the day -- it's all just straightforward physics, and these are the inevitable consequences of our physical laws. In addition to that, there's a tremendous temperature gradient around the star(s), where objects very close to the star (inside the Soot Line) have complex molecules (like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs) photodissociate, and objects beyond the Frost Line can condense into ices, but not inside.

Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech, InvaderXan of http://supernovacondensate.net/.

So, with that in mind, what is a typical star system -- once it's all grown up -- going to look like?

Inside the Frost Line, there can be rocky planets, gas giants, and moons, where the density of these worlds will tend to decrease as we move away from the central star. Beyond that, there will typically be a belt of frozen particles accrued at the Frost Line, exemplified by the asteroid belt in our own Solar System. (Sorry, Giuseppe Piazzi; it wasn't a planet, after all!) Outside of the Frost Line, it's typically only going to be puffy, gas giant worlds (although mini-Neptunes count) that can clear their orbits and exist as planets-as-we-know-them, and finally there will be both a scattered disk and a large, spheroidal cloud of frozen planetesimals, all of much lower density than the inner, rocky worlds.

Image credit: Karim A. Khaidarov, 2004, of http://bourabai.kz/solar-e.htm.

Measurements of the densities of worlds in our own Solar System confirm this picture, as do the first measurements of some exoplanetary systems.

So that's what pretty much every star system is going to look like: worlds interior to a system's frost line that can be a mix of rocky planets and gas giants, rock-and-ice asteroids at the frost line, gas giants exterior to the frost line, and mostly-ice-worlds beyond that in a scattered disk and in a spheroidal distribution beyond that.

Image credit: Oort Cloud image by Calvin J. Hamilton, inset image by NASA.

So what does that mean for considering an object a planet in our Solar System, or in our experience in general?

It means that there's a fundamental difference between the round worlds in hydrostatic equilibrium that have cleared their orbits interior to the frost line and all others, and it means there's a fundamental difference between the gas giant worlds beyond the frost line and all others, and it also means that all the frozen worlds -- both the ice-and-rock worlds at the frost line as well as the mostly ice worlds out beyond them -- are ubquitous and super common.

Image credit: NASA's The Space Place, via http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/ice-dwarf/.

If we make only the rocky worlds (and gas giant worlds) interior to the frost line planets, we have four planets. If we add in the gas giants beyond the frost line, we'd have four more, for a total of eight. If we decided to add in all the worlds in hydrostatic equilibrium -- or with enough gravity to pull themselves into a sphere -- we'd have something like an estimated 200 planets.

Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars aren't special because they're spheres; they're special because of where they are and what their formation history is! They're special because of their densities, temperatures, atmospheres (or lack thereof, right Mercury?) and locations.

Image credit: Alien Robot Zombies by Bryan Magnum, at http://www.alienrobotzombies.com/.

If I had my way, that's what I'd teach everyone about the Solar System, and that's why I think that eight planets is just the right number for our Solar System. You may (and many of you, I'm sure, will) disagree, but this knowledge and understanding is part of the driving force behind Pluto's 2006 "demotion" from planetary status, not some vendetta against the cold, icy worlds of the Kuiper Belt, Oort Cloud and other locations beyond our Solar System's frost line.

Our eight planets are all special, and all the gas giants and rocky-worlds-interior-to-a-frost-line are special in exactly the same way. The asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects and Oort Cloud objects may be special in their own way as well, but it's a decidedly different way than these worlds that we presently call planets are. So remember that the next time you argue about what is-or-isn't a planet; this is how the Universe really works, and everything else is just a name!

esiegel Wed, 11/27/2013 - 12:03

Tags

Er, no. They are not "special in exactly the same way". There's a difference between the group of rocky bodies and all others, sure. There's a difference between the group of gas giants and all others, sure. But the two groups themselves have nothing special in common. They do not cohere into a single exclusive group that excludes the other 200 planemos in our solar system . . . unless you deliberately and carefully pick a definition that has no purpose except to create a small list of "planets" that schoolchildren can memorize.

At which point, one might ask why we don't adopt similar rules for "galaxies", so that kids can memorize a nice convenient list of a half dozen to a dozen or so. Just because it wasn't traditional to have a short list of them dating back to the ancient Greeks?

"unless you deliberately and carefully pick a definition"

Well, that is the definition of defining. Making it up as you go along without thought is NOT how you define words.

And the 8 planets DO have something in common:

a) Hydrostatic equilibrium
b) Orbiting a Star
c) Not a star itself
d) Is the major player in its orbit. In other words, their orbit can be predicted solely on their sun's influence.

a) isn't true of asteroids
b) isn't true of rogue planets
c) isn't true of stars
d) isn't true of pluto, ceres, et al (to a list of maybe 200)

The ONLY ONE that you're disagreeing with is (d) and the ONLY reason to disagree with it is if you want Pluto to be included in a list of planets of our sun.

Because dropping (a) would make it tens of thousands of objects. If you're not worried about the length of the list, why include (a) in your definition? 100,000 names is no more immemmorable than 200+.

"The closest star cluster to us, the Hyades (just 151 light-years away)"

Wouldn't that belong to the Ursa Major Moving Group? 70-90ly away, variously.

The Ursa Major Moving Group has dispersed to the degree that many stars in all directions around the sun are believed to have originated there, even if a small core remains in Ursa Major.
If this group gets the status of a cluster, we would be living inside its boundaries. Try to explain that to school kids.

"Try to explain that to school kids."

That's absolutely no problem at all. They'd go "Cool!".

Their *parents* on the other hand are a bit reactionary...

"d) isn’t true of pluto, ceres, et al (to a list of maybe 200)"

As Neptune was discovered because of its influence on the orbit of Uranus it is demonstrably not true for Uranus either!

Yes, David, your cunning assholishness beat my scientific rigour.

".....beat my scientific rigour."

Ah, it's trying to hide over here is it. Why not try and drag it over to the pedal-power thread?

What? Feeling lonely, Dai?

So if a ring of asteroids forms at the frost line, what then happens to it as the star heats up over time? Are the volatiles slowly evaporated and pushed outwards?

Oh, and when will we come up with a good definition of continent?

Shouldn't planetary formation take into account, pre-stellar ignition, stellar ignition and post stellar ignition, conditions. Also the impact of heat radiated from the forming planet upon the surrounding dust cloud (heat generated from impact, compression and radioactive elements).
Upon ignition a massive cloud wave front is pushed out to the edge of the system driven by new solar winds and expanding gases, favouring lighter elements and giving already existing stony worlds a massive coat, the further out the greater ( a balance between diffusion of stellar energy input, volume of dust cloud and rapid growth of the gravity well).
Forming planets also within themselves start to create conditions where denser elements are more likely to accumulate and lighter elements are driven off, with the bulk of the accumulation of volatile and light elements being post ignition when the massive much denser waver front passes.
As well as catastrophic solar system formation (planets out of sequence) as being the norm, no matter how disturbing rather, rather than adjusting system formation models to suit.
So the question remains, how much planetary accumulation occurs prior to stellar ignition and how it changes after stellar ignition, with only first stage suns being fusion ignited and 2nd, 3rd stage suns being fission ignited (access to newly created radioactive elements), which also significantly alters planetary formation. So sun colour allows modelling of likely solar systems.

So this means the asteroid belt now exists where Sol's frost line was? What happens to the soot line?

Ethan Siegel, I love your work but afraid on this topic I have to respectfully disagree.

I think Pluto and the other ice dwarfs worlds count as planets as much as any other planets do and are all special in their own ways too.

All planets formed out of the swirling debris cloud from the largest to the smallest.

All planets, to me, are gravitationally rounded, not shining by core nuclear fusion and not moons of other planets. That's how I see it and how I think the term makes most sense.

As for the number of planets - if there are over 200 of them then (shrug) there are over 200 of them. Why is that bad?

We already know there are (almost certainly) more than millions of planets out there round other stars. Should our solar system settle for a mere eight because of our counting bias? I don't think so.

If Pluto was where Earth was we'd be in no doubt it was a planet.

If Earth orbited where Pluto was would we really quibble then? I doubt it.

What difference does a frost line really make when you have objects that are clearly one thing - round, fascinating, worlds in their own right -rather than any other - cometary nuclei, asteroids, etc .. ?

You have different objects forming of different substances at different distances sure, but why when one reaches the right level, right size, call it something else if its made of ice and rock versus just rock or mostly gas?

If a person is tiny and a crowd of similar small individual humans we don';t say s/he stops being a person do we?

A small animal, a small plant, found in a herd or a forest or grassland of suchlike living things isn't any different - they are still what they are - animal or vegetable not something else that they really aren't.

So it is too, in my view for planets, sure they may be small, sure they may be in a zone full of similar planets but planets they still are.

If you disagree, please explain,exactly why you think that should not be considered the case?

PS. A dwarf star is still a star - indeed almost every star is a dwarf star including our Sun.

A "dwarf" variety of almost every plant or animal species is counted as still belonging to that species in science, regardless of how numerous the individuals in its flock / pack / herd / forest / shrubland / reef, etc .. might be.

The scientific convention and precedent thus seems very clear and seems to say that dwarfs are still planets /animals / plants, etc ..

Dwarfism is not an excluding factor from being 'X' whatever 'X'may be!

Beyond the frost line is where worlds like Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto formed.

So, if we make that our divide then why count Jupiter and Neptune but not Pluto? Doesn't make sense to me.

If we shift to cleared orbits - again that's really problematic because no orbit is really that "clear" and if a rogue planet entered the solar system and entered a collision course with Earth or Venus would that stop either of them being planets? Surely not!

And what about a world that hypothetically forms right on the boundary - half outside the frostline and half within? Planet or not?

Also, if memory serves, we know that some comets formed at least partially close to the Sun from results from particles back from one of them (Wild 2 I think?) apparently formed in the inner solar system. So, could the same be true of Pluto and its kin? Could Pluto have formed at least partially in the inner solar system and migrated outwards? If so what does that do to the whole inside the frostline = planet; outside = not idea?

No, sorry Ethan, I just don't buy this line of argument here. We may just have to agree to disagree.

"Beyond the frost line is where worlds like Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto formed.

So, if we make that our divide then why count Jupiter and Neptune but not Pluto?"

It's explained in the ATL text, Steve.

Did you read it?

The frost line is not "the end of the planets", it's the end of the small rocky ones.

Because past that point, water, the most common molecule in a protoplanetary disk, can stop around for a bit and be picked up and, being far more common than silicon et al, that means a lot more mass.

"I think Pluto and the other ice dwarfs worlds count as planets as much as any other planets do"

And there's a bloke works down the chipshop, thinks he's Elvis.

"and are all special in their own ways too. "

Yeah, you didn't read ATL at all, did you, steve.

The asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects and Oort Cloud objects may be special in their own way as well, but it’s a decidedly different way than these worlds that we presently call planets are

"PS. A dwarf star is still a star – indeed almost every star is a dwarf star including our Sun."

Irrelevant.

In Tolkein, Dwarves are a different race. Here in real life, they're humans.

The words mean different things depending on where they're being used.

So "Dwarf Stars are stars!" is not proof dwarf planets are planets.

Indeed your continual whining about that point is why the IAU nearly didn't create the category "Dwarf Planet" because people whinging will use it to say the IAU are wrong. It's why they didn't do "Classical Planets". And it may be the few people who wanted pluto argued into being a planet like the others argued for its inclusion: so they can say to themselves "It's still REALLY a planet!".

Dwarf star being a star is irrelevant to whether a dwarf planet is a planet.

Why?

Because of the definition of star and planet. Dwarfism in stars still mean they fuse elements in their cores under self-ignition. Since that is the definition of a star, they're stars.

Dwarfism in planets mean they haven't cleared their orbit, which is a requirement for being a planet, so dwarf planets are not planets.

Dwarfism in planets mean they haven’t cleared their orbit, which is a requirement for being a planet, so dwarf planets are not planets.

So, according to that neither Jupiter nor Neptune are planets as they haven't cleared their orbits!?

As for dwarf planets being planets, they fulfill the IAU criteria bar the clearing the orbit part. So to say they aren't a sub-type of planets seems a stretch. If they manage to clear the orbit, excepting trojans, do they then magically become real planets even if they stay out beyond the Kuiper belt?

Ethans explanation makes sense to me the IAU not so much.

"So, according to that neither Jupiter nor Neptune are planets as they haven’t cleared their orbits!?"

No, according to that definition, both Jupiter and Nepture are planets because they've cleared their orbits.

As for dwarf planets not being planets, they do not fulfill the IAU criteria in all cases. So to say they are a subtype of planets is wrong. If they managed to clear their orbits, then they will become planets, just like the protoplanetary disk becomes a planet when it coalesces into one and stops being a planet when it's broken into many pieces that do not have the size to retain hydrostatic equilibrium.

Ethan's explanation is untroubling to the IAU.

The only trouble are whiners who don't want pluto to be ousted from planet status because, well, who the hell knows...

Ceres is a planet, and our solar system does not have only 8 planets, at least according to the equally legitimate geophysical planet definition. 19th century astronomers did not know that Ceres is in hydrostatic equilibrium and therefore a complex world that doesn't belong in the category of asteroids and comets. It makes little sense to lump objects that structurally and compositionally are much more akin to the larger planets than to asteroids and comets with the latter category. It also makes little sense to require an object to "clear its orbit" to be a planet. We cannot look only at where an item is; we have to look at the individual item and what it is. These small spherical worlds are planets that have most of the same features the rocky planets have; the only difference is they are smaller.

The notion that we have to limit the number of planets in the solar system because we cannot have too many makes absolutely no sense. Memorization is not important to learning. Kids can be taught the different subclasses of planets and the characteristic of each subclass. After all, we don't require kids to memorize the names of all rivers or mountains on Earth or the names of all Jupiter's 67 moons.

The "IAU criteria" are not some gospel truth that should be taken as THE standard an object has to meet to be considered a planet. They represent one point of view in an ongoing debate. And they could result in the same object being considered a planet in one location and not a planet in another, something that makes absolutely no sense.

Why not instead recognize that some planets clear their orbits and some don't? Similarly, some planets have no orbits to clear as they don't orbit any stars (rogue planets). Yet structurally, they are planets.

Exoplanet systems clearly show that our solar system is not necessarily typical in its formation or layout. Every time an anomalous system is discovered, astronomers are sent back to the drawing board in determining how that system formed. There may very well be more than one way to make planetary systems. Otherwise, how do you explain hot Jupiters in close orbits around their stars? How do you classify giant planets in extremely elliptical orbits that travel through asteroid belts in those orbits? How do you determine what it means for an orbit to be "clear?"

Dwarf planets are special in the same way the larger planets are and are NOT special in the way asteroids, comets, and Small Solar System bodies are. The latter are frequently loose rubble piles shaped only by their chemical bonds. They are tiny and don't have the complex structure that dwarf planets, which are small planets, have.

This isn't about Pluto. It is about a dynamical versus a geophysical definition of planet and about whether the term planet should be kept narrow or broad. Given that Dawn has shown Vesta, which is not completely in hydrostatic equilibrium, to be more planet-like than asteroid-like, why not wait for the data from New Horizons and Dawn to show us just how unique and complex Pluto and Ceres are?

Watch your language, methane.

There is no Frost Line. Such a line is cute, but rather arbitrary and capricious, not to mention unscientific in the extreme. Someone's had too much pumpkin pie!

There are other troubles besides Pluto huggers, methane. One, for example, are name-calling, pompous trolls who kowtow to the IAU.

To bring up estimates is a red herring. There's only a handful of dwarf planets. Making them a subclass of planets is endorsed by over 200 distinguished planetary scientists. Maybe even Frosty the Snowman, as well, who lives on the right side of your beloved Frost Line. Estimates are for realtors, not those making scientific definitions. Get a grip.

Mike, to bring up the number is a red herring: that isn't your complaint.

Pluto is not a planet.

Telling others "get a grip"when you've been throwing a hell of a tantrum about pluto not being a planet is rich.

"There is no Frost Line"

WOW!

So according to mike the shitheaded little moronic retard, water DOES NOT FREEZE.

Shitting pope on a rope, you're a moron!

"Ceres is a planet, and our solar system does not have only 8 planets, at least according to the equally legitimate geophysical planet definition"

Ceres is not a planet, and our solar system has 8 planets discovered so far.

The geophysical definition was posited by mike the childish arsehole and he never managed to actually define it and backtracked off any definition claimed several times.

That geophysical definition

a) is not known by you
b) has not been tested as to whether it meets your claims by you
c) is not the valid definition of a planet.

Pluto is not a planet.

Get over it.

"Ceres is in hydrostatic equilibrium "

So is Titan.

So therefore by geophysical definition, it's a planet.

Oh, no, it's not, is it.

ALL you know about the geophysical definition is

a) the words
b) the idea that it claims pluto as a planet

and those, frankly, are the only things you care about.

Accuracy and rigour is something alien to you morons.

There you go again, methane.

Don't put words on my mouth, troll.

Yes, water freezes. There's ice on Mercury, Earth, and Mars, genius. The Frost Line isn't in the current IAU definition. Therefore, you shouldn't support cutting off planets on its colder side, lackey that you are, correct?

Yeah, all that facts and reality and all that jazz. I keep going with it, but you repeat your whine.

Pluto is not a planet. Get over it.

"Don’t put words on my mouth, troll.

Yes, water freezes. "

Then there IS a Frost Line.

I never put words in your mouth: I only showed you how moronic your statement "There is no such thing as a Frost Line" is.

Then you got all butt hurt.

Just like you did when you came up with a "definition" of the geophysical definition of a planet THAT WASN'T THE DEFINITION. Then you went "I never said that was all it was".

Well, you never said that it was incomplete either.

But here you go again, "not saying" the stupid things pointed out as the MEANING of your asinine and vapid whinier outpourings.

Pluto is not a planet.

If you wanna talk about the geo def, talk to the person who just defined it, genius.

The Frost Line is a silly concept by some blogger. It is not anything of note, in my opinion. Nor is the Soot Line. Soot is what comes out of your mouth during your vile rants and vulgar profanity-laced ravings.

Don't waste my time. Try being intelligent or shut up.

Pluto is not a planet.

Repeated because you seem incapable of grasping this fact.

"The Frost Line is a silly concept by some blogger."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_line_%28astrophysics%29

Yup, you're a moron.

Whatever, methane.

To use the Front Line to keep Pluto and Ceres from being replanetized is a pathetic, desperation move. Knowing full well that the current IAU definition is short-lived due to it holes and the nefarious way in which it was passed on St. Bartholomew's Massacre Day 2006, now Pluto's problems are not only that it is "too small" but also that it is "too cold."

Pathetic.

Mike Brown, as you know, when he first co-discovered Eris told he wife that it was a planet. Then, when he realized the IAU wasn't going to call it a planet, he quickly changed his tune and went after Pluto in another desperation move.

When I correct you, I do not call you a moron. I expect the same courtesy, methane. Why don't you grow up and stop idolizing grown men who behead dolls?

I mean, "Frost Line," of course.....

Dwarf planets are planets. Dwarf stars are stars. Dwarf galaxies are galaxies. Get over it, methane. Be consistent. Be a sane, logical person who does not resort to incessant insults and name-calling. Otherwise, go away. You are not contributing anything productive here until such time as you heed my advice.

"I mean, “Frost Line,” of course….."

What? That thing in astrophysics that you thought was made up by Ethan on the spur of the moment for this post???

Dwarf planets are not planets.

Not even you believe that bullshit, otherwise you wouldn't be whining about the IAU definition that makes Pluto a dwarf planet.

Pluto is not a planet.

moron mike: "Whatever"

Yeah, like you being wrong is a "whatever".

Actually, for once you're right: this indeed is the reason why your whines are irrelevant to the definition of planet. Because your opinion and "knowledge" on the subject is irrelevant and a "whatever".

You wish, methane.

No, it is, mikey.

Why are you here? Go collect some frost or something. The adults want to talk now, methane.

No, according to that definition, both Jupiter and Nepture are planets because they’ve cleared their orbits.

Both Jupiter and Neptune have their own sets of Trojan asteroids in their orbits. Their orbits are, therefoere, not cleared.. Just saying they have cleared their orbits doesn't make it so, however much you may wish it to be true.

If they managed to clear their orbits, then they will become planets

So dwarf planets can become planets by changing one minor condition. Feel free to consider them not planets but you are stretching a minor thing into a major issue.

Even before it had almost completely cleared its orbit most people would have called Jupiter a planet not a dwarf planet.

Why are *you* here, mike?

Pluto isn't a planet.

If you want to change that, then get out there and organise to get the definition changed.

"Both Jupiter and Neptune have their own sets of Trojan asteroids in their orbits"

Yup.

But those are moons and asteroids of zero impact on Jupiter's orbit.

Jupiter owns its orbit. It dominates it.

Pluto does not.

Pluto is not a planet.

Jupiter is.

"So dwarf planets can become planets by changing one minor condition."

Yes.

Just like an SSB can become a planet by changing two.

Or a planet can become an SSB if it breaks up.

Where is this problem you seem to be alluding to?

Maybe I am, methane. I can multi-task.

Earth doesn't clear its orbit, either. We share our orbit with, at last count, 19,500 other celestial objects. Great defintion, methane. Don't dominate this comment board, bro.

"Clearing the orbit" does not mean there are no other objects in the orbit: it means that the body is large enough, with enough of a gravitational field, so that if other bodies are in the orbit they are deflected or pulled in: either way, they do not exert noticeable influence on the larger object's path. Those other objects do not influence Earth's movement: not so with the smaller bodies.

Remember, dean, mike knows fuck all, but is DAMN certain that the IAU are wrong, so anything is believed to that end.

Hell, the moronic arsehole kept bleating on about the "geophysical definition" then came up with a definition that WASN'T geophysical. When called up on it, changed the definition completely with the Jedi hand-wave of "That was not a complete[ly accurate?] definition".

But if it wasn't complete, why wasn't it in the second attempt at defining it?

Because the moron hasn't a fucking clue.

"Maybe I am, methane."

Am what?

Wrong?

Hell yes.

"I can multi-task."

Gosh? Really? So what?

"Earth doesn’t clear its orbit"

The earth has cleared its orbit.

Moons, asteroids, dust clouds, comets, LGMs, santa clause and photons et al don't count.

Pluto hasn't: Neptune is none of those.

There should be, by definition, 9 classical planets. These are the objects in hydrostatic equilibrium discovered in the period before we had telecopes in orbit. When you talk of true planets, there are 8, with ~200 dwarf planets or planetoids. Yes, this is all semantics, but science is full of these. Why is Greenland not a continent? Why are Europe and Asia different continents? Why is a tomato a vegetable that has no business being in a fruit salad? What about an avocado? Don't even get me started on true nuts vs. culinary nuts. Think peanuts, pecans, walnuts and cashews all belong in a single can marked "mixed nuts"? We use simple inaccurate classifications all the time. Leave the simple 9 planets alone. Call them classical and go wild with meaningful classifications for those who dig deeper. To me, that is part of the beauty of science. Like a wise ogre once said, it is like an onion.

Get off my back, troll.

Ethan is simply reiterating the dynamical definition of planet, which centers on where an object is. That is why he argues that objects beyond the Frost Line cannot be considered planets. I disagree because as a supporter of the geophysical planet definition, I cannot support a classification system that completely ignores what an object is and categorizes it solely by where it is. Not everything beyond the frost line is a tiny planetesimal. Some objects in the outer solar system are much larger and far more complex. Pluto has an atmosphere, and its density is closer to that of the rocky planets than to that of tiny KBOs. Ethan also repeats the argument that having "too many planets" somehow makes the term less "special." I disagree with this as well. Does the fact that there are billions of stars in the galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe diminish the words "star" and "galaxy?" I don't think so.

The further a planet is from its parent star, the larger an orbit it will have to "clear." That is an inherent bias of the dynamical planet definition. We know from exoplanet systems that not all solar systems form the same way and that there are many different patterns of planetary migration, many of which we do not yet fully understand.

Any classification that puts Jupiter and Earth in the same category but excludes objects like Pluto makes no sense. Earth has more in common with Pluto than with Jupiter. Both Earth and Pluto are rocky worlds rounded by their own gravity. Both have large moons formed via giant impacts. Both have nitrogen in their atmospheres, and both are geologically differentiated into core, mantle, and crust. In contrast, Jupiter's composition is far more like that of the Sun, largely hydrogen and helium. It has no solid surface and has its own "mini-solar system" of moons and rings.

The geophysical planet definition is this: A planet is a non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star or free-floating in interstellar space (the latter referring to rogue planets).

There is no single legitimate definition of a planet. Wow, your constant repetition of the same statements does not make them anything more than one side in an ongoing debate. Science is not decided by a decree from a person or group who call themselves an "authority." You should know that.

It's not my job to define terms for you. Someone just defined it a few posts ago. I'm not your servant, methane.

"There should be, by definition, 9 classical planets."

The term classical planets was overwhelmingly voted down, Tim.

"These are the objects in hydrostatic equilibrium discovered in the period before we had telecopes in orbit."

This "definition" is *exactly* why "classical planets" was quashed, Tim.

And it would make for 5 planets, not nine.

"Why is Greenland not a continent? Why are Europe and Asia different continents? "

Geographers don't have a definition of continent.

But that has naff all to do with the IAU, astronomy, or the definition of planet.

The mantra that there are probably 200 dwarf planets in our solar system is a red herring, a rhetorical device to cloud the issue. There is only a handful of known dwarf planets. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

"That is why he argues that objects beyond the Frost Line cannot be considered planets."

Ah, so when you talked about what Ethan was saying, you'd never actually READ what he said.

"I disagree"

Ditto.

But your disagreement with the definition is worthless.

Sorry.

That's just the way it is.

Pluto is not a planet.

They geophysical definition, never mind mikey's ridiculous non-definition of it, doesn't work.

The current definition does.

Pluto is not a planet.

"It’s not my job to define terms"

Indeed it isn't.

Yet you still whine and bitch that your definition isn't taken when EVEN YOU don't know what it is.

"But your disagreement with the definition is worthless.
Sorry.
That’s just the way it is.
Pluto is not a planet.
They geophysical definition, never mind mikey’s ridiculous non-definition of it, doesn’t work.
The current definition does.
Pluto is not a planet."

Your statements above are not science. They are an attempt to impose your view and only yours onto an ongoing debate. My disagreement is worthless--why? Because you say so? The fact that you write statements like this says more about your shortcomings in defending your position. The geophysical planet definition works just fine; that view is held by many scientists, not just by me and Mike W. Trying to "lay down the law" like a dictator does nothing to support your case. Please address the issues I raised regarding the problems inherent in the dynamical definition.

According to the geophysical planet definition, Titan, Ceres, and Pluto are all planets because they are celestial bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium orbiting a star.

"The further a planet is from its parent star, the larger an orbit it will have to “clear.” That is an inherent bias of the dynamical planet definition."

And is a problem WHY? It's not even why pluto doesn't get to be a planet.

There's more orbit, but less stuff. And the stuff out there is generally bigger because they can take on ice as a constituent.

That, too, is an "inherent bias".

But then you've not said why it's a problem, have you?

"Any classification that puts Jupiter and Earth in the same category but excludes objects like Pluto makes no sense."

Nope, it makes perfect sense.

That is why the definition was nearly unanimously passed by people whose job it is to deal with these things as scientists.

"Earth has more in common with Pluto than with Jupiter."

First, nope.

Second, "having something in common with Earth more than it does with Jupiter" would be a stupid definition of planet. So it isn't part of the definition.

Again, a non problem.

"Both Earth and Pluto are rocky worlds"

Do you know what Pluto is?

ASTEROIDS are rocky.

That doesn't make them planets.

"Both have large moons formed via giant impacts"

Ah, that answers my question: no, you don't know anything about pluto.

Charon wasn't formed like our moon was and Pluto didn't gain it the same way. And adding the masses of both together still fall short of the moon's mass.

"Jupiter’s composition is far more like that of the Sun, largely hydrogen and helium."

And you don't know either Jupiter or the Sun, either.

Well done.

"The geophysical planet definition is this: A planet is a non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star or free-floating in interstellar space (the latter referring to rogue planets)."

Then the Moon is a planet?

EVERY asteroid is a planet?

EVERY comet a planet?

The entire Oort cloud a planet?

You'd have uncounted, nay, UNCOUNTABLE numbers of "planets".

And SOHO would be a planet by your definition there too.

That isn't the geophysical definition of a planet.

But I guess you'll not let ignorance get in the way of a moronic opinion, will you?

"According to the geophysical planet definition, Titan, Ceres, and Pluto are all planets "

And that's why the geophysical definition was not used.
PS why didn't Luna become a planet? It's a damn sight bigger than Pluto.

"Your statements above are not science"

They're facts.

"There is only a handful of known dwarf planets."

cf your earlier laughable attempts at stating "fact" that turned out to be a turd sandwich of ideas, mikey.

You are wrong.

As usual.

"My disagreement is worthless–why? Because you say so? "

No, because you are a clueless idiot with strong opinions on something you know nothing about.

Pluto:
Ice surface.
Ice layers beneath.
Rock and iron core. Not molten.
Atmosphere: freezes out.

Earth:
Rocky surface.
Molten layers beneath.
Molten iron sub-core
Solid iron core.
Atmosphere: persistent.

Yeah, they have soooo much in common...

Jupiter: Rocky core maybe 20 earth masses.

Pluto: Rocky core, maybe 1/450th an earth mass.

The loudest voice should not get to win the arguement.
1) Who voted down the term classical planet? How was it "overwhemingly"?
2) I was not aware we had telescopes in orbit before the discovery and original classification of Pluto as a planet. Please list the name of the orbiting observatory that leads to your list of five plants.
3) You missed my larger point that all scientific classification is inherently messy. I purposely made an analogy to other fields of science. If you dismiss an analogy because it does not meet a specific definition (i.e. having to do with the IAU) you have missed the point of using an analogy.

If your facts are so strong why do you have to berate people in order to make your points? Please try to keep your replies to my above questions respectful or don't bother to answer.

"The loudest voice should not get to win the arguement."

Yeah, so stop screaming, Tim.

What DID win the argument was the discussion over 10 days the definition of planet that the IAU then voted on that states that there are only 8 planets and that Pluto is not one of them.

But you and a few other stridulent hawkers of ignorance keep bleating as loud as you can to change it.

The loudest voice should not win the argument.

"If your facts are so strong why do you have to berate people in order to make your points? "

I don't.

The points, however, are never listened to by you morons so I need to club them into your thick skulls with the bluntest tools available.

Even then, the work never seems to stick.

I was not aware that I was screaming. And you ignored all of my questions and jumped right into insulting me. You could have answered with facts, but you chose personal attacks. I am not sure what 10 day debate you are referring to, but the Great Planet Debate at Johns Hopkins in 2008 left no concensous.

If you don't have to berate people to make your points, ask yourself why you chose in that very post to call me a moron and not answer my questions? Science advances with the debate of ideas, not personal insults. It is in my opinion a shame you berated your way into dominating this discussion. Have fun talking to yourself. I am done.

"I was not aware that I was screaming."

Ah, but you thought I was loud.

How does that work?

I answered some of questions of yours, Tim.

And many more have no purpose to being answered since they do not progress any understanding at all.

And several have been rhetorical.

And a few asinine.

And I note, Tim, that despite all the wailing you make, you've not yet noticed that your definition of classical planets make 5 planets, not 9.

What is your problem with me saying there is only a handful of known dwarf planets?

You just want to disagree with everything for the sake of being disagreeable? It is working. Are you going to repeat the mantra about the 200 dwarf planets supposedly lurking beyond our ken? There could also be 865 Jupiters, too. Speculation of this kind is a cheap rhetorical device. Why stoop to that? Don't you want to be taken seriously?

"What is your problem with me saying there is only a handful of known dwarf planets?"

I have no problem with it.

Your problem with it is that it's wrong.

Entirely wrong.

Ripsnortingly wrong.

If you'd any sense of self worth or dignity, embarrassingly wrong.

But you won't let reality impinge upon your "right" to make shit up to support your flatulent cause.

You are full of it.

Why is it wrong?

Because the figure is known to be 45 and there are maybe 150 other known candidates for the same categorisation, dumbass.

Because you apparently think the "200" is made up when that is only your ignorance and arrogance speaking.

Because it's wrong.

There are a shitload more than a handful of dwarf planets.

I am full. However, what's your problem with that?

"That is why the definition was nearly unanimously passed by people whose job it is to deal with these things as scientists."

Really? The majority of the 424 IAU members who voted on the planet definition are NOT planetary scientists but other types of astronomers. Planetary scientists are the people who most deal with planets, and they, not cosmologists or specialists in one of the many other areas of astronomy, are the ones whose job it is to define the term planet.

The reason I noted that Earth has more in common with Pluto than with Jupiter is to show the weakness of the IAU definition, which puts Earth and Jupiter in the same category but excludes Pluto.

"ASTEROIDS are rocky. That doesn’t make them planets."

Asteroids are rubble piles loosely held together and shaped by their chemical bonds. In contrast, planets are shaped by their own gravity, which squeezes them into a round shape. Asteroids are not geologically layered and are not complex worlds with geology and weather the way small planets are. How is blurring the distinction between tiny, shapeless asteroids and complex worlds good science?

Yes, according to the geophysical planet definition, the Moon is a secondary or satellite planet. I don't understand why this is a problem for you. If an object is massive enough to be squeezed into a round or near-round shape by its own gravity, it is a small planet. If it tiny and too small to be rounded by its own gravity, it is an asteroid or comet. SOHO is not a celestial body but an artificial satellite, which is why it is not a planet.

Pluto is estimated to be 70 percent rock. We don't know much about its core, but that will change with the New Horizons flyby. Pluto's atmosphere never completely freezes out to the point of being lost. Scientists now believe Pluto maintains at least some of its atmosphere throughout its 248-year orbit.

"Charon wasn’t formed like our moon was and Pluto didn’t gain it the same way."

Charon is believed by scientists to have formed when a proto-planet smashed into proto-Pluto early in the solar system's history, much the same way as Earth's moon formed when a Mars-sized object impacted the Earth.

"Jupiter: Rocky core maybe 20 earth masses."
At this point, that is speculation. It is still unclear whether Jupiter even has a solid core.

"What DID win the argument was the discussion over 10 days the definition of planet that the IAU then voted on that states that there are only 8 planets and that Pluto is not one of them."

First, this is a scientific debate, and unlike political debates, it is not about winning and losing. Nothing "won" because debates are constantly reshaped as new and better information becomes available. Four percent of the IAU voted on the 2006 resolution, which was hastily thrown together in the last 24 hours of the General Assembly. An equal number of professional astronomers signed a formal petition rejecting that definition. Seven years later, many astronomers continue to reject it. It was never even close to being approved "unanimously." Ninety-six percent of IAU members couldn't vote because they weren't in the room on a particular day, and no electronic or absentee voting was allowed. And immediately after the vote, one man who did vote asked for Pluto to be put back on the list of planets. Watch the video, and you will see this. He was told by Jocelyn Bell Burnell that it was too late; the resolution had already been adopted. This means he wasn't clear about the resolution he had just voted for!

The list of planets was actually in the footnotes of the resolution, and if you watch the video from the beginning, you will see that there was a lot of confusion over whether the footnotes did or did not count as part of the resolution.

"Ah, that answers my question: no, you don’t know anything about pluto."
I know Pluto is NOT an asteroid.
Is that what you say to everyone who disagrees with you?

45 in your delusions, methane. And why do you keep using the figure of 200?

Shall I name the known dwarf planets to you like Santa's reindeer?

Ceres, Pluto, Charon, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. You could also list the moons as satellite dwarf planets like Luna and Triton, Ganymede, et cetera. It does not come close to 45. What comic book did you find that figure in?

Do you know what the word "known" means? Maybe that is your current problem.

@16. Wow :

“Beyond the frost line is where worlds like Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto formed. So, if we make that our divide then why count Jupiter and Neptune but not Pluto?” -StevoR

It’s explained in the ATL text, Steve. Did you read it?

Yes I did indeed. Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with what I read though.

"The frost line is not “the end of the planets”, it’s the end of the small rocky ones. Because past that point, water, the most common molecule in a protoplanetary disk, can stop around for a bit and be picked up and, being far more common than silicon et al, that means a lot more mass."

Yes.

And?

The way planets form is fascinating - but it is NOT definitive.

Why the blazes should it be?

Is a person no longer a person if they were born by IVF or caesarian section versus "natural" birth?*

is a plant not a plant if it grows from cuttings instead of seed?

Course not!

Why then should a planet be a non--planet just because it formed beyond a certain distance?

Answer : It shouldn't.

Besides how do we know or sure that Mars or even Earth and Venus didn't start forming beyond the frostline and subsequently migrate inwards?

*Well, okay, it worked for MacDuff in the Scottish play and Eowyn in the 'Lord of the Rings' but that's another two stories entirely! Besides Eowyn and MacDuff are definitely still classed as human / people / animals too.

@86. Mike Wrathell : "Do you (Wow) know what the word “known” means? Maybe that is your current problem."

I would guess that "Wow" has a lot of problems - her / his trolling here being just one of them.

Did Wow eventually ever actually answer my questions on the other 'Triton Kuiper King' thread or elsewhere btw? Must go take a look I 'spose.

Oh & Wow for the record - the number of currently known dwarf planets larger than Pluto is zero. Eris is about the same size and just a smidgin more massive. Makemake, Haumea, Sedna and others are smaller and the number of ice dwarfs currently known is from my memory much closer to fifty than two hundred. Not that it really matters anyhow.

Note : there are thousands of confirmed Jupiter mass & gas giant planets in the Milky Way and beyond. That sure doesn't stop them being classified as planets. So then why should knowing about however many more ice dwarf planets make them any less planets either?

Hint : Trick question - it shouldn't. There are thousands of exo-Jupiters and maybe hundreds of intra-Plutos and all of them are still properly considered planets given a reasonable (i.e. not the IAU's!) definition of the word.

@45. Chris' Wills : Yes. Exactly. Seconded. Hundred percent.

@62. Wow : "Yet you still whine and bitch that your definition isn’t taken when EVEN YOU don’t know what it is.

Among others, I have already suggested what my preferred definition of planet is and it is far superior to the IAU's ridiculous one.

Again, a planet in my view is gravitationally rounded, so not an asteroid or comet nucleus, not self-luminous by nuclear fusion hence not a star and not directly orbiting another planet so not a moon - three straightforward, decisive tests.

I've also noted that other alternative definitions exist that would also count Pluto as a planet such as Ken Croswell's here :

http://kencroswell.com/NinthRockFromTheSun.html

(Read that link yet, Wow? No? Refusing to look at evidence and arguments disagreeing with yours still Troll?)

So, that falsifies that rude and erroneous assertion of yours right there, Wow.

@51. dean :

"“Clearing the orbit” does not mean there are no other objects in the orbit: it means that the body is large enough, with enough of a gravitational field, so that if other bodies are in the orbit they are deflected or pulled in: either way, they do not exert noticeable influence on the larger object’s path. Those other objects do not influence Earth’s movement: not so with the smaller bodies."

Actually those bodies *do* influence earth's orbit just relatively slightly. hence gravitational boosts. Yes the extent of the gravitational influence (perturbation) depends on a few other factors such as closeness of approach and velocity of the encounter but still there certainly is an effect.

So where do you draw the line? Who decides it and what if objects and cases that are right on that line?

Oh & where did you get that idea from that "clear" is exactly what you said as opposed to other ideas of what it means?

The fact that the IAU definition raises the needless superfluous* question of what "clear" actually even means is a major point against it given the key scientific principle of Occam's razor.

* Yes I know that is a tautology. It is also deliberate emphasis.

Really? The majority of the 424 IAU members who voted on the planet definition are NOT planetary scientists but other types of astronomers.

And since the planetary scientist is working on the earth, not alien planets, meanwhile those planets are astronomical objects, and moreover this is an astronomical definition not a geographical one, the IAU members were field experts to judge.

Meanwhile you don't even know about the planets you're wibbling on about other than their names. See #64.

The reason I noted that Earth has more in common with Pluto than with Jupiter is to show the weakness of the IAU definition

Except as shown in #69, that statement is wrong and you only bring it up to "support" your complaint, but that statement, being false, does not support your complaint being valid.

Asteroids are rubble piles loosely held together and shaped by their chemical bonds.

Asteroids are rocky bodies. According to what you claim to be the geophysical definition of a planet, that counts as a planet. NOTHING about "rubble piles".

Oh, and the chemical bonds do not hold the piles of rubble together. It seems like you don't know even the basic science and refuse to let your ignorance impede your insistence.

Charon is believed by scientists to have formed when a proto-planet smashed into proto-Pluto early in the solar system’s history

No, Charon was assumed to be caught like Pluto was into a resonant circuit with Neptune as a kuiper belt object.

First, this is a scientific debate>/blockquote>

Not the way you do it. You have to have actual scientific knowledge and you don't care for that: you make up sciencey claims and don't really sweat actually knowing what the science is. See above.

debates are constantly reshaped as new and better information becomes available

Which is why the geophysical definition of a planet was abandoned: the better information showed that the definition was not capable of the job of defining planet status.

That's why it took 10 days to come to the state where there was a proposal to vote on.

Four percent of the IAU voted on the 2006 resolution

100% were invited to. Not voting means that you don't really have anything to say and defer to those who do. So yet another non-problem.

Ninety-six percent of IAU members couldn’t vote because they weren’t in the room on a particular day

If they'd wanted to vote, they could. They didn't. And therefore didn't stay. Yet more non-problem.

one man who did vote asked for Pluto to be put back on the list of planets

Yup, unanimity isn't required in ANY democratic process. Another non-problem.

He was told by Jocelyn Bell Burnell that it was too late; the resolution had already been adopted

Yup. And when the "wrong pary" wins an election you have to either get enough votes to get a new election or wait until the next election to change it. You don't get as a single person to whine and demand that the voters got the wrong answer and they have to do it again. Well you do, but you deserve being told "too late".

Yet another non problem.

“Ah, that answers my question: no, you don’t know anything about pluto.”
I know Pluto is NOT an asteroid.

Ah, I see. You can't read either.

And why do you keep using the figure of 200?

Because it's the right one.

Pluto is estimated to be 70 percent rock

Nope.

It's estimated to be 50-70% rock by mass.

By volume, it's mostly (50-80%) ice.

"Do you know what the word “known” means?"

Yes.

Shall I name the known dwarf planets to you like Santa’s reindeer?

Ceres, Pluto, Charon, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris

Uh, that's only 6.

There are 45 known.

Another about 200 known candidates who may turn out to be dwarf, most of which *will* be dwarf.

Yes I did indeed. Doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with what I read though.

But disagreeing with it doesn't mean you can pretend it never said what it said, Steve. Yet you pretend it says other than it does and whine about this "strawman" post.

Disagreeing with it doesn't mean you get to make up what it says.

Is a person no longer a person if they were born by IVF or caesarian section versus “natural” birth?*

They aren't planets. No matter how they're born.

is a plant not a plant if it grows from cuttings instead of seed?"

They aren't planets, no matter how they're germinated.

Why then should a planet be a non–planet just because it formed beyond a certain distance?

That isn't in the definition of a planet. See above for how you don't get to make up a strawman merely because you disagree with what was said.

Note : there are thousands of confirmed Jupiter mass & gas giant planets in the Milky Way and beyond.

NOTE: The English alphabet has 26 letters.

"I would guess that “Wow” has a lot of problems – her / his trolling here being just one of them. "

Nope, I have a lot of idiots to combat, but that's barely a problem.

PS the definition of troll isn't "Won't let me win an argument".

"@45. Chris’ Wills : Yes. Exactly. Seconded. Hundred percent."

Oh indeedy, they do have trojans.

However, that doesn't mean they aren't planets.

So if that was the bit you were 100% agreeing with, then you're 100% wrong.

"the number of currently known dwarf planets larger than Pluto is zero"

WRONG.

6 is a handful. Perhaps there are 39 possible candidates, but only 6 are dwarf planets as of this day. Sedna is not a dwarf planet. We don't have enough data on it. Maybe Putin can send you there to report back on it.

Eris is smaller than Pluto. Therefore, Pluto is the largest known dwarf planet. Sicardy said so.

methane, if you aren't a troll, why do you live under a bridge?

"6 is a handful."

Indeed it is.

45 is not.

"Eris is smaller than Pluto."

Proof required, pls.

mike, if you're not an ignorant twat, why do you post like one?

This discussion is getting heated, but what's it all about anyway.

If there's one thing clearly shown is image no.8 (mass/density graph) is that there is no real way of distinguishing between objects in Sun's orbit. It isn't about size or mass or orbit only, it's just terminology. If Europa i.e. was in it's own orbit between Mars and Jupiter, it would be classified as a planet. Since it's not, it's Jupiter's moon. If Pluto was i.e. the size of Earth or bigger, regardless how far it was, it would still be a planet in classification. Doesn't really have to do with science per say.. it's our own conventions. That simple.

I do agree however with those who think that the whole classification system should be perhaps a bit more scientific. It is a somewhat arbitrary at the moment IMO. But at the end of the day it's just classification, people. You are arguing about if the line should have been drawn 2 cm lower, without any real reason.

Is same as arguing if one species of flowers should be categorized under rose family or tulip family... irrelevant really, as long as it's there for everyone to see and admire :)

"I do agree however with those who think that the whole classification system should be perhaps a bit more scientific"

It is scientific.

What is non scientific about it?

The definition is based on measureable features of the bodies that do not rely on earthican-biased presumptions and also are observable characteristics of the body that can be measured and tested.

It IS scientific.

I agree that non-planethood has NO BEARING *WHATSOEVER* on whether Pluto is a worthy body in the solar system for scientific and astronomic review.

See Bruno Sicardy's paper on the occultation of Eris. What's it like to live under a bridge?

Sinisa

Nice sentiment, but injustice is injustice.

"See Bruno Sicardy’s paper on the occultation of Eris."

See Pons and Fleischmann's paper on Cold Fusion.

"but injustice is injustice."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Why?

Why not?

@ Wow

I didn't say it's not scientific. I said IMO should be MORE scientific as is now IMO a bit arbitrary.
At the moment we chose between 4, 8 or 200, depending on what to include/exclude in the definition. We chose 8. I would also choose 8 over 200. Like I said.. it's classification. And all is good until one day we'll find solar systems with perhaps 40-50 bodies in our definition of planet. And then we'll change the definition again probably to keep to some managable number. Will our definition be based on science... of course. But still it has a lot to do with us ourselves. So it's 50% social as well as 50% science.

@ Mike

sorry but I see no justice or injustice in all of this. Justice is a human notion, and since no human has been affected or harmed by this, what is the injustice? If someone i.e. owned a piece of land on Pluto and by demoting it to dwarf status lowered the land value, then you would have something to argue about. I can understand your sentimental attachment to Pluto... but that has nothing to do with justice or law or moral values.

"I didn’t say it’s not scientific. I said IMO should be MORE scientific"

So I need a wetter glass of water to drink?

Sorry, unless you're claiming the definition isn't scientific, you're going to have to explain what "MORE scientific" means.

"At the moment we chose between 4, 8 or 200, depending on what to include/exclude in the definition."

Nope.

We choose the current definition because that keeps the definition useful to us.

We chose not to use a different definition because that definition would include so many objects in our own system that the definition becomes useless.

The current definition is the most scientific one.

"We chose 8. I would also choose 8 over 200. Like I said.. it’s classification"

And the choice WAS NOT "Lets have 8". It was "What definition works to keep the number of planets found by the definition useful".

If we'd chosen "Lets make it these 8" then that would be unscientific and tautological to boot.

THAT WAS NOT THE DEFINITION.

If Pluto had not been waay out there beyond the frost line, it would likely have been lighter than Ceres.

@ Wow
more scientific in order to give a precise answer to a following question:
- if an object of Mercury size was found beyond Neptune with cleared orbit, would it be classified as a planet? I think it would. That's our current definition. It is based on our solar system. What about if it's was 0.98 size of Mercury.. or 0.995.. where do you draw a line? In other words we use the sizes of our own planets. When we discover more and more of smaller planets in other solar systems, I'm pretty sure the definition will change. But not because science changed or some universal things. We changed. Thus, like I said before, it's 50% social.

You yourself wrote: "We chose not to use a different definition because that definition would include so many objects in our own system that the definition becomes useless."... And I agree with this 100%. Just this is not science.. this is social. And there is nothing wrong with it. That is what I meant by arbitrary. If we as a society were a bit dumber we would choose the definition that gives only 4. If our brains were more of a chess type, we would love the definition that has 200 items. I don't consider that 100% scientific.

"- if an object of Mercury size was found beyond Neptune with cleared orbit, would it be classified as a planet? I think it would."

Yes, it would.

"It is based on our solar system"

Only because you've questioned about a planet in our solar system. That's the only place you find Neptune. I.e. you're wrong because you're creating a tautological strawman.

If a planet the size of mercury were found around Barnard's Star more than 27AU from that star and had cleared its orbit, it would also be a planet by the definition.

AND NONE OF THAT IS BASED ON OUR SOLAR SYSTEM.

" What about if it’s was 0.98 size of Mercury.. or 0.995.. where do you draw a line?"

Where it is not massive enough to attain a near-spherical shape.

Which YET AGAIN has fuck all to do with our solar system and is ONLY about the physical characteristics of the body in question.

"You yourself wrote: “We chose not to use a different definition because that definition would include so many objects in our own system that the definition becomes useless.”… And I agree with this 100%. Just this is not science.."

WRONG.

IT IS SCIENCE.

Science is the useful description of the reality we see around us, which is why, for example, "supernatural" claims or other claims that are inherently untestable are not scientific: they can produce no useful conclusion.

"In other words we use the sizes of our own planets"

Yeah, you're a moron.

Look, if you don't like that PERFECTLY DESERVED label, here's a tip: learn what the fuck you're talking about BEFORE you type that crap out, M'kay?

In other words: your claim is aberrantly and monstrously wrong.

If Pluto, or any of those other dwarf planets, had been in an orbit cleared of any other major influencing body, THEY WOULD BE PLANETS.

If the earth, despite being much bigger than pluto, were in the EXACT SAME ORBIT, not merely "beyond Neptune", then the earth would be a dwarf planet.

Before complaining about the arbitrary nature of the definition, LEARN THE FRIGGING DEFINITION.

jeez man.. take a pill.. you'll get a heart attack

Nope, your fake concern is noted and discarded for the passive aggressive bullshit it is.

How about, instead of fake concern for a strawman attribution of me to attack, you decide to actually take some time to inform yourself BEFORE you spout yet more uninformed "opinion" on this thread?

After all, this should be a learning experience for you, and I want you to learn as much as you can.

Sinisa

The way in which Pluto was demoted by the IAU by ramrodding was very unjust and political. It had nothing to do with science. The definition was designed with the specific intent to demote Pluto and the by-laws of the IAU were not followed so that only lackeys of the the Executive Committee's cabal to demote Pluto were aware of what was going to go down. The few rational people who realized Pluto is and always will be a planet were grossly outnumbered as a result of this injustice.

Of course, to convince methane (Wow) of this would be like trying to convince him that living under a bridge is not the best abode for a human being. But, what the Hell, he likes living under a bridge, troll that he is, and who am I to judge?

methane

you have called me every name in the book, can't take the heat, huh? no wonder you live under a bridge.....those cool winds, huh? maybe i should try it sometime.....

"The way in which Pluto was demoted by the IAU by ramrodding was very unjust"

No ramrodding happened, mikey.

You lost. That's all.

" can’t take the heat, huh"

It's a comfortable 20C.

What is your source that says there are 45 known dwarf planets? Superman? Krypton is not in our solar system, methane, and it blew up a long time ago.

"Mike Wrathell
December 3, 2013

methane"

Irony:

"you have called me every name in the book, can’t take the heat, huh?"

"What is your source that says there are 45 known dwarf planets?"

Astronomers.

They are unpublished amateurs?

They are not recognized. It's just an urban myth.

Lost only due to ramrodding. The vote was a joke. You just choose to deny the facts.

"They are unpublished amateurs?"

No.

"Lost only due to ramrodding."

No, lost due to being wrong.

Let me know when the IAU confirms them. Urban legends don't count. Nameless myths.

Ah, so you believe the IAU when it comes to what's a Dwarf Planet, but not when it comes to what's a Dwarf Planet...

How does that work, mikey?

PS When the IAU say that Pluto is bigger than Eris, get back to me on which is the biggest.

Not much choice there, methane.

Never heard of Bruno Sicardy?

No disrespect to amateur astronomers. The point being these 39 or so so-called dwarf planets out there have not been confirmed by the IAU which is the only international body that names things and confirms discoveries. So to speak of them as if they are a done deal is premature. Furthermore, to throw out the 200 figure is even more premature. It seems like a red herring, but, at best, it is speculation of some sort, based on what, probability? Is that what planetary science has come to?

I can do probability, too. I think it is probable, that you, methane, will be flying off the handle in the next 48 hours and making a troll of yourself once again.

But, maybe not. Probability is not my forte.

Boo! Hiss!

Until you want to start insisting that dwarf humans aren't actually humans, I think you should admit that dwarf planets are planets.

What we need are better categories, like
(1) Terrestrial Planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth & Mars
(2) Gas Giants: Jupiter & Saturn
(3) Ice Giants: Uranus & Neptune
(4) Hadean Planets: Pluto, etc.

That's a lot more informative than making the silly claim a hydrostatically stable body orbiting the sun is not a planet.

There's no point in arguing this issue- you're arguing arbitrary definitions.

There can even be confusion and argument as to what constitutes a star- If it's massive enough to fuse Hydrogen into Helium, there's no question, but what about brown dwarfs that can fuse lithium only?

Let them be stars, too. Otherwise, they might get a complex.

You said it, Jan!

Since many scientists go by " Size does Matter " than Titan should be called a planet.

I love how distracted human beings are that distraction divorces them from what they actually are. Even the ugliest things have an intricate aspect of beauty and grandeur, however, and although distraction disgusts me, it turns out beautiful. (I would knock a psychiatrist cold with that punch. Ha, ha, ha.) This is coming from a non-human being, by the way, which is what I am. Every intelligence that is looking at this situation IS the situation. DUH! One IS the thing(s) one is looking at, perceiving and interacting with, the same as one is the perceiver/actor. The words of the article speak of elemental energies forming form itself, and I laugh constantly that human intelligence generally posits that primate intelligence is the only possibility in the vastness of space that harbors a superior form of intelligence. Read my lips: superior intelligence is everywhere and in all things. It's Omnipresent. Just because one may not be intelligent enough to perceive particular kinds of intelligence "out there," does not mean that intelligence is not "out there." Kapish? Thus, quit being so distracted that you don't know who/what you are. It entertains me too much! I laugh involuntarily. And that distracts me! You may have an infectious disease, and giving it to me, which threatens to turn me into the same thing(s) you are. But hell, on second thought, do whatever you will, and I will simply respond if it hits me just right. If not, I'll remain disappeared and nobody will know I'm here. Chances are, most of my responses will be mirthful, though, because I think your condition is comedic, even though it may seem as much as life-threatening to you-all. I am laughing at you. Ha, ha, ha. This is not cruelty. My laughter is moved 100% by nature, and nature is not cruel. Part of why I laugh at human gesticulations/foibles is because of the posturing that creates such widely divergent contrasts between fantasy and reality that it just cracks me up. Nothing is more vital than I am, for instance, yet virtually everything I come across says that there is plenty more vital than I. What said things are doing is denying their own existence and it has nothing to do with me. There is no way I can deny my existence. It's as close to me as the nose on my face. Yes, I have a nose on my face. Doesn't everything? Ha, ha, ha. If not, I just have it become that way, only for me, because I like me. Even more, I love me. So, all you humans as would like to dot so, go ahead and deny your existence, and I'll simply continue affirming mine until what, hell freezes over? Ha, ha, ha.

Earth was a captured COMET along with the other inner rocky planets. As " high-falutin" as this presentation looks and sounds, it's not necessarily correct. After all, animated charts and slick illustrations don't prove anything. Even I could pay someone to make a cartoon where Bluetoe kicks Popeye's ass and mops the street with his head, no matter how many cans of spinach he eats.

Ole Velikovsky was right about many things. Yes, he made some errors too, but who hasn't? Even the iconic Jew, Einstein, made a few boners along his way.

"We chose 8."

No, WE didn't choose 8. The astronomers of the world didn't choose 8. A total of 333 of the 424 people in a room in Prague, who had already violated their own bylaws by bringing a last minute resolution before the General Assembly without first vetting it by the appropriate committee chose 8. And an equal number of professional astronomers signed a petition rejecting that choice. Most IAU members cannot afford to attend the whole conference or even part of the conference. Those that left early were misled into believing a different resolution, the one put forward by the IAU's own committee, would be voted on. Dr. Owen Gingerich, who headed that committee, said in retrospect that had he known the General Assembly would vote on a different resolution thrown together at the last minute, he would have changed his plans to leave early. He didn't know because this last minute change was an act of subterfuge by a tiny group that wanted to get their way.

What kind of scientific organization does not allow electronic voting? These astronomers write complex computer models; certainly one of them could create a secure electronic voting method so that those who couldn't attend the General Assembly could still vote.

It isn't 4, 8, or 200 planets. At the moment, it's four (terrestrials) plus four (jovians) plus more (dwarf planets). The number of dwarf planets, like the number of exoplanets, is likely to remain in flux for a long time as new objects are discovered.

It is an injustice to mislead people into believing that a politically-motivated decision constitutes science. It is also an injustice to the general public to present only one side of an ongoing debate as fact when this is not the case.

All I got right now to add is that I am going with the solid count on dwarf planets. As they are confirmed by the IAU, my count will go up one at a time. There "may" be 200. There "may" be 300 or 400 or 433 in our solar system. But, a dwarf planet in the hand is worth two in the Oort Cloud or the Scattered Disk.

Pluto, the ninth planet, in name.

"All I got right now to add is that I am going with the solid count on dwarf planets"

Except that isn't the solid count of Dwarf Planets. That is the list of named dwarf planets. The IAU has a comittee to name them.

Pluto is a Dwarf Planet by the same people you are insisting are the sole authoritative source on what is a Dwarf Planet.

"No, WE didn’t choose 8."

Right, for entirely the wrong reasons, dear.

"Earth was a captured COMET"

No it wasn't.

"Since many scientists go by ” Size does Matter ” than Titan should be called a planet"

No.

1) "many" isn't shown to be a valid reason for this assertion
2) "many" isn't shown as being true in itself
3) Titan is a moon, not a planet

The Geophysical definition WOULD make Titan a planet.

It would make our moon a planet.

They are not.

So the definition cannot be the Geophysical one.

The definition is the one given by the IAU.

"There’s no point in arguing this issue- you’re arguing arbitrary definitions."

Actually, Mike and the other morons aren't arguing even that.

They don't even know the definition they propose, only that it keeps pluto as a planet.

"Until you want to start insisting that dwarf humans aren’t actually humans"

Why?

Planets aren't human.

"The point being these 39 or so so-called dwarf planets out there have not been confirmed by the IAU which is the only international body that names things and confirms discoveries."

NOT BEEN NAMED by the IAU.

And they define Pluto as a Dwarf planet and NOT a planet.

"There’s no point in arguing this issue- you’re arguing arbitrary definitions."

By the way, ALL definitions are, definitionally, arbitrary.

If it were not, there would be only one language.

Jan,

Protoplanetary disks are the pre-formed planet. Are we to call them "planet babies"?

The spilling of toxic chemicals and abuse of the planetary resources is abuse of planets, so should that be considered similar to child abuse?

We don't pay the planet for the work it does. Is that slavery?

Or are all those ridiculous, because planets aren't humans?

I know the geo def, methane. The unnamed dwarfs are also unconfirmed. Why are you such a cantankerous asshat?

"I know the geo def"

No you don't you moronic piece of shit.

You can go the other room now, you worthless dipshit. No one wants you here. You are a smelly, cantankerous cretin.

Sorry, was this your blog, dear?

See ya!

Bye!

When they originally made Pluto not-a-planet, the rationale was that its orbit intrudes on that of the next planet in, which seems good enough to me, but doesn't provide an opportunity to augment the C.V. like this article did.

No one said the IAU has to confirm the unnamed dwarf planets for them to be considered dwarf planets. What is needed, at least according to the geophysical planet definition, is sufficient observation to determine that these worlds are in hydrostatic equilibrium. In some cases, such as that of Sedna, there is uncertainty because the objects are so far away. If there is conclusive evidence an object is in hydrostatic equilibrium, then it is a dwarf planet, regardless of what the IAU says or doesn't say.

On several occasions, I have observed elementary school teachers adopting the term "baby planets" to refer to the dwarf planets. Why not?

We do in fact enslave and abuse the Earth via pollution and a factory model that insists on ever-increasing yields with no rest period. That isn't how the Earth works, and it risks depleting our soil and turning fertile areas into deserts. This has happened before. Humanity's current interaction with this planet is extremely dysfunctional and leading towards a mass extinction and a harsher climate for most of the planet.

Technically, you are right, of course, Laurel. But I do not want Pluto, or any other dwarf planet to have an asterisk after it. Oh, we have 8 planets, and then there is Pluto*.

In a perfect world, the IAU would do its job and there would be no need for you to mention a possible need for a new international astronomical body.

Anyway, how many dwarf planets are there besides the 6 the IAU has confirmed in your estimation? Wow, aka "methane," says there are 39 or so more. I did not think Sedna was a dwarf planet. I think the same problems Sedna has would also plague the other candidates, otherwise, the IAU would have confirmed them.

"What have we done to the Earth? What have we done to our fair sister?"

~~~~~Jim Morisson of The Doors

"What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences and dragged her down...."

"When The Music's Over" by The Doors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSMAWh6vnXo

"No one said the IAU has to confirm the unnamed dwarf planets for them to be considered dwarf planets. "

You mean nobody but mikey here.

Or are you calling him nobody?

2But I do not want Pluto, or any other dwarf planet to have an asterisk after it. Oh, we have 8 planets, and then there is Pluto*."

So make it

We have 8 planets.

That is truth. And no asterisk.

PS I thought you were buggering off. Again.

"On several occasions, I have observed elementary school teachers adopting the term “baby planets” to refer to the dwarf planets. Why not?"

Because people will then complain about child abuse when we send probes to impact on these babies.

And I was talking about the protoplanetary disk, not the dwarfs.

Bloody hell Wow, bro, you still trolling this thread and topic?

@95. Wow (3rd December , 2013) :

"Yes I did indeed. Doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with what I read though."-StevoR

But disagreeing with it doesn’t mean you can pretend it never said what it said, Steve. Yet you pretend it says other than it does and whine about this “strawman” post.

Wrong as usual Wow. I'm well aware of what Ethan wrote, I just don't agree with it for thee reasons I've already explained.

"Disagreeing with it doesn’t mean you get to make up what it says."

Funny coming from you given that's all you ever seem to do.

Also again complete misrepresentation of what I've said as I've come to expect from you bro.

" I’m well aware of what Ethan wrote"

Oh, OK, you're ignoring what Ethan wrote and making up a strawman to attack, then.

Is this better or worse?

"Funny coming from you given that’s all you ever seem to do. "

Yeah, a citation on that would be handy, dear.

Irony:

#176 StevoR
December 5, 2013

Bloody hell Wow, bro, you still trolling this thread and topic?

@106. Sinisa Lazarek :

"Is same as arguing if one species of flowers should be categorized under rose family or tulip family… irrelevant really, as long as it’s there for everyone to see and admire :) "

Except we're at a level much more basic than the equivalent of the species /genus divide. This is more like arguing whether roses are animal mineral or vegetable!

Clearly they're vegetable just as Pluto is clearly a planet not a star or asteroid! Saying otherwise is just, silly, really.

@99. Wow :

“the number of currently known dwarf planets larger than Pluto is zero”
WRONG.

Shouting in all caps doesn't make you right y'know, Wow - it is you who is wrong in your unsupported deliberately provocatively rude assertions as per usual.

Eris is about the same size as Pluto in radius, slightly but not very much more massive.

So yeah, the number is zero or maybe just one depending on how you define "larger".

Certainly there is no other ice dwarf that is significantly larger than Pluto in both size and mass yet discovered. After a long period of searching we haven't even added any extra ones the same size as Pluto suggesting objects its size are still relatively rare.

@132. Wow :

“What is your source that says there are 45 known dwarf planets?”
Astronomers.

Really? Which astronomers exactly? Citation very much needed.

@142. Jan Vones :

"Until you want to start insisting that dwarf humans aren’t actually humans, I think you should admit that dwarf planets are planets.

What we need are better categories, like
(1) Terrestrial Planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth & Mars
(2) Gas Giants: Jupiter & Saturn
(3) Ice Giants: Uranus & Neptune
(4) Hadean Planets: Pluto, etc.

That’s a lot more informative than making the silly claim a hydrostatically stable body orbiting the sun is not a planet."

Exactly!

Informally, we already have divisions amongst planets both in our solar system and beyond based on their size, orbits and compositions.

The IAU definition, incidentally, in a further example of its idiocy and uselessness rules out planets beyond our solar system altogether - a ruling that is, of course, appropriately ignored by almost everyone when talking about planets outside our systems showing just how wrong the IAU definition actually is.

To be scientifically useful a definition needs to be applied to new and unknown cases and help work out what object X gets classified as. Starting with must orbit only our star out of the billions around shows a pathetic lack of imagination and sets up a ridiculously narrow limit.

For broad categories such as planets (or animal or plant or mineral categories) a definition really needs to be much more inclusive than the opposite.

@ 158. Wow :

“Until you want to start insisting that dwarf humans aren’t actually humans”
Why? Planets aren’t human

I'm beginning to wonder if you are human, frankly, Wow.

To miss the point by such a colossal margin and fail to grasp what is meant by an analogy almost suggests you're some kind of spambot rather than just a particularly willfully obtuse or contrary troll.

No planets aren't people -but dwrafs of class X are all still consistently included in categories of object X. Being a small example of something doens't mean that something isn't something.

But then you really know that very well and are just posting here to irritate the rest of the people here aren't you, Wow?

@178. Wow : people can actually scroll up this thread and see what you and I and others have posted Wow. That's your citation.

Or maybe just one of them.

"“the number of currently known dwarf planets larger than Pluto is zero”
WRONG.

Shouting in all caps doesn’t make you right y’know"

However, typing in caps makes the word easier to read.

And being right is what makes me right in this case, you know.

Eris is about the same size as Pluto in radius, slightly but not very much more massive.

Neither of which was the claim that I said was WRONG. So irrelevant. Making a statement never made as if it were some form of referral to a previous statement is called lying, steve.

It's naughty. Stop.

What is your source that says there are 45 known dwarf planets?”
Astronomers.

Really? Which astronomers exactly?

Just fucking google it, moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_possible_dwarf_planets

Informally, we already have divisions amongst planets both in our solar system and beyond based on their size, orbits and compositions.

Formally, we have planets. 8 of them. And many Dwarf Planets of which Pluto is one.

Apparently, this is not allowed to stand, however.

"EXACTLY!".

To be scientifically useful a definition needs to be applied to new and unknown cases and help work out what object X gets classified as.

Which is why the geophysical defition fell down. Why the definition the IAU gives was accepted by those able to test whether the definition met those criteria.

But you refuse to accept those criteria unless it lets Pluto be a planet.

"EXACTLY!"

To miss the point by such a colossal margin

There was no point. Only rhetorical shiboleths of the whiney bunch.

Dwarf planets are not planets.

Dwarfism in humans is not a case of a human not clearing its orbit.

End of.

-but dwrafs of class X are all still consistently included in categories of object X.

Not dwarf planets.

The definition of dwarf does not require your assertion. You will be 100% incapable of accepting this, despite absolutely no ability to locate a citation proving otherwise.

Why?

Because you're a moron.

@168. Americanegro :

"When they originally made Pluto not-a-planet, the rationale was that its orbit intrudes on that of the next planet in, which seems good enough to me, but doesn’t provide an opportunity to augment the C.V. like this article did."

Actually it was known almost from the start that Pluto's orbit crossed that of Neptunes leading to speculation for a while that Pluto was in fact an escaped moon of Neptunes. This oddity was not considered cause for removing Pluto's status at the time.

Nor is planets having crossing orbits considered valid cause for removing them from the planets category now because for example we know of at least one exoplanetary system, HD 45364 b & c where two gas giant worlds have a similar situation to the that of Neptune and Pluto and both worlds are acknowledged as planets -see :

http://kencroswell.com/HD45364.html

The main "reason" people seem to have for removing Pluto's planetary status seems to be because there are a number of similar worlds nearby that are almost or in the case of Eris pretty much exactly as big as Pluto.

Funnily enough, we don't consider this cause for removing the planetary status of gas giants or rock dwarfs like Jupiter and Earth from planetary status when they too have similar worlds in their respective "zones" of our solar system. Although admittedly there are only three other examples of each as opposed to ten - perhaps fifty or more such worlds for the ice dwarf class of planet.

But still. It seems a matter of degree and principle here.

Having similar worlds nearby whether on crossing orbits or not shouldn't define when something is a planet any more than having similar animals of the same species nearby makes an individual animal not an animal.

This for "Wow"s benefit is an analogy NOT a claim that planets are animals. I'll spell it out for the troll here :

We don't say Earth isn't a planet even though it has Venus in a very close - especially as seen from the outer solar system - orbit nearby and these worlds have almost identical properties in many respects. (Eg. mass and diameter.)

We don't say Neptune isn't a planet even though it has Uranus in a similar orbit nearby and these worlds have almost identical properties in many respects. ( Indeed Neptune is physically smaller but more massive than Uranus so the question of which of those is"bigger" depends on what is meant!)

Therefore being consistent we have also surely got to say that we can't say Pluto isn't a planet even though it has Eris nearby and these worlds have almost identical properties in many respects. (eg. mass and diameter.)

IOW, having similar worlds nearby doesn't stop a planet from being a planet which seems to be the main "argument" for removing Pluto's planetary status.

The only difference is that there are more similar worlds like Pluto than there are like Earth and Neptune but this is not,I think, good or sufficient cause for reclassification because its just a degree in number not a fundamental property or definitional problem. It doesn't really matter because for example if we had ten Earths nearby we may describe our space as being crowded with earth-like planets but we'd hardly say they were all therefore asteroids instead!

"Actually it was known almost from the start that Pluto’s orbit crossed that of Neptunes leading to speculation for a while that Pluto was in fact an escaped moon of Neptunes. This oddity was not considered cause for removing Pluto’s status at the time."

It was thought that Pluto was much more massive, and it was the great mass of the presumed pluto that made it a "Planet".

Moreover, the larger asteroids were likewise not known to have a co-habiting cloud of other similar bodies, later called the asteroid belt. However, on finding one, that became the reason to change the (currently 23) planets back to 8. Nobody complained.

But Pluto, being found smaller than expected by a large factor and then finding it exists with many other similar bodies, such a collection being called the Kuiper Belt has meant that the astronomers, as they did with the Asteroids, created a classification of non-planet for the previously presumed planet Pluto.

And Lo, did the ignoranti shout!

"We don’t say Neptune isn’t a planet even though it has Uranus in a similar orbit nearby and these worlds have almost identical properties in many respects"

Indeed not.

Because both are dominants in their orbit, having cleared their orbit as per definition of planet, unlike Eris, Sedna, Pluto, et al.

"IOW, having similar worlds nearby doesn’t stop a planet from being a planet which seems to be the main “argument” for removing Pluto’s planetary status."

I guess if you make up what you see, you can see what you like.

Those of us constrained to humdrum reality have to merely look on at the lunacy of you and yours with wonderment and perplexity.

@ 183. Wow : Your source is wikipedia? LOL.

Gee, that's authoritative -Not.

"Neither of which was the claim that I said was WRONG. So irrelevant. Making a statement never made as if it were some form of referral to a previous statement is called lying, steve. It’s naughty. Stop."

Your claim was and I quoted you directly : “the number of currently known dwarf planets larger than Pluto is zero - wrong.”

The error - the wrongness here - was yours because Eris and Pluto are the same size (diameter) to within the error bars. It is true as I and others have said - with that supporting evidence - that there aren't any dwarf planets larger than Pluto - the number is zero. So, no lie on my part Wow, just an explanation and elaboration showing why your trollishly capitalised and unsupported claim of "wrong" was itself wrong.

"Formally, we have planets. 8 of them. And many Dwarf Planets of which Pluto is one. Apparently, this is not allowed to stand, however."

It isn't allowed to stand because there are very good reasons why your above asserted but unsupported claim of only 8 planets is wrong and why dwarfs planets logically must count as planets as much as giant and other ones.

"Which is why the geophysical defition fell down. Why the definition the IAU gives was accepted by those able to test whether the definition met those criteria."

Er, really? No. My point was the IAU definition excluded the main source of such new cases to which we have to ask the question - planets found outside our solar system . So no the IAU definition isn't good at all there and falls down completely on that point. Exoplanets are also planets no less than those in our solar system. A definition that excludes them isn't scientifically useful when the field of exoplanets is now one at the cutting edge of astronomy!

But you refuse to accept those criteria unless it lets Pluto be a planet."

I'd also reject any definition of animal that say a dog isn't an animal and any definition of a plant that says a rose isn't a plant - because any such definitions would clearly be ludicrously flawed.

"To miss the point by such a colossal margin .." [-StevoR]
There was no point. Only rhetorical shiboleths of the whiney bunch.Dwarf planets are not planets. Dwarfism in humans is not a case of a human not clearing its orbit. End of." -Wow

And here, yet again, you deliberately miss (or pretend to miss) the point completely, Wow. Because you are a troll.

No its not rhetoric, its logic.

Its also nomenclatural consistency which is important for understanding and teaching science.

Something that is a dwarf or small member of category X remains a member of category X - it isn't excluded from that category simply on the basis of its size.

This applies to animals, plants and everything else -including planets.

That's not merely my assertion that's how the field and its terminology works. We don't exclude dwarf stars from counting as stars, we don't exclude dwarf plants from counting as plants, so excluding dwarf planets from counting as planets would be and is illogical, inconsistent and wrong.

What part of this do you fail to comprehend (or will you pretend to fail to comprehend for trollings sake) exactly Wow?

D'oh. Messed up the italics there, sorry. Fixed version (hopefully!) here :

“To miss the point by such a colossal margin ..” [-StevoR]
There was no point. Only rhetorical shiboleths of the whiney bunch.Dwarf planets are not planets. Dwarfism in humans is not a case of a human not clearing its orbit. End of.” -Wow

And here, yet again, you deliberately miss (or pretend to miss) the point completely, Wow. Because you are a troll.

No its not rhetoric, its logic.

Its also nomenclatural consistency which is important for understanding and teaching science.

Something that is a dwarf or small member of category X remains a member of category X – it isn’t excluded from that category simply on the basis of its size.

This applies to animals, plants and everything else -including planets.

That’s not merely my assertion that’s how the field and its terminology works. Hence we don’t exclude dwarf stars from counting as stars, we don’t exclude dwarf plants from counting as plants, so excluding dwarf planets from counting as planets would be and is illogical, inconsistent and wrong.

What part of this do you fail to comprehend (or will you pretend to fail to comprehend for the sake of trolling to annoy others here) exactly Wow?

@ 183. Wow : Your source is wikipedia? LOL.

Which cites the original sources.

Oh, I get it: you're redefining what you want to ensure you aren't getting it!

Oh, you should have said! I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to give a moron what he never wanted in the first place!

The error – the wrongness here – was yours because Eris and Pluto are the same size (diameter) to within the error bars

Nope, the wrongness is the statement that Pluto is bigger than Eris.

Not in me pointing it out.

It isn’t allowed to stand because there are very good reasons why your above asserted but unsupported claim of only 8 planets is wrong

You keep claiming it's wrong, but you have nothing to substantiate that, only your "seemings" that you create out of your own psychopathy.

Er, really? No. My point was the IAU definition excluded the main source of such new cases to which we have to ask the question – planets found outside our solar system

Nope, the definition doesn't do that at all.

Please show where it does.

Specifically.

Something that is a dwarf or small member of category X remains a member of category X –

Not part of any definition of dwarf available in this universe, dear.

The IAU says there are 5 known dwarf planets.

No, they don't say that, mikey.

It's on their site, methane.

So it is, at least here:

http://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/

Q: How many dwarf planets are there?
A: Currently there are five objects accepted as dwarf planets. Ceres, Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea.

Perhaps he has a link to another page that contradicts that.

Not likely, David.

I agree, that was written tongue in cheek. And even if he had, I'll give you any odds you like that he won't even entertain the notion that producing it only constitutes a draw.

Thanks, Wow, i learned so much from your comments here, about planets and cosmos and that there are so many people who wont try to understand, just wont think what they are, minds clouded, shouting. Thank you!

"It’s on their site"

No it isn't.

"Perhaps he has a link to another page that contradicts that."

Indeed I do, Dai.

Odd that, innit?

"Q: How many dwarf planets are there?
A: Currently there are five objects accepted as dwarf planets."

Not saying there are only. Key words:

Currently accepted.

But look beyond the mine you want so hard to be all there is:

Q: Are there additional dwarf planet candidates currently being considered?
A: Yes. Some of the largest asteroids may be candidates for dwarf planet status and some additional dwarf planet candidates beyond Neptune will soon be considered.

Q: When will additional new dwarf planets likely be announced?
A: Probably within the next few years.

Q: How many more new dwarf planets are there likely to be?
A: There may be dozens or perhaps even more than a hundred waiting to be discovered.

Hmm.

Seems like the IAU say there are perhaps more than a hundred out there. And indeed the wiki link that Steve petulantly refused to read indicates that there are indeed many MANY more than a hundred.

Odd how you did not link to support your claim, which is not only because it destroys your "argument" that there are only a handful of dwarfs, but also because it shows that your attribution was false.

Even more amusing is Dai wibbling on with how you're right, mikey, but didn't actually appear to read it at all before arriving at the conclusion he so desperately loves to prove.

Odd that, innit?

Not at all. It seems entirely in character Bu thanks, your own words illustrate your problem far better than mine ever will.

"Not at all. "

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.

I have no surprise that you're running a hypocritical stance, dear.

Learn how to read, methane. I said known, not candidates. Why are you such s peevish imp?

Learn how to read, methane. I said known, not candidates. Why are you such a peevish, pedantic imp? Had I given the link, you would've bitched about that. Grow up and admit when you are wrong.

" I said known, not candidates"

Not good enough Mike. You should have said "confirmed" or "named", anything the unambiguously defined your position. Wow has asked you a question similar to "What was the largest island in the world before Australia was discovered, and you have given the moronic answer "Greenland". He would rather argue semantically to prove himself "right" than let the argument move on to ground where he exposes himself to the risk of being wrong, or even worse, exposing the gaps in his understanding.

There are more known that currently accepted.

And that is known.

But odd.

Mikey, IAU count Pluto as a Dwarf Planet.

Have you now decided that they are right??!?!?

They aren't accepted until confirmed, thereby becoming known.

Pluto's slight is another issue from this.

They aren't nonexitent or unknown until they are confirmed, mikey. They just have to be recorded to be known to exist.

Your claims about what was said was a mine and reformation of their statement to server your ideology.

A mendacious lie, in other words.

Dai:

"Not good enough Mike. You should have said “confirmed” or “named”, anything the unambiguously defined your position"

You mean like I said earlier, post 153.

Seems like you have selective reading capacity if it serves your childish needs.

What's your problem? Learn English before you post again, methane. There are five known dwarf planets. Deal with it, genius.

Where's your problem: learn how to read, moron.

There are more than five known dwarf plants.

No, there's only five known dwarf planets, genius. Take it up with your beloved IAU when you hone your reading comprehension skills, whenever that might be.

No, there are more than 5 known dwarf planets, you fucking moron.

But, hey, maybe you can explain why a body so similar to Pluto in every way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90482_Orcus

isn't a dwarf planet, you vapid and noisy retard?

Is it because it's too small? Well, Pluto is very close to the same size.

Is it because it has a companion nearly as big? Well, so does Pluto.

If you're trying to say that Orcus isn't a dwarf planet, what do you call it?

Because whatever you want to call it, you have to explain why Pluto isn't the exact same thing.

Orcus is not a dwarf planet according to the IAU. You are delusional.

Make your juvenile and petulant demands to the IAU. I'm not at your beck and call.

ROFL!!!

*MY* juvenile demands?

You will insist on the IAU being right on dwarf planets but not right on pluto being a dwarf planet.

The reason being that you want pluto to be a planet.

Orcus will be a dwarf planet if and when the IAU deems it deserves to be. Since it is nearing aphelion, it will probably be a while. Don't hold your breath, methane.

Someone besides Mike Brown needs to confirm things, methane. The IAU is the main group. Unfortunately, sometimes they let the worst part of human nature affect their actions, but they still are the body that names and confirms, so I don't have a lot of choice. I just wish they would do their fucking job without the bullshit.

Orcus is a dwarf planet, or not, whether the IAU meeting labels it or not.

"Someone besides Mike Brown needs to confirm things"

Already been done, mikey.

What? Ignorant again? You? With YOUR reputation?!?!?

Damn straight:

It was discovered on February 17, 2004 by Michael Brown of Caltech, Chad Trujillo of the Gemini Observatory, and David Rabinowitz of Yale University. Precovery images as early as November 8, 1951 were later identified

Aaaaaw.

PS, odd that you now defer to a decision by a selected committee on what constitutes a dwarf planet, planet, SSB and so on. I bet you won't be consistent in your assertions, though, will you.

poow widdw mikey....

I meant the IAU. Orcus sounds like it might someday be confirmed, but since it is so far away, probably not enough data for the IAU's liking. Whatever, it is not my field, nor my problem.

There is plenty of data on Pluto and more will be coming in, too, in the not-so-distant future.

Don't you have anything better to do than give me shit?

What about the IAU?

Pluto existed before it was observed. We didn't have to wait until the IAU named it for it to exist.

Really, you appear to have no idea at all but are flailing to avoid answering the question, mikey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90482_Orcus

Why isn't it a dwarf planet?

The IAU have already given the definition. Where in that definition does Orcus not fit?

Come on, you've already shown you don't know what the geophysical definition of a planet is, lets see if you know what the IAU definition is.

Or are you scared?

It's not my department.

How in the fuck am I supposed to determine if fucking Orcus is rounded by its own fucking gravity? Fuck Orcus.

So you don't know what the geophysical definition of a planet is, but still insist it's as good as the IAU one. You don't know the IAU definition of a planet, but think it wrong.

And despite not being your department when you're asked to give your "reasoning" behind your claims, you're still going to make those claims, aren't you mikey-poo?

Why?

Because the DK is strong in you and you're never going to let a piffling fact get in the way of your opinions, uninformed though they are.

I know both definitions, dorkus.

No, you don't.

You claim it.

But you don't.

Whatever you say, troll.

David L., here is my response to the IAU statement on this topic:
http://laurelsplutoblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/responding-to-iau-pluto-an…

I don't know who you are, Wow, but your manners are boorish, at best. SEVERAL people have attempted to have a rational, reasonable discussion with you, which you responded with insults, profanity, and an authoritarian demand that YOUR understanding of the IAU decisions about Pluto mean.
After New Horizons flew past Pluto last year, the IAU was willing to concede it as a planet again.
Then, REALLY confuse the mix, there is now evidence of another planet, larger than Earth, orbiting out beyond the Oort Cloud, perpendicular to the other planetary orbits. This is one of MANY advantages that science has over religion. With religion, you have to fit new data or observations to preexisting definitions, while science changes definitions when new data presents. Stop being so close minded and insulting to those who disagree with you, and instead try to have a grown up discussion for once.

AndI don;t know (or care) who you are.

The “tone troll” is a real critter. They are the most common subspecies of Internet troll, mostly harmless but super annoying, and easy to spot in the wild: they complain about the tone of a message, rather than its substance. They fixate on the allegedly poor attitude of anyone who challenges them.

I neither ask you to like it nor emulate it.

You are all for free speech but only the speech mannerisms you like. Mannerism is part of speech, retard.

"After New Horizons flew past Pluto last year, the IAU was willing to concede it as a planet again."

No they aren't, liar.

You have NO proof of your claims, yet feel free to call people names, now calling me moron and liar. You think I'M the troll? Your laughable ignorance chows that you are both a troll and a bully.
Remember that free speech is NOT free from consequences. If you were face to face with me, talking as you have to the people on this page, your LEAST consequence would be a broken nose and fat lip. This is not your blog, you are not god and you are not the head of the IAU, so you don't get to decide what definitions of "planets" people use. Get off your high horse, and deal with people intelligently, or get out of your mom's basement and get a job.

@Aslan B #237:

Rather than thuggish threats of violence, a better response to Wow would have been supporting your claim with a link.

“After New Horizons flew past Pluto last year, the IAU was willing to concede it as a planet again.”

But aslan isn't here for reason. They're here to tone troll and, failing that, thug out.

The fact that this is the internet makes aslan an internet hard-man. Which is quite pathetic.

And rather ironic, is it not, that aslan's first words are "prove your claims" when, as you point out, he gave none.

Truly LOLworthy.

Aslan, if you tried to beat me up, I'd just kill you.

Even if you were bigger and stronger, you have to sleep some time. Then I'll nail you to your bed and set your house on fire.

And toast marshmallows (I don't like popcorn much).

I didn't bother to include a link, since that wasn't the point of my comment. The point was, and still is, that rather than discuss things with people RATIONALLY, you immediately start throwing insults. That was your response to me. From my first comment, rather than even trying to debate the points, you called me a moron. And your most recent comment about burning my house down proves the point that you are nothing more than a cheap-ass bully. Even through the course of "discussion" with Mike Wrathell and Laurel Kornfeld, you never once cited any actual proof of your stance, you just called them names. You don't get to act like a chimp throwing shit and then claim the moral high ground.
Even when others made the comment that the two of you would have to "agree to disagree" you hurled insults. That sort of authoritarian power-over does nothing to advance mankind's knowledge of the universe. It only seeks to subjugate others to your beliefs.
Now you are pissed at me for calling out your dishonesty and bullying. Good, stay pissed, your opinion are easier to discount when you act like Trump.

"I didn’t bother to include a link,"

Because you haven't any proof of your claim, asshat.

" since that wasn’t the point of my comment."

What? Without evidence you have an evidentless claim. And a tone troll.

So we can discard the claim that the IAU is considering Pluto a planet by any measure, and that the topic of the thread "Why there are (and should be) eight planets in the Solar System " was necroed by you to whinge at someone clearly your superior about something you have needlessly invested your self-esteem into.

Well done, moron,

No, I was not "Tone trolling" I was calling out a bully who is too big of a pussy to do anything other than insult people.
As for you being my superior, you are not even superior to dog shit, let alone any human being.
As for whether the solar system should have 8 planets or not, more recent discoveries, like "Planet Nine" should put that to rest.

(three links to information about Planet Nine, in case you want to bitch that I didn't prove that either)

Granted, that is a two and a half year old article, not post-New-Horizons, but even in October 2014, members of the IAU WERE discussing re-designating Pluto as a planet. As for the assertion in the article that there were "no plans to put it on the agenda" that means NOTHING. Many things end up on business or government agendas that nobody planned on adding.

So, again either discuss things as an adult or piss off.

Hey, moron, you COULD have just said that you think that Pluto should remain a planet. No evidence would be required, then. But, no, you decided to make shit up, then when asked (nicely by the bunny, proving that being polite to you is not a working strategy and therefore irrelevant to you), you blabbered about how it wasn't your point.

If your point was to make baseless claims, don't make that point.

Either discuss things as an actual grown up or fuck off.

Wow:

"Either discuss things as an actual grown up or fuck off."

LOL right, the king of childish behavior telling others to act like an adult. That's right up there with expecting billionaires to give a damn about working people. What a hypocrite.

"No, I was not “Tone trolling” "

Yes you were. Here's a more complete definiton since you seemcompletely clueless about it

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.

The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.

"do anything other than insult people."

100% provably false. This claim is liable to the "black swan" created, as it is, by confirmation bias and thoughtlessness from those whose mental capacities are unable to believe anything they were not previously open to believing.

I.e. you.

"And your most recent comment about burning my house down proves the point that you are nothing more than a cheap-ass bully."

Not one for introspection, are you aslan?

"Remember that free speech is NOT free from consequences. If you were face to face with me, talking as you have to the people on this page, your LEAST consequence would be a broken nose and fat lip"

Can dish it out, you just can't take it.

Isn't that the character of a bully?

@Wow #246: You don't seem to be one for introspection either. Anyone who points out your obvious incivility gets arbitrarily labelled a "tone troll," as though that makes you right.

Incivility, foul language, and ad hominem attacks are your stock in trade, and do much to weaken, obscure, and negate any sort of sensible points you might be trying to make.

It really doesn't matter whether you're "right" if no one bothers to notice your rightness in the midst of all your wrongheaded prickishness.

Wow;
"Can dish it out, you just can’t take it.

Isn’t that the character of a bully?"

Calling people moron and liar, a smack in your mouth it a consequence in keeping with the offense. Telling someone that you are going to commit murder and arson:

"Even if you were bigger and stronger, you have to sleep some time. Then I’ll nail you to your bed and set your house on fire."

is the act of a psychopath and a sociopath. But then, the fact that you respond to EVERYONE that disagrees with you with insults and threats, you being a sociopathic psychopath comes as no surprise.

Uh, "point out your obvious incivility" IS "tone troll". Look at the definition.

It isn't a rebuttal to the argument, it's an argument creating itself.

" ad hominem attacks"

You don't know what the meaning of that is either. Better find out what words mean before you thrown them at others.

"It really doesn’t matter whether you’re “right” if no one bothers to notice your rightness in the midst of all your wrongheaded prickishnes"

And that, again, is the definition of tone argument. See above link.

Maybe I don't do introspection, but you don't do it either.

"if no one bothers to notice your rightness "

You want to be right to massage your ego, mike. That's what the use of this wording says to me.

You don't have to read my posts.

You don't have to emulate them.

You don't have to like them.

You can write your own, even if it copies the argument I made.

Because I don't own the argument and evidence. Feel free to use yours and express it in the tone you prefer.

And extend the same courtesy to me.

Or wallow in your own perceived perfection over me and get told what the hell you're doing wrong in trying that yourself.

Sauce. Goose. Gandger.

Oh boy, happy ('f'n') new year !!!

And for gosh sake, PJ, mind your language!"

:-)

&lt voice="Captain America" &gt And for gosh sake, PJ, mind your language!" &lt /voice &gt

:-)

(see if the faux markup appears now...)

*sigh*

This'll cheer you up, bunny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YssrjLMNP_Q

Linky no work, try this on youtube:

watch?v=YssrjLMNP_Q

Sorry.

@251
Sorry, WOW, slip o'th'finger .....
;)

Heh. You meant F1, for "Help", not Fn. Makes serfect pense!

Oh look. Pee wee is back.

Hi coward!

Talking to yourself again, Wow?

No,aslan, I have no need to say "Hi" to myself.

If you were vaguely hominid in intelligence (instead of a knuckl-edragging merkin butthurt over the "scary change" of pluto not being a planet), this would not have had to be explained to you.

Unless of course you were trying to be childish... Ironic.

PS Pluto isn't a planet. Get over it.

Well, when you said "Hi coward" I figured you had to be describing yourself.

As for Pluto's status as a planet, that people have opinions that differ from your is something YOU have to get over. You are no authority, nor boss of this thread.

Irony.

Turning up with a monikker from children's story and complaining about "childishness".

Irony 2: More ironic.

Turns up to insult me specifically, make one asinine and unsupported claim, then threaten me and insult me again ON A THREAD LONG DEAD. And complains about "You never do anything other than be mean!".

Irony 3: Irony with a vengeance.

Demands that I piss off.

And says "YOU have to get over having no authority on this thread.

Truly you a a fucktard of EPIC proportions, you 12 year old little tit.

Now if you want to continue being a spoled and spiteful little brat, go over here where the one with authority on this thread tells you to go with that offtopic bullshit:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

You lowlife little turd.

The Unlikely King of the Kuiper Belt

esiegel — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:25:08 +0000

The Unlikely King of the Kuiper Belt

"It is not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Although the innermost planets, from Mercury through Saturn, were known since ancient times, it's only since the advent of the telescope that we've discovered what really lives in our Solar System. Over the past four centuries, the wonders of not only the distant Universe, but also our nearby neighborhood, have been uncovered in spectacular detail.

Image credit: NASA and – I believe – G. Bacon (STScI).

The third and fourth largest planets were discovered, as were a plethora of moons around other worlds, a belt of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter (at the ice-line of our Solar System, or where the strength of the Sun is insufficient to move water out of its solid phase), and a Kuiper belt out beyond the final planet. (And the Oort cloud even beyond that!)

Image Credit: Oort Cloud image by Calvin J. Hamilton, inset image by NASA.

Although Uranus was discovered in 1781 by William Herschel and its bizarre failure to adhere to Kepler's laws led to the prediction-and-discovery of Neptune in 1846, it wasn't until 1930 that a lone astronomer, looking at pairs of images taken at different times, happened upon the serendipitous discovery of a lifetime.

Image credit: Clyde Tombaugh's images, with Pluto indicated by the arrows.

Even though it was the only world located out beyond the orbit of Neptune for nearly 50 years (until Pluto's largest moon, Charon, was discovered), it was recognized relatively quickly that Pluto was a harbinger for many more such objects, now recognized (and confirmed, since 1992) to be just one of a great many located in the Kuiper Belt. The other bodies began to exhibit a variety of sizes, shapes, and orbital characteristics, although they all had a number of properties that threw Pluto's "privileged" status as a "planet" into question:

similar, trans-Neptunian orbits in the same direction and with similar periods,
masses and sizes of the same order-of-magnitude as Pluto,
Pluto-like densities and surface properties, with lots of surface methane ice,
similar atmospheric compositions to Pluto, as seen by occultations, and
numbers that grew from "a few" to "dozens" to more than a thousand as of today.

This all came to a head in 2005, when it was discovered that Pluto isn't even the most massive object in the Kuiper Belt!

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Lexicon; modified from the NASA original.

That distinction belongs to Eris, which weighs in at about 127% the mass of Pluto. That discovery paved the way for a new classification scheme that included an additional class of Solar System objects known as dwarf planets, of which Eris and Pluto are the two most massive at the present time.

But when it comes to the King of all Kuiper Belt objects, none of these little monsters can stake that claim. Because there's one object that we don't normally think of as a Kuiper Belt object that has them all beat.

Image credit: NASA / Voyager 2. Aren't you glad the shutdown is over?!

This is Neptune, the outermost planet in our Solar System. No, it doesn't qualify as a Kuiper Belt object; it's a planet, just like you've always learned. But back in 1846, there were some awfully powerful telescopes in the world, certainly much better and bigger ones than were around in 1781 (when Uranus was discovered) or at any time before that. Back in 1781, there was only one telescope in the world -- commissioned in 1780 -- that had a primary mirror of two feet (61 cm) or more in diameter.

By time 1846 came around, the largest telescope in the world had a primary mirror that was six feet (1.8 meters) in diameter, and amateurs with no formal training -- like William Lassell -- were building their own two foot diameter telescopes themselves.

Image credit: National Museums & Galleries on Merseyside; model of Lassell's telescope.

The timetable for the discovery of Neptune was swift: Urbain Le Verrier announced his prediction for the undiscovered planet's position on August 31, 1846, and composed a letter to Johann Galle, director of the Berlin observatory. Galle and his assistant, Heinrich d'Arrest, looked for the planet on September 23, and discovered it that very night in one of the greatest accomplishments of all-time in theoretical astrophysics.

But news traveled fast, and back in England, William Lassell was eager to view the newly-discovered world.

Image credit: Tony Kroes of http://www.astroacres.com/.

Just 17 days after the discovery of the hypothesized new world that had occupied many of the world's greatest professional astronomers for decades, a virtually unknown and amateur telescope-maker discovered Triton, by far the largest satellite world of Neptune. (Although to be fair, it was the largest telescope in England at the time.) If all the Solar System's moons were compared to one another, Triton would be the seventh largest in size, behind only Earth's Moon, Saturn's Titan, and the four Jovian moons discovered by Galileo.

Image credit: NASA, Wikimedia Commons users Deuar, KFP, & TotoBaggins.

But -- up close -- Triton doesn't look like any other large moon in the entire Solar System! For one, every other large moon revolves around its planet the same way all the planets revolve around the Sun: counterclockwise, as viewed if you flew directly upwards above the Earth's north pole. But not Triton, which revolves around Neptune in the opposite direction!

In terms of density, it resembles Pluto far more than it resembles either Neptune or any other Moon in the Solar System. And in terms of atmospheric composition, it's virtually identical to the known worlds found in the Kuiper Belt.

Image credit: NASA / Voyager 2.

What does all this mean?

That Triton isn't a naturally occurring moon of Neptune, but has been gravitationally captured (by the same mechanism described here last week) from its place of origin: the Kuiper Belt. Even though it isn't currently in the Kuiper Belt, that doesn't stop it from being the largest, most massive, most accessible, first-discovered, and in many subjective ways, greatest Kuiper Belt Object of them all!

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Lasunncty, under the GFDL.

But it's real, it's spectacular, and unlike every other Kuiper Belt Object (so far), we've been there! That was thanks to Voyager 2 in 1989; take a look at this photo mosaic of a large chunk of its surface!

Image credit: NASA / Jet Propulsion Lab / U.S. Geological Survey, via Voyager 2.

If it looks cantaloupe-like to you away from the poles, well done; that's the semi-official NASA term for it! So the next time you think about worlds from beyond our planets, don't just think of frozen ice-and-rock-balls orbiting in deep space, nor only of the comets disturbed by passing gravitational bodies and hurled inwards towards the Sun, but also of the rogue worlds that migrate inwards and wind up captured by gas giants.

After all, if you didn't include them, you'd be missing out on Triton, largest of all the trans-Neptunian objects and the onetime King of the Kuiper Belt!

esiegel Thu, 10/17/2013 - 11:25

Tags

Very interesting. I hadn't seen this pic of Triton before. Do we have any idea of what makes the cantaloupe texture? Ice expansion of some sort, but certainly not water. It looks like there's highlands on the bottom of the pic, with some black smudges from what I assume are volcanic vents? It looks like they blow in the same direction. Does Triton have an atmosphere?

Too bad that in a few more billion years Triton will plunge into Neptune.

Dan, we will nudge a few small Kuiper belt objects into Triton to counteract tidal friction :)

-Ethan, there will be many more objects in the "scattered disc" component. Using the orbit of 1996TL66 as an example, a lot of BIG objects will be out there at 130 AU, and even if they are larger than Triton we will not see then until they return to perihelion...in a thousand years.

An object can be both a Kuiper Belt Object and a planet. Such are Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris, and even Charon, which can be considered part of the binary Pluto-Charon system. One classification does not preclude the other. The Kuiper Belt does not lie beyond the "final planet"; it includes the final planet, which currently is Eris. Also, Eris is 27 percent more massive than Pluto, not 127 percent more massive. Triton is likely a captured Kuiper Belt Object, but since it is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, it can also, like all spherical moons, be considered a satellite planet.

Ethan said Eris "weighs in at about 127% the mass of Pluto" which is the same as saying "27% more massive".

And that's one possible classification system, sure, but not the one in use. You could define everything that is round due to its gravity as a "planet" but I find it useful to distinguish between a planet and their satellites. Why not just call all round objects "round objects" rather than using the term planet? I also find it useful to distinguish between objects which gravitationally dominate their orbit and do not. This is the historical though unofficial way 'planet' was used; Pluto isn't the first object to be "downgraded" from planet once it was discovered to not be the dominant object in its orbit.

Of course this is just applying names to sets of properties for the sake of simplifying discussion and satisfying the human urge for classification.

The ultimate would be to eschew any nomenclature, and simply talk about "the set of objects with the following properties: { round, orbits a body other than the sun, icy }" rather than creating a special name for large icy moons, just as an example.

But we love the word "planet" for some reason.

"Why not just call all round objects “round objects” rather than using the term planet? "

Because a baseball is not a planet.

We already have a term for these things like Mars, Earth, Jupiter, and so on: planets.

We have to define what we mean by the word and as we find cases where the use of the word as defined leads to it being pointless, we refine the definition.

Planet used to mean "wanderer".

"simply talk about “the set of objects with the following properties: { round, orbits a body other than the sun, icy }” "

You obviously have a different definition of the term "simple".

How about we talk about "the planets"?

Isn't that simpler? It's a hell of a lot less word use.

and since "icy" is a solid state of water, cold compared to human comfort or a "hard stare", you have to define "icy".

And "Sun".

And "orbit".

And "round".

And the definition of "set"

And...And...And...

Or just say "planet".

"The Kuiper Belt does not lie beyond the “final planet”; it includes the final planet, which currently is Eris. "

Eris is not a planet.

Obviously, under the modern understanding of what a planet is, Pluto, Eris, etc. are not planets. However, is it possible that there could be a trans-Neptunian planet that has so far remained undetected? Or would a body large enough to clear its orbit be detectable via gravitational interaction on Neptune, Pluto, Eris or other outer solar system bodies? I guess such a hypothetical planet could not be located in the Kuiper belt since then it could not be said to have cleared its orbit, but could such a planet exist beyond the Kuiper belt without being detectable via interaction with known bodies?

I hope that we get to have orbiters around the ice giants - and Triton in my time.

"Because a baseball is not a planet."

Yes, to be precise I'd say "hydrostatic equilibrium", which you can understand "round" to mean in this context*. But also the moon is not a planet in our current nomenclature, so "planet" is not a replacement for the concept of objects in hydrostatic equilibrium.

"Eris is not a planet."

If you noticed, they were in essence proposing a new system of nomenclature where everything that is round is a planet. That is not the current definition, but it could be. The thing is, why use the word "planet" just to mean "round" when we already have "round". If we're going to use the word "planet" it should (and of course does) mean more than that.

"How about we talk about “the planets”?"

Because if you noticed, the set of objects I described are not planets or even a subset of planets. :P

The point is that "planet" describes only one interesting subset of properties objects can have in common. If you gave a name to every subset of properties someone might be interested in, you'd have a ridiculous number of names that nobody could possibly remember and it'd be anything but simple. And why get hung up on the nomenclature anyway since whatever set of properties you decide defines "planet", objects still have the exact same properties?

Of course I like the word "planet" and the current definition, but I know that's because of history and culture as much as anything. It's why so many people shit a brick over the "demotion" of Pluto -- "planet" has cachet that has nothing to do with the significance of specific objects or specific properties.

But if what I care about is objects that are round and orbit the sun, but not whether they cleared their orbit, then the term "planet" is useless because it's just a subset of what I'm interested in. I'd have to say "planets and". Or if I'm just interested in rocky bodies I'd have to say "rocky planets and..." then enumerate all the things that define the "and" to complete the set. Is that simpler than enumerating the things that define the set? No.

Maybe I should find the Neil Tyson video where he lays out this as the way he'd prefer to solve the whole issue. He probably sells it better than I do.

"[you have to define] “Sun”. And “orbit”. And “round”. And the definition of “set” And…And…And… Or just say “planet”."

You're kidding, right? To define planet you need to define all those things, and "clearing the neighborhood" besides!

Unless you're seriously suggesting talking about the "planets" are WITHOUT defining any of those things? So someone would know that there is a planet called "Mars", but not even the most basic of facts about it, the very facts that define it as a planet -- like orbiting the sun?!

If you give a name to a set of properties then you have to define those properties or the name is meaningless. And then you have to define the name in terms of those properties. So there's always one more definition this way.

Not that I care about that metric. Not sure why you would either.

* Which is appropriate when the degree of roundness implied by hydrostatic equilibrium is far greater than that of a queue ball, forget about a baseball. Just like "cleared the neighborhood" is perfectly clear when talking about planets due to the orders of magnitude difference between them and the orbits of any non-planet.

@ Sean T

Neptune was also discovered by gravitational influence and only then visually observed.

The problem IMO is once you get to Pluto and Kuiper Belt, there comes an issue from where do "wobbles" come from? It can be a single object messing with i.e. Pluto's orbit, or can be many. The fact Pluto got demoted is precisely because larger objects were found. As for a bigger planet. Well, "planet x" could be out there. I personally don't believe it. But it's possible to have a very big orbital period.. say more than 500 years. Last time it was "around" we didn't have telescopes. Like I said, I don't think it likely, but it;s possible.

Yeah, it was a stroke of good luck that Neptune and Uranus happened to be in the parts of their respective orbits where we could see Uranus speed up and slow down.

Had that not been the case, it might have been another ~80 years before we discovered Neptune, if nobody discovered it through serendipity.

* 80 years? I don't think that's right. There's a question -- how long between Neptune/Uranus interactions?

CB,

Uranus and Neptune are in an approximate 1:2 resonance; every time Neptune orbits the Sun (~165 years) means Uranus will make two complete orbits (~88 years each). The combination of these two things means that Uranus passes Neptune in its orbit once every 165 years: once around 1830, recently just prior to the turn of the millenium, and will do so next in the far future around 2165 or so.

You can see for yourself by using an orrery app; this one is my favorite: http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/orrery_2011_b…

Thanks, Ethan!

There is NO single "modern understanding, "current definition," or "classification in use for the term planet. There IS an ongoing debate between dynamicists, who believe a spherical celestial object that is not a star must be the dominant thing in its orbit to be a planet, and geophysicists, who believe that a spherical celestial object that is not a star is a planet, whether or not it dominates its orbit. According to the equally legitimate second definition, some planets gravitationally dominate their orbits (terrestrials and jovians) while other planets do not (dwarf planets). This does not make dwarf planets not planets at all. According to this definition, Eris is a planet; Pluto is a planet, and even Sedna might be a planet, in which case it rather than Eris would be the solar system's furthest planet. NO objects larger than Pluto have been found in the Kuiper Belt so far. Eris was initially thought to be bigger than Pluto, but in November 2010 was found to be smaller than originally thought and actually marginally smaller than Pluto though more massive.

The notion that we cannot have too many planets because that would mean "a ridiculously large set of names" that no one could memorize has no scientific merit whatsoever. It is akin to saying there cannot be billions of stars or billions of galaxies or that Jupiter cannot have 67 moons because no one can memorize so many names. Our solar system has whatever number of planets it has, and it makes no sense to try to artificially limit that number for the sake of convenience.

Spherical moons have many of the same properties and characteristics of planets, and some may even harbor subsurface oceans. The only difference between them and classical planets is that they orbit other planets instead of orbiting stars directly.

An object does not even have to orbit a star to be a planet. Several rogue planets have been discovered that orbit no star but just free float in space. Obviously, the can't "clear their orbits" if they don't have any orbits!

What makes the most sense is keeping the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star or free floating in space. We can then use subcategories to distinguish the many different types of planets: terrestrials, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, hot Jupiters, super Earths, satellite planets, rogue planets, etc.

Laurel: "There is NO single 'modern understanding', 'current definition,'"

Actually, there is precisely one current definition as defined by an organization representing enough astronomers to count as "official". Doesn't mean you have to like, or even use, that definition, but that's what it is. Given that there didn't used to be any such definition, then it's fair to consider whether dynamics should be part of the definition or not.

All I'll say on that is: The original meaning of planet was based *entirely* on dynamics, and in modern times the issue has come up before and was decided in favor of dynamics and orbital dominance when Ceres was first named a planet, then "demoted" just like Pluto when it was discovered to be only a fraction of the total mass in its orbit. So I think the current definition is more consistent with the historical usage.

But if you want "planet" to mean "round" and another name for large moon is "satellite planet", well, fine. I don't care about the word "planet" so much. It's just nomenclature. The objects themselves don't change.

"The notion that we cannot have too many planets because that would mean 'a ridiculously large set of names' that no one could memorize has no scientific merit whatsoever."

That's not what I said. I was talking about giving names to subsets of properties. Obviously each individual object is going to have a name regardless of whether it is a planet or not.

But your objection to what you thought I said is premised on the idea that the planets are the only names we'd care about and have to remember. Which is basically my point, that the word "planet" itself has cultural and historical significance that goes far beyond any scientific merit. Which is zero -- the name "planet" and the set of objects that fall in it is irrelevant.

After all, if you make "planet" not depend on gravitational dominance, the set of non-stellar objects in our solar system which are gravitationally dominant still has 8 members. And every other property stays the same, too. Does Vesta or Pluto not falling in the category of "planet" in any way change the scientific interest of these objects? No, and that's why we had/have missions to study these objects. What they are, and what we hope to learn from them, has nothing at all to do with what we *call* them.

So my point is: Why specify every single combination of properties -- which only considering roughly-binary properties leads to 3^n categories (each could be true, false, or don't care)? Why specify only some "special" subset of properties, which necessarily means failing to capture distinctions that may be important? You'll just end up adding adjectives and essentially doing what I propose when you want to distinguish between hot super earths and cold super earths, rogue ice giants and rogue gas giants. Are those going to get special names, too? Or maybe this style of nomenclature is ineffective for properly representing the breadth of objects out there?

" Does Vesta or Pluto not falling in the category of “planet” in any way change the scientific interest of these objects?"

Of course not.

However, Pluto was discovered by an American Astronomer, but I'm sure there's nothing relevant in that 8-)

"Yes, to be precise I’d say “hydrostatic equilibrium”"

Ah. Problem. No water :-)

"“[you have to define] “Sun”. And “orbit”. And “round”. And the definition of “set” And…And…And… Or just say “planet”.”

You’re kidding, right?"

No.

YOU DEFINED PLANET as "round object orbiting the sun".

Define orbit. Our moon goes round the sun. We pull it there.

Define Sun. Jupiter is near-stellar, producing a notable fraction of the energy it receives.

You didn't think this through and rather than consider it decided merely to go hogwild and ignore any possible thinking on the subject.

And then go ignoramus and try to imply that you were being sane in a mad world by going "Are you serious?"

Extremely condescending and moronic and lacking in any sort of rationality.

And, indeed a trolling comment.

Your idea was bad and you should feel bad. Get over it.

Wow: "Ah. Problem. No water :-) "

Ha ha?

"YOU DEFINED PLANET as 'round object orbiting the sun'"

Yes, and obviously all the terms needed to define planet must themselves be defined. They all also have reasonable definitions -- ones that are already understood in context.

YOU said that instead of going through this necessary exercise for defining a word: "Or just say 'planet'."

Which, in the case where "planet" has a definition, necessarily means also defining the terms used to define planet, making that statement idiotic because it's acting like it's an alternative while it's actually not.

OR you avoid having to define the terms that define planet by not defining the word planet so it doesn't mean anything, which would be even more stupid, just absolutely idiotic.

So you either have the same "problem", or avoid the "problem" by creating a real (stupid) problem. Good job!

"You didn’t think this through"

Once again you accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of, exacerbated by the accusation itself. It's amazing how often you fail to connect two thoughts together and thus fail to understand a simple point. Even more weird is how it consistently happens when the point being made undermines your own.

"Your idea was bad and you should feel bad. Get over it."

Your attempt to show this was stupid and you should feel stupid. You have to define 'Sun' and 'orbit' in any sane discussion of objects in the solar system. It is not in any way a reasonable objection.

Come back when you have a real point. Try thinking about it, first, though.

"However, Pluto was discovered by an American Astronomer, but I’m sure there’s nothing relevant in that"

Yep, discovered by an American, and honored by Disney in cartoon dog form.

But yeah, clearly irrelevant trivia. =D

"YOU said that instead of going through this necessary exercise for defining a word: “Or just say ‘planet’.”"

Yup.

It's a hell of a lot easier to say than "a round object that orbits the sun that is in the list of {....}, isn't it.

"Planet"
vs
"a round object that orbits the sun that is in the list of {....}"

The point is the the first one is one people use. The second one is not what astronomers use, but similar, however they STILL have to talk to non-astronomers. Where they'll use "Planet".

Your "alternative" throws out planet and then goes even worse than the current definition and ensures that nobody will bother to change.

They'll STILL call it planet.

The astronomers have a definition. It ISN'T yours.

But despite that definition, "Planet" will remain used. If anyone needs to know what it means, they can look it up.

Most won't give a monkeys.

And for teaching kids, "Planet" will mean
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune

"A list of things that are planets".

It will not tell you how to decide whether Planet X is a planet if ever it's found. Neither will yours.

The AU version of the definition of the planet WILL.

So your alternative throws that baby out and then decides to put dry ice in instead of water.

And call it an improvement.

Really?

I always thought Pluto was Goofy...

snrk.

"The astronomers have a definition. It ISN’T yours."

Wait, what? As I've been saying from my first post I think gravitational dominance is an important property for defining planet. I AM using the astronomer's definition for "planet" and never suggested otherwise. I said "yes" when you gave that example in your one-previous post because I thought it was just an example, not the foundation of half your issues!

Also, where did that "in the list of {}" nonsense come in? Arbitrary lists are not the kind of property I'm talking about.

Now lets talk about the other half of your issues, which are from not defining planet at all.

"however they STILL have to talk to non-astronomers."

Yes, I know. And why do non-astronomers care that astronomers use the word "planet"? Because of that historical and cultural significance I keep talking about. Keeeep talking about. That's the only reason. It's the only reason we teach kids specifically about this particular set of objects, and not just interesting objects in general -- though even when I was first introduced to them, it included that they were big round objects in space that went in circles around the sun, as opposed to the asteroid belt which was a bunch of smaller objects that went around the sun. Do we really teach kids "this is the list of planets" and when they ask "what's a planet?" teacher says "it's the things in this list"? Sounds like nonsense to me.

Anyway, scientifically, there's no reason to care about what objects qualify as "planets". That name has no inherent significance. The set of properties it is defined as may or may not be significant to any particular slice through the population of solar system objects someone is interested in. That's why I said "ideally".

Trust me, as someone who works with x86 on a regular basis, I know the difference between what would be "ideal", and what is "practically necessary" because of history.

So, accepting that the word "planet" will remain in our vocabulary and that therefore a definition most in keeping with its past unofficial use is appropriate, do you have any objection to a hypothetical world where the word "planet" isn't carrying along that baggage, and instead we only worry about objects with a set of properties we're interested in?

Nothing stops you from assigning a name to your favorite set of properties. The point is that there'd be no significance other than the properties it's defined as, which would also be the most clear and precise way to communicate the concept. So no fights over definitions that ultimately don't matter.

"It will not tell you how to decide whether Planet X is a planet if ever it’s found. Neither will yours."

Now that's just silly. Of course "my" definition (reading here the one you imagined I was proposing) would tell you how to decide. Just like the IAU's does. Any definition that consists of having a set of properties allows you to know which objects fall under it by which objects feature that set of properties. Duh.

Of course if you instead meant the case where I'm not defining "planet" at all, then duh it won't tell you what's a planet, because the whole point is it wouldn't matter.

"Wait, what? As I’ve been saying from my first post I think gravitational dominance is an important property for defining planet"

The defence of your "idea" isn't made any more valid by saying "I just listed the names of the known planets the same as the official one!".

Your idea is pointless, a better one has already been done by experts, and nobody other than you thinks throwing away the word "planet" is a good idea.

Get over it.

Of course, Pluto and Ceres are planets. The IAU Executive Committee decided to ram a rancid resolution down the throats of the 400 or so members who attended the last day of the Prague General Assembly on St. Bart's Day 2006. Another massacre was committed, just ask Mike Brown who thinks he killed Pluto. The IAU's defintion of a planet is horrid, and many planetary scientists have rightly rejected it. If you want to kowtow to such horridness, they is your choice. I choose not to kowtow to an organization that whose Executive Committee has sent impish emails to me, full of arrogance; and, I must add, I know one member who said they were pressured to vote to demote Pluto at the threat of the destruction of their career as an astronomer. If that does not make you think the definition is flawed with subjective and possibly political considerations, then you are a lackey. Alexis de Tocqueville once said the worst insult you can hurl at someone is to say that they have "the soul of a lackey." I suggest you reconsider your relationship to the IAU.

If Earth was as far out as Pluto, it wouldn't be a planet, either. As Dr. Alan Stern said (paraphrasing), that would be absurb for planets are based on Earth.

and also absurd,......

Good article Ethan -cheers.

Although Triton is more an exiled ex-King than a current one.

As for the big planet Pluto debate, I think Dwarf Planets are as much still planets as dwarf stars are dwarf stars are still stars.

(And like with stars dwarfs are more common than giants.)

The IAU definition is controversial and many , even professional astronomers disagree with it for a wide range of reasons.

The IAU got it wrong in many ways because for starters they automatically excluded all planets outside or solar system and let's face it this breaches the whole Copernican principle and is totally unjustifiable.

It also by definition (literally!) excludes orphan planets which formed far from any star or were ejected from their suns early or later in their history.

As #28 Mark Wrathell points out the IAU definition means that Earth would stop being a planet - and Pluto would become one - if their orbits were swapped. Clearly that situation is nonsense and a planet is a planet wherever it's found.

Furthermore just because there's a lot of something in a relatively small area doesn't mean it stops being what it is. Just because you have a zone with a lot of a certain type of planets (e.g. Pluto, Eris, and the other ice dwarfs) deosn't make them not planets for the same reason that having a zone full of certain types of plant eg. a grassland means that grass isn't a plant because its so common there.

The IAU definition is clearly fatally flawed and will have to be changed (itis already effectively ignored every time we talk of planets around other stars,etc ..) and the sooner this happens the better.

The alternative, new definition I'd suggest? Well it should be simple, easily determined and clear. I'd say an object is considered a planet if it meets three basic criteria :

1) Never self-luminous via shining by natural nuclear fusion thus not a star.

2) Gravitationally rounded by its own mass and thus not an asteroid or comet nucleus or other small body.

3) Not directly orbiting another planet and thus not a moon.
(note there are almost certainly cases where two worlds mutually orbit each other and in these cases both worlds would count as a double planet. This may be the case for Pluto and Charon.)

So Pluto meets these criteria, so does Eris, so does Earth and Jupiter and so on.

Yes, this means there's a lot more than just nine planets in our solar system - so what? It makes sense to consider it divided into three zones -the rocky planets one (Mercury to Mars), the gas planets zone (Jupiter to Neptune) and the ice planets zone. (Pluto to Sedna.)

I think this best reflects astronomical reality and is the way to go -and I also think the current temporary definition will be one that future children look back on with baffled astonishment that the IAU could embarrass itself so badly and come up with something so ridiculous.

After all, Pluto has all the features of a planet as we usually consider it - moons (more than all the inner worlds put together!), internal differentiation, an atmosphere even weather - methane snow and perhaps rings as well. If its not a planet then nothing is! ;-)

"The IAU definition is controversial "

No.

The only reason for it is something other than it being the one planet discovered by an American.

The IAU decision is no more constroversial than the re-definition of the inch to be exactly 25.4mm.

@ ^ Wow : "Not controversial" - seriously?

Nonsense. If it wasn't controversial we wouldn't still be talking about it! It is very much a controversial issue and one that argued about by a whole lot of people - including many from outside the USA like me (I'm an Aussie.) and disputed by serious professional astronomers as wellas those in the public.

For instance, Alan Stern among many other experts who were excluded from the last minute IAU vote* has flatly stated that the IAU's decree was :

“ ... idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision.” (Alan Stern, P.28, ‘Astronomy Now’, October, 2006.)

After the debate a huge number of objections were raised by astronomers of all levels and the general public too. Many modern astronomers still reject the IAU's definition with some planetary astronomers going as far as including Vesta as the smallest terrestrial planet. (Read in an article on that in an astronomy magazine which was publsihed a while ago - forgotten exact name & source but can find later if you want.)

But, really think of it this way, the main "logical" objection that Pluto-bashers seem to have against counting Pluto is that it is that there are other small similar ice dwarf planets such as Eris, Haumea, Sedna etc .. around it.

Or to put it algebraically, X stops being X when surrounded by fellow Xs.

If this "logic" were followed then people would stop being people as soon as they joined together in a crowd! ;-)

The anti-Pluto "logic" really is that silly and I hope that example shows why the IAU got their definition terribly wrong.

* The lack of democracy of the Pluto / Planet definition vote is clear by the fact that of the 10,000 IAU members only 2,500 attended the Prague meeting and of those 2,500 only the merest handful – just 424 actually got to vote making therefore a very unrepresentative decision. Notably a number of key Pluto & outer solar system experts incl. Stern weren't present and thus unable to put an opposing case at that occasion.

Minor correction to my #32 :

the main “logical” objection that Pluto-bashers seem to have against counting Pluto is that it is that there are other small similar ice dwarf planets such as Eris, Haumea, Sedna etc .. around it.

By "around" I meant "nearby" - for a certain value of nearby! These large ice dwarf planets (Pluto, Eris, Makemake, etc ..) are still spread very far apart in space - much more so indeed than the inner planets.

(There are also a few typos and grammar stuff ups but I hope you forgive me and get the gist anyhow.)

Which leads me to suggest the following thought experiment - if the inner solar system was more crowded with planets like Earth and Venus, perhaps in orbits that cross each others* do you really think that would stop them being counted as proper planets? Ditto, what if Jupiter had another two or three or five or ten similar gas giants crossing its orbit or in a similar zone in perhaps a hypothetical extra gas rich and chaotic alien planetary system? How many nearby worlds and how close before a planet of whatever category - gas giant, rock dwarf or ice dwarf - ceases to count as a planet?

I think the answer is that however many planets (whether Earth-like, Pluto-like or Jupiter-like) there are nearby - and don't forget we're starting to find some pretty crowded exoplanetary systems and more no doubt are out there - a planet is still a planet.

If anyone disagrees then please explain why and what you think we should call such planets in such circumstances then.

I'd also like to note this article by Ken Croswell :

http://kencroswell.com/NinthRockFromTheSun.html

providing his alternative definition and argument because I think its well worth reading and contemplating in this context.

Plus Ken Croswell asks a couple of great thought-provoking questions on his site which I'd also like to link here if this is okay :

http://kencroswell.com/PlutoQuestion2.html

Hope it is and apologies and please let me know if it's not Ethan Siegel.

(Not sure how many links I can post at once without triggering moderation or spam filter hence this separate comment.)

PS. Click on the articles and scroll down to find the first and also fascinating Pluto question there. If you want to naturally but I'd certainly recommend it!

"By “around” I meant “nearby” – for a certain value of nearby! "

Well if there were no value for "nearby" the word would have no meaning, would it.

You're insisting on one of the planks of denial here (an impossible standard) because you DO NOT WANT Pluto excluded.

If, as you claim, you have no problem with having dwarf planet == planet, then why the contortions of logic to insist it must be treated differently.

Pluto isn't a planet.

Get over it.

"@ ^ Wow : “Not controversial” – seriously?"

Yes.

Seriously.

* (From #33) "if the inner solar system was more crowded with planets like Earth and Venus, perhaps in orbits that cross each others.. "

This was, in fact, almost certainly was the case early on in our solar system's history hence Earth's Moon's formation among other things and could become the case again later on in solar systems evolution as well - see :

http://kencroswell.com/MercuryCrash.html

Suggesting that Mercury could eventually end up colliding with Earth due to gravitational perturbances accumulating and causing a chain reaction of sorts over aeons.

"This was, in fact, almost certainly was the case early on in our solar system’s history"

And before the sun coalesced, there was no earth to reference "wanderers" to.

Empty, Stevo. Completely empty.

Did you know that there was no language of humans to name things in those dim and distant days?

True story!

@ Wow :

You keep making assertions without logical argument or examples.

Why exactly may I ask do you think Pluto isn't a planet?

Where exactly have I erred in logic or fact in your view?

Could you please answer the hypothetical questions I asked in comment 33?

Also please tell me if you think that having enough of also Xs around sudden somehow makes X into not-X? (E.g. if enough people gather into a crowd do they stop being people?) Because that's the main reason I see for people asserting that Pluto isn't a planet - and you should by now see why that claim is illogical and even ridiculous.

@ 38. Wow : "Did you know that there was no language of humans to name things in those dim and distant days?"

So by that "logic" of yours there all of palaeontology is out of business because we can't name dinosaurs and trilobites and all these other things that still existed long before we did - let alone have cosmologists discussing the Big Bang!?

There's language we use now and that's why we an discuss the past on whatever scale we choose.

PS. @Wow : Did you read the links I've provided for you and try answering Croswell's Pluto questions? How did you do and what do you think of them?

StevoR says, "It makes sense to consider it divided into three zones -the rocky planets one (Mercury to Mars), the gas planets zone (Jupiter to Neptune) and the ice planets zone. (Pluto to Sedna.)"

I guess that rules out Ceres as a planet.

And hot Jupiters are ruled out from being planets.

@ ^ Wow : No. Because I was talking here only about the structure of our solar system. Other planetary systems can and do have other ways of being organised including Hot Jupiters close in.

@42. Richard S. : No, I'd count Ceres as among the inner rock dwarfs.

Stevo, you're not listening.

Your new "explanation" is now that you were going to define planets as "only those things orbiting OUR sun". Well, that makes your new definition even MORE worthless.

PS where the effing eff do you get the new "rocky dwarf" shit from?

How about calling Pluto a "rocky dwarf" too?

Oh, no, that won't do because Pluto has to be a planet, right?

@^ & 45. Wow. No. That's not what I'm saying at all. The exact opposite.

It is the current IAU definition that defines "planet" in that way as I think I've already noted. Read a bit more closely, mate.

As where I get rock dwarf from, hmm. do the words "gas giant" ring any bells for you? Plus yellow dwarf, blue dwarf, white dwarf, red dwarf etc .. ;-)

Makes sense to call relatively small rocky planets "rock dwarfs" following that precedent and I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to come up with that term.

There's probably also a case for calling some rocky sure Earth's "rock giants" and some other so-called super-Earth's that may be more like mini-Neptune's gas dwarfs in fact I believe Sara Seager suggested that at one stage.

Seeing as I've answered all your points, you care to reciprocate and finally answer my earlier questions in this thread in comments 33, 39, & 41?

(Or you just trolling bro'? Kinda looks that way to me.)

"It is the current IAU definition that defines “planet” in that way as I think I’ve already noted. "

So when did you change from:

"The IAU definition is controversial and many , even professional astronomers disagree with it for a wide range of reasons."

To an "I agree with the IAU's definition"?

"As where I get rock dwarf from, hmm. do the words “gas giant” ring any bells for you?"

Yes. Gas Giant does ring a bell. It's been used for decades. However, care to elaborate how "Gas Giant" defines "rock dwarf"?

@Wow #46: Sometimes its hard to tell when you are being rhetorically dense, vs. whether you really are as obtuse as you appear.

Let's play a little game. Describe a non-luminous macroscopic astrophysical object. Give it a two word label of the form . The first adjectival noun may be chosen from the list {rock, liquid, gas, ice}. The second adjectival noun may be chosen from the list {dwarf, planet, giant}.

Notice that the construction and the form of each label is the same. Anyone (else) with a reasonable grasp of English and an ability to recognize patterns would have figured that out for themselves, given StevoR's writing.

Yes, I am aware that cromulence can indeed become a legitimate word, Mike.

And I likewise also understand that "rocky dwarf" means "a rocky small planet" in this context.

Still, thanks for telling me shit I know. Care to answer the queries I *did* have? You know, the ones I actually wrote, rather than ones you think I missed out?

TIA.

Mike, if you're looking for questions not asked, why not "Why is it you think that all solar systems must have inner rocky planets, then gas giants then ice?".

Especially odd to consider when I mentioned Hot Jupiters (which would be in the "rocky planets" area) but summarily pooh-pooh'd by Stevo.

Did your gimlet stare not go that far?

"Trust me, as someone who works with x86 on a regular basis, I know the difference between what would be “ideal”, and what is 'practically necessary' because of history."

Haha. That's a good one. I'm going to remember it.

@ 48. Wow :

"So when did you change from: “The IAU definition is controversial and many , even professional astronomers disagree with it for a wide range of reasons.”To an “I agree with the IAU’s definition”?

I didn't. I totally disagree with the IAU definition for teh reasons I listed in comment #30 including :

" .. The IAU got it wrong in many ways because, for starters, they automatically excluded all planets outside or solar system and let’s face it this breaches the whole Copernican principle and is totally unjustifiable. It also by definition (literally!) excludes orphan planets which formed far from any star or were ejected from their suns early or later in their history.

Yeesh, that was only like the very first point I actually wrote immediately after the quote you gave there! How did you miss that?

"Yes. Gas Giant does ring a bell. It’s been used for decades. However, care to elaborate how “Gas Giant” defines “rock dwarf”?"

By contrast. You have gigantic gas giant planets and then you have the rocky worlds that are dwarfed in comparison just like you have blue giant stars that dwarf yellow dwarf stars such as our Sun and this has been the conventional astronomical terminology for a long time now so keeping to that seems eminently reasonable.

@50. Wow : "Care to answer the queries I *did* have? You know, the ones I actually wrote, rather than ones you think I missed out?"

What, you mean just like how you've rather hypocritically failed to answer every question I've asked *you* Wow?

How about you answer the following questions that have already put to you & are being asked thrice now :

1) Why do you think Pluto is NOT a planet precisely?

2) Did you read the links I’ve provided for you and try answering Croswell’s Pluto questions? How did you do and what do you think of them?

3) Do you you think that having enough things that are X together suddenly somehow makes X into not-X? (E.g. if enough people gather into a crowd do they stop being people?)

@51. Wow : "I mentioned Hot Jupiters (which would be in the “rocky planets” area) but summarily pooh-pooh’d by Stevo."

Wow, you sure do get get it wrong don't you? Your lack of comprehension of what I've clearly stated amazes me. I've got nothing against Hot Jupiters and have actually used them to support my case here.

Planets come in a whole lot of varieties covering a vast range of sizes and orbits such as Hot Jupiters, rock dwarfs, gas dwarfs, gas giants, ice giants, ice dwarfs etc .. and *all* of these are still planets. Whether they are Hot Jupiters or ice dwarfs or whatever. The diversity in planets size, orbits, etc .. is like the diversity in animals, plants and stars. Ie. very broad indeed. ( Analogous to the differences in size between Blue Whales versus Bed Bugs, Sequoia sempervirens (Giant Redwoods) to algae, Betelgeuse to the Crab Nebula Pulsar.)

"Your lack of comprehension of what I’ve clearly stated amazes me. I’ve got nothing against Hot Jupiters "

Irony. Definiton. Claiming someone else has clearly not comprehended what was said and then does precisely that in their following sentence.

You see, numbnuts, the problem here isn't that you made up the name rocky planets, nor that you don't like Hot Jupiters, but that the presence of Hot Jupiters in what you have "defined" planets to be: the rocky planets near the sun, gas giants further out and ice planets in the distance, means that there can be no planets unless they are icy ones after the Hot Jupiter.

You pooh pooh'd there was any problem with your assinine "definition" crafted solely to keep Pluto in as a planet (moronically, by merely saying "it will be this list" which apparently would be updated if any new ones were found, but cannot be updated for Ceres to be added nor updated to remove Pluto. By edict alone).

Is this getting through that thick skull now?

Wow

Try not to go troll on us, okay? Calling people "numbnuts" is contemptible given the circumstances. Someone thinks Pluto and the other dwarf planets are planets and you get your panties in a bunch and start name-calling? Really? Are you a lackey of Mike Brown or Mike Brown himself perhaps?

The IAU ramrodded that resolution down the throats of the remaining attendees of the 2006 GA on the last day of it, without proper vetting or notice, and one member has stated publically that he was threatened with the destruction of his astronomical career were he to side with Pluto. Does that not goad your conscience?

There should be three sub-classes of planets. Jovian, terrestrial, and dwarf. Sedna may not be a dwarf, as far as I know. By the way, the name is Mike, not Mark.

Try to be succinct, people. Be kind to those who want to be in this discussion. Everyone has an opinion. Share it, but if you want to write a novel, send those to a literary agent.

Have a nice day.

Well, Mike, being deliberately obtuse, ignoring what's said to say something else, and assuming incompetence in your rephrasing is also contemptible.

I guess contempt can be found all over the place, eh?

Pluto isn't a planet because any definition that doesn't special plead Pluto in includes planets that make the numbers ridiculous or excludes Pluto.

"rocky planets" aren't going to be a definition of planet any more than "Chimpanzee" is going to be a definition of a simian.

"The IAU ramrodded that resolution down the throats of the remaining attendees of the 2006 GA"

Like the Senate "ramrodded a resolution" down the throats of the Republicans?

When those remaining attendees are going to dig their heels in because their sense of national pride is more important than resolving a classification problem, then of course it's going to be "on the last day".

By the way, using that language is contemptible. Just letting you know.

And lastly, Steveo's "definition" was no improvement over it, becoming merely a list of "things we've named that are the ones I was taught in school so I won't be wrong".

"There should be three sub-classes of planets. Jovian, terrestrial, and dwarf."

THERE ARE.

However, the definition of planet needs to be made for you to make SUBCLASSES of *PLANETS*.

Which was why "rocky planets" was no damn definition of planet at all.

That you are extremely partisan is entirely why you've come over all butthurt on this. And your partisanship is evident by you choice of attribution of malice to the IAU when a minority wanted to find some special pleading to keep Pluto, discovered by a USian scientist, a planet.

"Everyone has an opinion."

And everyone has an arse. This does not make them speak truth.

There is not one definition of planet that counts as official just because 424 astronomers, most of whom are not even planetary scientists, say there is. SOME astronomers use this definition, but it is completely inaccurate to generalize and say that all or even most use this definition. There are several planet definitions in use by astronomers, and none has more merit than the other--meaning this is the subject of ongoing debate. In science, something does not become "the truth" just because a so-called authoritative body says it is. The IAU definition remains controversial seven years later because it was poorly and hastily constructed and does not take into account alternative views and new discoveries in planetary science. The fact that the IAU leadership refuses to even revisit this issue indicates the group is more interested in safeguarding its perceived "authority" than in safeguarding the science of astronomy. The idea of dictating a definition once for all eternity and never again revisiting the issue is the action of a church, not of a scientific organization.

"Pluto isn’t a planet because any definition that doesn’t special plead Pluto in includes planets that make the numbers ridiculous or excludes Pluto."

This statement is ridiculous. A geophysical planet definition in which any non-self-luminous spheroidal body, either orbiting a star or free floating in space (to include rogue planets), makes perfect scientific sense. In contrast, the notion of "making the numbers ridiculous' makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The universe has a "ridiculously" large number of galaxies, stars, and yes, planets. Get used to it.

A good recommendation by some astronomers is the creation of a system to classify planets similar to the Herzsprung-Russell Diagram used for stars. Such a system could incorporate the many subclasses of planets based on age, location, composition, etc. Planet is a broad category; the subcategories are what distinguish the many types of planets.

It is actually more sensible to call Pluto a rocky dwarf than an icy dwarf since Pluto is estimated to be about 70 percent rock. Eris, being 23 percent more massive, is likely even more rocky. Ceres appears to be a small terrestrial planet that might even have a subsurface ocean.

The discovery of rogue planets illustrates that even a "requirement" that an object orbit a star to be a planet is problematic. Rogue planets are not self-luminous, so they are not stars. They cannot clear their orbits because they don't have any orbits. Granted, we don't know much about their composition yet, but if they are not planets, what then are they?

Wow

First of all, thank you for your concern over the comfort of my posterior. That is very touching. It is fine, I will have you know.

What of my comments do you find obtuse? I saw a video of the rancid resolution being ramrodded. Pluto huggers were cut off in mid-sentence during that session. Ms. Bell reluctantly gave the mic to a Pluto hugger and then crossed her arms contemptuously as he spoke. Her body language and demeanor were atrocious and shameful. So why can't you give your real name? Do you like being a troll and calling people numbnuts that much that you are afraid to reveal your real name? C'mon, dude, get real.

"Ms. Bell reluctantly gave the mic to a Pluto hugger and then crossed her arms contemptuously as he spoke"

Well, yeah.

Just because someone is being an ignorant arse doesn't mean you have to pretend they aren't , Mike.

Pluto hugging was just Team America being butthurt.

Get over it.

It's still there.

@ ^ Wow : I'ma Pluto hugger and I'm an Australian, of English-Aussie background and no USA family connection. (Visited there once for a week that was all.)

It bothers me because its such a clearly wrong definition and so inconsistent with the rest of astronomy.

@54. Wow.

"You see, numbnuts, .."

Needless personal abuse - yep , you're a troll alright, not that I or anyone else reading would have had much doubt of that by now.

"...the problem here isn’t that you made up the name rocky planets,"

I didn't "make up" the name just used an already common terminology.

... nor that you don’t like Hot Jupiters,..

I like 'em just fine. Can't say I'd want to live on one but they are remarkable planets in their own rights.

"..but that the presence of Hot Jupiters in what you have “defined” planets to be: the rocky planets near the sun, gas giants further out and ice planets in the distance, means that there can be no planets unless they are icy ones after the Hot Jupiter.

Bzzzt. Wrong. I defined planet back in my first comment here ( # 30) as :

1) Never self-luminous via shining by natural nuclear fusion thus not a star.

2) Gravitationally rounded by its own mass and thus not an asteroid or comet nucleus or other small body.

3) Not directly orbiting another planet and thus not a moon.

The description of the specific arrangement in our solar system was a seperate thing entirely and not part of that definition.

But I guess you are probably already aware of this and just trolling to stir things up. Not mad bro' - your'e too obvious and poor quality a troll for that. ;-)

@57. Laurel Kornfeld : Well said and seconded by me.

"A good recommendation by some astronomers is the creation of a system to classify planets similar to the Herzsprung-Russell Diagram used for stars. Such a system could incorporate the many subclasses of planets based on age, location, composition, etc. Planet is a broad category; the subcategories are what distinguish the many types of planets."

Absolutely right. We already know and have a whole menageries of star types from blue supergiants which are millions of times brighter than our Sun and so large their surfaces would extend out to Mars if placed in our solar system at one extreme to the numerous faint red dwarfs that shine with hundredths of a solar luminosity and are only the radius of Jupiter in size.

So too do we already know of gas giant planets bordering on brown dwarf star territory in mass and size down to
ice dwarfs like Sedna about a quarter of Pluto's size for planets. Astronomy contains a really diverse range of objects and "planet" has to be a really broad and inclusive category just like "star" because of that.

"It is actually more sensible to call Pluto a rocky dwarf than an icy dwarf since Pluto is estimated to be about 70 percent rock. Eris, being 23 percent more massive, is likely even more rocky."

Another good point there. The ice dwarfs, at least many of them are more rock than ice. I guess I think ice more because of the distance and chill in that far outer realm of our solar system.

" The discovery of rogue planets illustrates that even a “requirement” that an object orbit a star to be a planet is problematic. Rogue planets are not self-luminous, so they are not stars. They cannot clear their orbits because they don’t have any orbits. Granted, we don’t know much about their composition yet, but if they are not planets, what then are they?"

Exactly.

Also if you did have a rogue planet on collision course with Earth (or any other planet) - then Earth (or whichever other planet) would then automatically stop being a planet just because its orbit therefore wasn't "clear"* showing again how silly the IAU definition really is.

* Thinking of which we already have asteroids and comets that cross all planetary orbits s that no orbit is *ever* really "clear" anyhow.

PS. Wow. I notice you still haven't answered any of my questions as asked politely a few times most recently at #47.

Oh & you seem to be prejudiced against Americans "Wow" -did you realise that you're being anti-American on a blog written by an American? A bit churlish as well as bigoted of you I think.

Well, Steve, lets look at the questions in #47.

> As where I get rock dwarf from, hmm. do the words “gas giant” ring any bells for you?

Answered. My query about "What the fuck does that have to do with it" went unanswered. Responded? Yes. Answered? No.

"Seeing as I’ve answered all your points, you care to reciprocate and finally answer my earlier questions in this thread in comments 33, 39, & 41? "

Seeing as you didn't answer them...

But that seems to be the only two questions.

One answered and the other a "russian doll" one and insisted on being answered because you confused a reply with an answer.

"I’ma Pluto hugger and I’m an Australian"

Whoop de doo. Nice for you. What does that do? Nowt.

"It bothers me because its such a clearly wrong definition"

Yes, repetition of a claim with zero supporting evidence is not proof of the repeated claims' veracity.

In short, YOU'RE STILL WRONG.

"and so inconsistent with the rest of astronomy. "

See above.

"Needless personal abuse – yep , you’re a troll alright,"

Needlessness is irrelevant. It was DESERVED personal abuse, numbnuts. Don't like it? Don't act nuts. Simples.

"I didn’t “make up” the name just used an already common terminology."

Yup, you never read #54, '56, did you. Even though you quoted it:

“…the problem here isn’t that you made up the name rocky planets,”

If the problem wasn't you making up the term (which I never claimed you made the fucking term up you tiresome retard), then why the FUCK are you whining "I never made the term up?"

IF THAT ISN'T THE PROBLEM claiming you never made it up DOES NOT RESPOND TO THE PROBLEM YOU RETARDED SHITHEAD!

Get it?

"Bzzzt. Wrong. I defined planet back in my first comment here ( # 30) as"

BZZT WRONG.

You re-defined it later. Shall I quote what you said since you deliberately ignore what you spout when you like it?

> It makes sense to consider it divided into three zones -the rocky planets one (Mercury to Mars), the gas planets zone (Jupiter to Neptune) and the ice planets zone. (Pluto to Sedna.)

You won't see it because you're too busy going "I WANNA PLUTO! I WANNA PLUTO! GIMME A PLUTO! YOU STOLE MY PLUTO!!!"

It's still there, numbnuts.

It's not a planet.

It's still there.

"Absolutely right. We already know and have a whole menageries of star types from blue supergiants"

Moron, he's not talking about different stars.

He's talking about the different organisations of planets in a solar system.

Ours is not the only organisation of planets possible.

Which is why your "definition" SUCKS DONKEY BALLS.

Wow,

It seems rather pointless to continue this charade of an reasoned argument between two points of view, given your name-calling and lack of cogency, but I will say a few more things to wrap this up on my end. Many well-respected planetary scientists like Alan Stern and David Rabinowitz signed a petition protesting the demotion of Pluto. You act as though only "morons" and "numbnuts" hug Pluto.

You are right that Ms. Bell has the right to cross her arms and show her hand regarding her position on Pluto. It was unprofessional, of course, as was her cutting off other Pluto huggers in mid-sentence and ramrodding the rancid resolution down the throats of the IAU's membership, but she has the right to her opinion, as do you.

I am not going to go into a point by point rebuttal with you as my time is valuable and you seem to have nothing better to do than cast aspersions on people behind a fake name.

If this is the best that you can do, you are not much of an astronomer or whatever it is you are.

Blah blah blah, mike.

Even if I'm rude, that doesn't make your asinine assertions, nor Steve's, right.

If that's all the proof you have against, me, try again.

"and ramrodding "

Yeah, the complaint of any asshat that doesn't get their way and are overruled.

" the rancid resolution"

"WAAAH I WANNA PLUTO!!!!!". Rancid.

Really?

Wow,

Yes, rancidly ramrodded rancid resolution. What makes my assertions assine, the fact that you like to swear? I can swear, too, but do not want to sink to your level, Wow. You are ignoring my points, bro. I guess it is okay for you to ignore points,huh?

"What makes my assertions assine"

The fact it's completey whiney made up bullshit?

Mike, when a vote is made and the vote doesn't give you the answer you want for no damn reason at all, losing the vote is called "Democratic process" not "ramming down my throat".

Ramrodded because not proper notice or vetting, so Pluto huggers had already "czeched" out of Prague hotels and flown home, and because of the rude manner of Bell during the rancid session that went against the by-laws.

And, given that one IAU member voted against Pluto solely due to his career as an astronomer being threatened. He stated this publicly. Just because you say I am bullshitting doesn't make it so.

Who farted and made you the Queen of Sheba?

Mike, losing a vote is not having the results rammed down your throat.

"And, given that one IAU member voted against Pluto solely due to his career as an astronomer being threatened."

That's

a) histrionic bullshit.
b) absolutely no reason to say it must be a planet
c) not the IAU's problem

You DO know people lie, right? Just because they say so, doesn't mean their assertion is right.

Who died and made you dictator for life?

Wow

a. I have no reason to believe he is lying, except to please you.

b.There are plenty of sound reasons for Pluto's replanetization or a petition with the sigs of 100s of planetary scientists would not exist protesting said rancid resoltion.

c. If bullying and intimadation and ramrodded were factors in the final vote to demote, yes, that is a problem, but that is not the only problem with the new def. It's problems have been well-documented. Earth doesn't even clear its path, bro. It has at least 19,500 asteroids that cross its orbit according to NASA.

d. At least I am not the Queen of Sheba, bucco!

a) what the hell do you think is going to happen to make him lose his job if pluto is going to not be a planet?

b) no there aren't.

c) and if losing the vote massively (it wasn't even a close vote) is "ramming" then piss off to some dictatorship

d) you're a fucking idiot. This is not an improvement.

The final, third draft definition proposed on 24 August was:
“ The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies in the Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3] orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".[note 1]

[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

[2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.

[3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.
.
.
.
Resolution 5A constituted the definition itself as stated above. There was much discussion among members about the appropriateness of using the expression "cleared the neighbourhood" instead of the earlier reference to "dominant body", and about the implications of the definition for satellites. The Resolution was ultimately approved by a near-unanimous vote.

There seems to be this tiny rump of people still in denial of Pluto's non-planet status. The IAU didn't "ram" anything through anyone. What a bizarre conspiracy-theory...

Get over it.

Here's a question, though: bearing in mind the vast extent of the Kuiper Belt and the distribution of Pluto-sized objects already detected, can we predict how many more Pluto-sized objects remain to be discovered?

Additionally, if inhabitants of the Kuiper Belt have orbits that bring them within Neptune's orbit, then those objects are part-time Kuiper Belt objects, a new category?
Either that, or Triton can be a Kuiper Belt object despite having permanently emigrated?

@Craig Thomas #77:

Your first question was addressed in a recent Astron.J. article! See http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7049, where they estimate about 12, with 9 already known.

The objects which spend "some time" in the Kuiper Belt, are referred to as "scattered disk objects" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattered_disc).

The petition is even online. I didn't say ram. I said ramrodded. Pluto is larger than Eris and ever other KBO. Accept reality. Pluto will get its just desserts. Then your nuts will be numb.

I have stated the facts. If you think reality is bizarre, that is your right.

Here is the petition signed by 300 professional astronomers rejecting the IAU definition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/

The claim that only a tiny group oppose the IAU decision is completely untrue. Many astronomers around the world continue to reject it and/or ignore it entirely. And this has nothing to do with winning or losing. The fact is, the IAU violated its own bylaws by putting a hastily thrown together resolution on the General Assembly floor without first having it approved by the appropriate committee. The IAU misled the original 2,500 astronomers in attendance by leading them to believe the original resolution approved by their appointed committee would be put to the General Assembly floor only to scrap that resolution and replace it with another one. The IAU was asked in 2009 by a group of planetary astronomers to reopen the issue and refused, clearly showing its leaders are more interested in their imagined "authority" than in real science. So far, only one other Pluto-sized object has been detected in the Kuiper Belt, and that is Eris, which according to the geophysical planet definition, is also a planet. Several objects roughly two-thirds the size of Pluto, clearly spherical and in hydrostatic equilibrium, have been found there, and these are small planets too. They all have stable orbits. The Scattered Disk is the outermost region of the Kuiper Belt where Eris is located. Pluto, Haumea, and Makemake are not in the Scattered Disk. However, Pluto Haumea, Makemake, and Eris can all be dually classed as both small planets and as Kuiper Belt Objects. The classifications are not mutually exclusive. The first tells us what they are; the second tells us where they are.

"The claim that only a tiny group oppose the IAU decision is completely untrue."

Nope, it's completely true. They minuted the meetings and the results of the votes are available. You can check it yourself.

"Many astronomers around the world continue to reject it and/or ignore it entirely."

Meaning what? The definition is wrong? Nope. That a word means what you want it to mean, no more, no less? Well, THAT'S a knock-down, drag-out argument for you...

"The IAU misled the original 2,500 astronomers in attendance ..."

Of whom very few thought that Pluto had to remain a planet.

"The IAU was asked in 2009 by a group of planetary astronomers to reopen the issue and refused, clearly showing ..."

That a lunatic fringe who refuse to lose the vote will be ignored in the interests of getting something that means something done.

This isn't like a member meeting for "Shall we de-mutualise this building society" where you get to ask again and again if the majority of members vote "No" against the wishes of a few.

It was voted. Near unanimity for the proposal. Nothing to vote for again.

None of you loons seem to be able to say WHY it's so devastating that Pluto isn't a planet.

Hence I stick to my original assertion: it's a 'merkin invention, hence inviolate. 'Cos you is *special*, see.

"Here is the petition signed by 300"

Out of around 6500 possible signatures.

Yeah, that 300 aren't Spartans fighting the Persians, you know. 300 votes won't win a vote, no matter how much you whine.

I prefer to be a sparrow, not a loon, if you don't mind too terribly. There will be another vote, genius. Get over yourself. The definition is absurd and that's why it will go the way of the Dodo.

A proper case for Pluto wasn't made in Prague due to shenanigans already elucidated. Moreover, the vote was far from unanimous. Math not your forte, Holmes?

"I prefer to be a sparrow, not a loon"

And this is why you consider having lost the vote equal to being given the bird?

Near unanimous vote: resolution passed.
Result: Pluto not a planet like Earth, Mercury,Jupiter et al.

Net difference in the existence of Pluto: Nil.

"The definition is absurd "

For reasons which are apparent as long as you never look...

"A proper case for Pluto wasn’t made in Prague due to shenanigans already elucidated."

Yeah, those shenanigans being "don't let the lunatics run the show".

Actually, Earth has more in common with Pluto than with Jupiter. Both Earth and Pluto are rocky and geologically layered into core, mantle, and crust. Both Earth and Pluto have large moons formed via giant impact. Both Earth and Pluto have nitrogen in their atmospheres. In contrast, Jupiter has no solid surface whatsoever. Its composition is hydrogen and helium, very much like that of the Sun. Jupiter has a "mini-solar system" of moons and rings. Putting Earth and Jupiter in the same category but excluding Pluto makes absolutely no sense.

Many professional astronomers are not IAU members, so they had no say in this whatsoever. Furthermore, of 10,000 IAU members, only 2,500 attended the beginning of the 2006 General Assembly, and only 424 were left by the time the vote took place. Most who left early, including Dr. Owen Gingerich, chair of the IAU's Planet Definition Committee, said had they known a resolution other than the one they recommended would be put to the General Assembly floor on the last day, they would have changed their plans and stayed until the end. The majority of the 424 who did vote are not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers. To paraphrase Dr. Stern, that is like having divorce lawyers vote on a matter of corporate law.

Furthermore, the IAU is only now exploring the option of electronic voting for members who cannot be present at the General Assembly. Up to now, if a member wasn't in the room on that particular day, he or she had no say whatsoever. Many astronomers pay their own way to the General Assemblies and cannot afford to stay the entire two weeks. The 2006 vote was therefore representative only of those present in a room in Prague on August 24, 2006, not of all astronomers or all planetary scientists.

If you watch the video where the vote took place, it is obvious that some who voted did not fully understand what they voted for. Resolution 5a is the one that passed by a large margin, but that resolution only established the three categories of classical planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system bodies. Resolution 5b, which would have established dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, failed 333-91. Immediately after the vote, one astronomer tried to make a motion to add Pluto to the list of "classical planets" only to be told the vote was over. Clearly, at least one PhD present did not fully understand the resolution on which he had voted.

If you look at the list of 300 professional astronomers who signed the petition rejecting the IAU definition, you will find some of the world's leading planetary scientists--hardly a "lunatic fringe." Wow, I don't know where you get the "out of 6,500 possible signatures." Who are you counting? The petition was kept open only for three days to make an immediate statement.

This is not about winning and losing and it is not about wanting Pluto as a planet. It is about an attempt to force a highly problematic planet definition on an entire field and on the world, a definition that amounts to interpretation rather than fact. This isn't even something that should be voted on. Did anyone vote to accept gravity or relativity? Did anyone vote on whether the universe has one or many galaxies? The answer to all these is no. It is the facts, not someone's interpretation of the facts or a vote on whose interpretation is liked better, that ultimately determines what is what in science.

Wow,

Your unmitigated hate and spleen is looney toony. Your case is non-existence, and your sense of humor is that of a wooden spoon. The Dark Side won on the 434th anniversary of St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but the forces of Light haven't been extinquished. 300 distinguished scientists signed that petition,and that is just the tip of the iceberg, Holmes. Yes, you won a vote by 333 to 91 that day due to unspeakably disgusting shenanigans, but a new day dawns every day, dude. Moreover, the case for Pluto grows every day. Bruno Sicardy of the Paris Observatory wrote a paper saying data strongly suggests Pluto is at least 12 km larger than Eris in diameter, for example. We know Earth doesn't clear its orbit by a long shot. We know rogue planets do not fit the defintion, too. It is a weak, politically-driven definition whose supporters are trolls and other miscreants. That definition's days are numbered. Why are you so misled, dude? Are you one of Mike Brown's lackeys?

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

― Winston Churchill

"Both Earth and Pluto are rocky "

So is the stone in my shoe, however, it isn't a planet.

So is Ceres, but that's not a planet.

So is Titan, but thats not a planet.

Moon? Not a planet. Rocky.

Pluto is 1/5th the diameter of Earth, which means less than 1% its mass. Or about 2/3rds the earth's moon.

"Both Earth and Pluto have large moons formed via giant impact."

Charon wasn't created by the same process. Moreover, our moon isn't a normal way to get a moon.

"Furthermore, the IAU is only now exploring the option of electronic voting for members who cannot be present at the General Assembly"

This does not make the vote before wrong.

"If you watch the video where the vote took place, it is obvious that some who voted did not fully understand what they voted for."

Really? But these people know how to decide what's a planet?

I don't think so.

"Resolution 5a is the one that passed by a large margin, but that resolution only established the three categories of classical planets"

Aaaaand you've lost it.

No, resolution did not define classical planet. Indeed the resolution for that lost on a small majority.

Sorry, when you call on us to take it as "truth" that "clearly some did not know what they voted for" asserted by merely watching a vote WHEN YOU GET THE RESOLUTION VOTED FOR WRONG, it *really* doesn't build your case.

"Your unmitigated hate and spleen is looney toony."

Ah. Irony is this?

Because WHO was it who said that a lost vote was "Ramming down [others] throats"? Was that you? I think it was

“I m\y be drunk but in the morning I will be sober, whilst you will still be an idiot"

--- Winston Churchill.

"300 distinguished scientists signed that petition,and that is just the tip of the iceberg,"

Yeah.

Right.

Just like all those proofs of alien visitation will be leaked "any day now"...

The word "Planet" comes from The Greek meaning 'Wanderer" since these objects "wandered" about the sky.

I see you are rambling now. Have you been drinking? Yes, I said "ramrodded." Ceres was a planet, of course, and is now a dwarf planet; thus, when Pluto is replanetized, so will Ceres as it meets every logical requirement to be a planet. Just like a chihuahua is still a dog. It does not matter if the particular chihuahua is on the small side as far as chihuahuas go, or if the chihuahua was born in America or in France or in Burkina Faso. I was not around when Charon was created, so I will not chime in on that one. Just how old are you?

Resolution 5a NEVER said that dwarf planets are not planets. Many who voted for 5a also voted for 5b. Advocates of a geophysical planet definition have no problem with 5a, but they also support 5b, which places both planets (at times referred to as "classical planets" during the discussion) and dwarf planets under the broader umbrella of planets. 5a would be even better if it subdivided "planets" into terrestrials and gas giants/jovians.

The only mass that matters, at least to the geophysical planet definition, is the threshold for an object being in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning rounded by its own gravity. The stone in your shoe is not in hydrostatic equilibrium, and it is already part of an existing planet. Ceres, being spherical and in hydrostatic equilibrium, IS a planet; 19th century astronomers' telescopes were not powerful enough to resolve it into a disk, so they didn't know this. Titan and Earth's moon can be considered as satellite or secondary planets. Their structures, compositions, and processes are very much like those on the primary planets; the only difference is that these objects orbit other planets instead of orbiting the Sun directly. Moons of giant planets in other solar systems may very well be capable of hosting life.

Is there a "normal way" to get a moon? One could answer no; there are many ways in which planets can get moons. Triton appears to have been captured by Neptune. We are still learning how Earth's moon formed, and the fact is, it and Charon are the only known large moons in this solar system to have formed via giant impact. Discoveries of exoplanet systems are continually sending scientists back to the drawing board when it comes to understanding the formation of solar systems and planetary systems.

If you watch the video of the vote, you can tell that there was a strong emphasis on time constraints and that these resolutions were rushed through with so many last minute changes to the point that many in the room did not have the time to fully process the resolutions in detail. Moreover, the ongoing discoveries of exoplanets and new knowledge about objects in our own solar system (such as Dawn's discovery that Vesta is more like a terrestrial planet than like an asteroid) are themselves a compelling case for revisiting this issue.

WOW,

Let's say you discovered a new object, possibly a planet and then years later other folks came along and dissed your discovery?

What would you think?

Of course I ask this question in all sincerity because I have discovered but I don't know that you have.

I think you wouldn't like it very much!

@63.Wow :

"Well, Steve, lets look at the questions in #47.
" As where I get rock dwarf from, hmm. do the words “gas giant” ring any bells for you?" - StevoR
Answered. My query about “What the fuck does that have to do with it” went unanswered. Responded? Yes. Answered? No." - Wow

Answered and rebutted yes actually as reasonable people can see from reading comments # 53 & 60 here.

"Next:
“Seeing as I’ve answered all your points, you care to reciprocate and finally answer my earlier questions in this thread in comments 33, 39, & 41? ” -StevoR
Seeing as you didn’t answer them…
But that seems to be the only two questions.
One answered and the other a “russian doll” one and insisted on being answered because you confused a reply with an answer." - Wow

No, Wow, its you who is very confused - or are being deliberately obtuse and just trolling here. My actual questions which you have repeatedly ignored and failed to answer were & remain :

1) Why do you ("Wow") think Pluto is NOT a planet precisely?

2) Did you read the links I’ve provided for you and try answering Croswell’s Pluto questions? How did you do and what do you think of them?

3) Do you you think that having enough things that are X together suddenly somehow makes X into not-X?

(E.g. if enough people gather into a crowd do they stop being people? Do animals stop being animals when they gather in herds and as the answer to both of those is clearly not so must it be with planets - getting a lot of planets in one - rather huge - area together doesn't stop them being planets either.)

Those are the questions I was referring to and which you have continuously failed to answer, Wow.

As for abusing me in all caps and constantly merely insulting me and others who've rebutted your weak excuse for arguments well, you've really given the game away there on your trolling here and own lack of class and ability to argue rationally. You have demonstrated yourself to be a troll of very low intellectual and ethical quality indeed.

@ 77. Craig Thomas :

"There seems to be this tiny rump of people still in denial of Pluto’s non-planet status. The IAU didn’t “ram” anything through anyone. What a bizarre conspiracy-theory…Get over it."

Its no conspiracy theory but the reality as the facts of the Prague IAU meeting show.

Nor is it just a small group who disagree with an IAU definition that gets ignored and shown to be ridiculous every time someone describes an exoplanet as just a planet.

Since "Wow" (full name - Wow what a troll?) is clearly incapable of answering my questions, maybe you could give me your answers to them, Craig Thomas please?

"Here’s a question, though: bearing in mind the vast extent of the Kuiper Belt and the distribution of Pluto-sized objects already detected, can we predict how many more Pluto-sized objects remain to be discovered?"

The search has been going on for a very long time and we still haven't found anything larger than Pluto and Eris. That seems to suggest that bodies that size are relatively rare and most of the major one's have already been discovered at least in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Cometary Belt (EKCB) region. Maybe larger objects still await discovery out in the more distant reaches of Oort Cloud.

I expect the search to continue and answers eventually will come.

"Additionally, if inhabitants of the Kuiper Belt have orbits that bring them within Neptune’s orbit, then those objects are part-time Kuiper Belt objects, a new category?"

As well as seconding the answer given by Michael Kelsey at #78, I'll add there is a class of objects that cross the orbits of outer planets and can swing far out into the Edgeworth-Kuiper cometary belt classed centaurs named following the discovery of the large asteroid / cometary nucleus Chiron in around the late 1970's-early 1980's.

These objects - like comets generally - originated further out and have migrated inwards over time into unstable planet-crossing orbits.

"Either that, or Triton can be a Kuiper Belt object despite having permanently emigrated?"

I think it makes more sense to say that Triton was the "King of the Kuiper belt" but then migrated inwards and was captured by Neptune becoming its largest moon. IOW Triton used to be a member of the EKCB but now isn't anymore although a mission to Triton would certainly tell us about EKCB objects because of its past history although much of its original surface will have been heavily affected and modified by its capture into retrograde Neptunian orbit.

@94. Wow : “I m\y be drunk but in the morning I will be sober, whilst you will still be an idiot”
— Winston Churchill."

You are certainly no Winston Churchill Wow.

When (if?) you ever sober up, Wow, sadly you will likely remain an idiot and / or obnoxious troll judging by your comments here.

@P Edward Murray : "The word “Planet” comes from The Greek meaning ‘Wanderer” since these objects “wandered” about the sky."

Correct. Pluto and Eris and the other ice dwarfs wander across the sky too - just relatively very slowly because of their distance. Of course we now know of them and of much more than the ancient Greeks could have imagined.

@93. Wow :

“Your unmitigated hate and spleen is looney toony.”
Ah. Irony is this? Because WHO was it who said that a lost vote was “Ramming down [others] throats”? Was that you? I think it was [sic]"

Thing is the statement about the Pluto vote being rammed down people's throats is factually accurate and you have, in fact been attempting - unsuccessfully - to do that ramming yourself thus disproving your own supposed point.

Meanwhile, Wow, your own comments clearly reveal that you *are* indeed as described above a bit of a loony tune or at pretending convincingly to be so with comments that are hateful as well as tiresome , abusive, lacking in reading comprehension and lacking in any substance and logic.

"You are certainly no Winston Churchill Wow. "

Was that meant to be a zinger, Steve?

It failed.

"WOW,

Let’s say you discovered a new object, possibly a planet and then years later other folks came along and dissed your discovery?"

That's what happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME you moron.

Dawn Horse? Renamed because the first fossil was misidentified as belonging to an early hippo.

Brontosaur? Renamed because the first fossil was named by someone else.

Moreover, where do you think pluto went when it lost its planet status? Do you think it wandered off in a sulk to find another star where it could be called a planet?

No.

Lastly, that's fuck all reason for Pluto to be called a planet.

"Resolution 5a NEVER said that dwarf planets are not planets."

Never said it did.

5a said that Pluto wasn't a planet. 5b (may have been 5c) asked for a definition of "classical planet" to be added to give three subgenera, but it lost by a moderate, but not large, margin.

Still failing 100%.

" Yes, I said “ramrodded.” "

And that was hateful, spiteful and vindictive reattribution of a fair vote you lost.

Steve, your entire bullshit is still FUCK ALL reason for Pluto to be a planet.

Your original assertions were shit and did nothing to help other than beg the question of whether Pluto should be a planet at all.

Your subsequent bullshitting, like Mikes, merely increased the special pleading and nonexistence of any reasoning for Pluto to be required a planet.

"Someone said they'd lose their job!".

How?

No reply was the answer.

"How would you like it if your discovery were dissed".

How is it being dissed?

It was by any measure dissed by being originally thought 10x heavier than it was.

Why does that mean Pluto should be a planet merely to make someone happy?

"There are many reasons!"

What reasons?

No answer.

"Here are 300 people!"

Out of thousands.

"Yeah, but that's just the tip of the iceberg!"

Yeah, of course it was. Now go and put yourself back in that padded room, lunatic.

"Yeah, well, you're no Winston!"

Oh, that was supposed to hurt?

"I HATE YOU!!!"

Fuck off.

"Thing is the statement about the Pluto vote being rammed down people’s throats is factually accurate"

Nope.

Its factually fatuous.

It was voted.

Nearly unanimously voted for Pluto not being a planet.

If it had gone the way you wanted, how would it NOT have been even more "ramrodded" down the vast majority of throats?

"1) Why do you (“Wow”) think Pluto is NOT a planet precisely?"

Because it doesn't meet the requirements for a planet, you fucking idiot.

"2) Did you read the links I’ve provided for you and try answering Croswell’s Pluto questions? How did you do and what do you think of them?"

No.

"3) Do you you think that having enough things that are X together suddenly somehow makes X into not-X? "

Yes.

Note, Steve, that that Q3 was completely vapid shit and I had to guess that what you REALLY wanted was

Do you think that Planets that included Pluto in their list can no longer include Pluto in their list if the definition of Planet includes scores or even hundreds of objects. Because there's no consistent X that could be inserted into that asinine and confused query that would make ANY sense.

...definition of Planet that can include Pluto in their list also...

Here's a reason why Pluto shouldn't be a planet: Gustav Holst's "The Planet Suite" doesn't have Pluto in it, therefore if Pluto becomes a planet, you're making his masterpiece wrong!

How would you like it if someone came along and made your orchestral master work wrong, huh?

Wow,

The vote was not fair. It was ramrodded. You think a ramrodded vote can be fair? Looks like you are the dictator. Stalin would be very proud of how the IAU ramrodded the demotion of Pluto down the throats of the general membership. So would John Holmes and Ron Jeremy.

I never heard of Gustav Holst. He is no Mozart and you, Sir, are no Churchill.

It was ramrodded.

People continue to say that, but the only "reason" they give is that proposal was passed and as a result Pluto was declassified as a planet.

The fact that a vote has an outcome of which you disapprove does not mean there were shenanigans during the vote.

The big question I have is this: what real difference does the result make? Why are people upset about this?

"I never heard of Gustav Holst."

And I never heard of anyone who said they were going to be made unemployed if Pluto wasn't a planet. Does that mean he doesn't exist?

"He is no Mozart"

No, that's why he has a different name, Mike.

That's how you tell different people apart, generally.

This public information bulletin brought to the local internet idiot by a helpful stranger.

"The vote was not fair. It was ramrodded."

As dean says: "I lost" does not define "ramrodded", moron.

The vote was ramrodded because of reasons listed ad nauseum by Laurel Kornfeld and by me. Don't be coy with me, Mr. Wow. You know very well I am not saying that the mere fact of losing a vote constitutes ramrodding. Perhaps if you engaged your mind instead of your knee-jerk trollness, you would realize that you are on the wrong side of the issue.

As far as Gustav goes, maybe I will listen to his so-called masterpiece someday. He is not really part of the problem here.

The problem is ramrodding.

"The vote was ramrodded because of reasons listed ad nauseum by Laurel Kornfeld and by me."

Such list being

1) Someone said they'd lose their job
2) They got the wrong answer

These are not reasons, dear.

Oh, forgot another "reason" you listed:

3) 300 people signed a petition!

No notice. No vetting. Earth doesn't clear its orbit, either. 300 distinguished scientists. Not 300 trolls, honeypie.

Mike, you seem to confuse personal anecdote with evidence (proof, if you will). You still haven't made your case - or, equally curiously, explained why it is (to you) so massively important that Pluto remain in the planet category.

dean,

I don't. As far as anecdotes about why I like Pluto, such is not relevant here.

The case has been made ad naseum, dean.

It is very sad, pitiful, and pathetic that in a purely scientific debate such as the status of Pluto and the other dwarf planets, the pro-Pluto side is demonized in a most juvenile manner as idiots, numbnuts, "unable to understand the difference between fact and anecdote," et cetera. Also, I have been told repeatedly to make a case then this thread is about a mile long, much of it devoted to the making of a case. Derp.

You guys are a trip and a half. Why don't you read Alan Boyle's book entitled "The Case for Pluto" if you are unable to process the case on this thread. You can ask for it for Christmas or Nationa Puppy Day or whatever. That is all.

Gustav Holst's "The Planets Suite" does not have Earth in it either, so I guess according to you, Wow, Earth isn't a planet.

Resolution 5a never said that Pluto wasn't a planet. It simply listed three classes of objects--planets, dwarf planets, and small solar system bodies. Resolution 5b would have combined the first two classes of objects under the broader umbrella of "planets."

The footnotes to these resolutions were a source of tremendous confusion. The executive committee went back and forth about whether the footnotes "counted" as part of the resolution multiple times, to the point that even those who voted were confused. The footnotes to 5a listed Mercury through Neptune as planets, contradicting the main portion of the resolution, which set three categories but left the planet status of dwarf planets up to 5b. There was no resolution 5c. All this was done in direct violation of IAU bylaws because none of these resolutions was first vetted by the proper IAU committee.

If having enough things that are X together suddenly somehow makes X into not-X, then stars in dense clusters should not be considered stars, and galaxies in dense clusters should not be considered galaxies.

This is not about winning and losing. Stop thinking in terms of a football game. It is about a poor decision made hastily by people who are not experts on planets in a process that excluded far more astronomers than it included. People inherently understand the political nature of these shenanigans; they know what happened in 2006 was not science. That is why so many, including knowledgeable professional and amateur astronomers, continue to oppose that decision.

Innately, too.....

"Gustav Holst’s “The Planets Suite” does not have Earth in it either"

By design.

Planet means "Wanderer" and refers to a "star" that wanders across the earth's sky.

The sky is the bit that doesn't include the earth itself.

"No notice."

You mean apart from the 10 days spent arguing over it?

"No vetting."

You mean allowing people who are at the IAU meeting to vote and not checking that they all are morons who "wanna Pluto!!!"?

"I don’t."

We know you don't. You have to if you want to explain why it has to be a planet.

"As far as anecdotes about why I like Pluto, such is not relevant here."

It is entirely relevant. See above.

"the pro-Pluto side is demonized in a most juvenile manner as idiots, numbnuts, “unable to understand the difference between fact and anecdote,” et cetera. "

Well lets see what evidence we have here, since we're scientists, right?

Juvenile? No evidence given against me on that score.

Idiots. Well, see the "He said his job was gone if Pluto wasn't a planet and I believed him!". So it appears that there's evidence there.

numbnuts. You have "Ramrodded" as a synonym for "accepting the voting majority" and insist that this is, without any evidence, fact. Appears to be evidenced.

"Cannot distinguish between anecdote and fact". Well, for a start, it was "evidence". And you've had "someone would lose their job!!!" as "evidence" that shows Pluto has to be a planet. Another evidenced based observation.

"This is not about winning and losing."

Weird. Ever think of doing that yourself?

Pluto isn't a planet.

Live with it.

Mike, read:

http://astroblogger.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/unscientific-america-and-cas…

One proponent of making Pluto a planet claims:

"That's what everyone said, and that's what everyone had said since the last planet - Pluto - had been discovered way back in 1930."

Except this is 100% wrong.

Ceres: 8th Planet (1801) Became Asteroid (1851). Now Dwarf Planet.

Neptune. 13th Planet (1846). Now 8th Planet.

When the argument for Pluto remaining a planet is "It's been one since 1930", that is no argument for it, merely "It's what I was taught, dammit!". But even then, when it's based on a LIE, then there's no argument at all.

In the case of this lie, there are two options:

1) They know they lied, in which case, they know the argument is false.
2) They didn't know. But in this case, how can they be held as having valid opinion when they have heard a "factoid" and never even checked the basics about it? So here, rather than malice, it's sheer incompetence.

This is not about winning and losing.

Yet that is what your posts seem to be making it: you (and others, I am not laying it all at your door) have done nothing but state, in long terms, that you are upset at an outcome you do not like.

It is about a poor decision made hastily by people who are not experts on planets in a process that excluded far more astronomers than it included.

This comment leads me to my other question (again): if you are concerned about Pluto being declassified, there must be (or would be, in a logical argument) some reason, scientific, not personal, that the decision is troubling. The fact that you cannot or will not state one leads this observer back to the thing you so heartily deny: that is really is about "winning and losing", and you are upset that your position "lost". The supplied "arguments", being merely more whining from others, don't change that fact.

"The fact that you cannot or will not state one"

Well, apart from shilling a book to buy, rather than state what, in that book, makes them think Pluto should be a planet.

And a book whose sales, no doubt, are used as "proof" that Pluto should remain a planet...

Shilling? Stop whining, dude. You can keep reading Mike Brown's narcissistic tripe if that's your thing. At least it will spare me from your jejune posts for a few hours.

Yes, you do know what "shilling" means, right?

"Buy this book! Please!"

Ugh!

Uh?

So mentioning a book to you is a bad thing and will automatically make you say I am shilling. Grow up. Okay, don't ever read another book. Stick to Sesame Street and Nora the Explorer, but just stop whining about how people are shilling. It is very annoying and immature. It is also a very easy insult. I think you can do better than that. It is a soft target.

I have said ramrodding is not the same as being on the wrong side of a vote. So it seems I am wasting my time having a dialouge with you. You are like a parrot, constantly accusing me of the same things. If you think I am going to share personal, anecdotal stories with a person who flings insults at me, you are gravely mistaken. Moreover, despite your best attempts at persuasion, they have no relevance to the case for Pluto and dwarf planets whatsoever. There is plenty of evidence and strong arguments for dwarf planets being a subcategory of planets. For example, the sun is a yellow dwarf star and also a star. Why are dwarf stars considered stars, yet dwarf planets not considered planets? The same is true for dwarf galaxies. The IAU had it out for Pluto. We know this. Circumstantial evidence exists to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt in the minds of those who are not delusional and resort to calling people idiots,morons, and numbnuts. I realize you will never question why the sun is a dwarf star and also a star yet Pluto only a dwarf planet because you are interested in "winning" your little blog battle with me and Laurel, but some people are actually intellectually honest enough to consider the arguments made by differing points of view. To repeat another point you have consistently ignored, Earth has at least 19,500 asteroids that share its orbit, as counted by NASA and reported a few years ago. What you do with this evidence is up to you. I suggest you do more with it than play with it along with your Dora the Explorer doll, but do with it what you will.

"So mentioning a book to you is a bad thing"

No.

Saying "Buy this book" is a shilling thing.

Saying "Read this book" rather than explain what it is you think it contains that is pertinent is a bad thing.

Saying "Shilling? Stop whining, dude." rather than point out any argument in the book that you think relevant is a bad thing.

Saying "Urg" rather than any actual sentence of any relevance is a bad thing.

Saying "So mentioning a book to you is a bad thing" when that is another strawman to avoid any actual content is a bad thing.

These are bad things that you do. Just because you do them does not mean anything you think can be upbraided as ridiculous when you strawman them.

I have said ramrodding is not the same as being on the wrong side of a vote.

dean has said ramrodding is not the same as being on the wrong side of a vote.

NEITHER of us have said you have said "ramrodding is not the same as being on the wrong side of a vote.". That is yet another strawman.

You and others have said that you lost the vote is ramrodding the voted decision down your throats.

Which isn't saying that losing the vote is the same as being on the wrong side of the vote, but saying that your being on the losing side of the vote is the only reason you're calling it ramrodding.

"To repeat another point you have consistently ignored, Earth has at least 19,500 asteroids that share its orbit"

None of which cause any orbital perturbation to the earth, therefore it has cleared its orbit.

Pluto is massively locked to Neptune and therefore is as locked to it as we are to the sun.

Therefore Pluto has not cleared its orbit.

Just let it go, dude. I mention a book and you get all bent out of shape like I am Hitler or something. What is wrong with you? If I said buy it (and I am not going to scroll and see what exact verb I used) then I am sorry. Go to the damn library, but whatever you do, do not check out that book, rather, check out Mike Brown's tripe. Or check out a Nora picture book. Geeze, why can't you let things go? You are the one obsessed with "winning."

I said Ugh, nor Urg. I didn't have the time or patience to say anything else at the time, but wanted to express my frustration and disgust at having to deal with your incessant misconstructions of my posts. You should consider taking up comedy. Maybe you could make a few drunks laugh at the end of the night before they waddle off to their cars.

As far as Pluto being locked to Neptune, I will have to check up on that. I know Pluto and Charon are tidally locked. I do not pretend to know everything.

I used ramrodding in the context of the holding of the vote. Why did certain members go home and other not? Why was one person threatened? Could it be that the Exectutive Committee hand-picked and choose who they told about the vote on Pluto on the last day of the GA, while letting known Pluto huggers fly away from Prague before the said rancid session? Yes, perhaps the ramrodding began even before the actual session. Had the vote been fair and square, with proper notice and vetting, and without anecdotes of intimidation and threats, I wouldn't have used the term ramrodding, even if the vote went the way it did.

I know what ramrodding means and used the term correctly. If you want to continue to beat this horse, you may, but I will have you know it is quite dead.

Do you have any other fake gripes with my posts to bitch about?

" I mention a book and you get all bent out of shape"

Uh, nope.

1) kept banging on about the book rather than state your own opinion
2) not bent out of shape, calling you out on your empty blatherings

"As far as Pluto being locked to Neptune, I will have to check up on that."

WHAT THE FUCK?????

THIS, THIS RIGHT HERE is why the pro-pluto fellators like yourself are fucking moronic buffoons with nothing to say:

RESEARCH YOUR FRIGGING SUBJECT FIRST.

But I suppose it's the moron charter: have an opinion, make it strong, and FUCK informing yourself before getting one!

Jesus minging fucking christ, before you fuck about with how pluto is all a planet, like, and the entire IAU assholes, how about you first find out what the hell you're on about first?

Or is work too difficult for you?

"I know what ramrodding means and used the term correctly"

Nope, you haven't.

"Why did certain members go home and other not?"

Why did certain members decide to go home rather than vote?

"Why was one person threatened?"

Because he was threatening others and told to play nice or eff-off?

"Could it be that the Exectutive Committee hand-picked and choose who they told about the vote on Pluto on the last day of the GA"

It's possible. Just as it's possible that yesterday is a figment of your imagination, impregnated there by a malicious god having a laugh at your expense.

Could it be that the executive merely tried to get agreement and this takes time and that the result is just what people who have something relevant to say agreed on it?

"Yes, perhaps the ramrodding began even before the actual session."

Yes, perhaps this is all a ploy by the Jewish State to manipulate the markets to allow the Lizard Alien Overlords who have dressed up as the Windsors to get the UK working for the subjugation of humanity. Perhapes this goes all the way back to the formation of the Jewish "family" of the Rothschilds, back to 400BC...

"Had the vote been fair and square, with proper notice and vetting"

It had both.

The vote, however, isn't one you like. So it MUST be a conspiracy!

You are probably making that whole Neptune thing up. Pluto has its own orbit, dude. There is a theory that Neptune has something to do with Pluto, but that is all it is. Pluto has hydrostatic equilibrium and an atmosphere. It is a planet. Rogue planets don't even have an orbit and are planets. You failed, again, to tell me why a star can be a dwarf star and a star. Probably because you have no glib retort at the tip of your tongue. I used ramrod correctly. Just because you blather on doesn't make my usage incorrect. You are the one obsessed with "winning" here, blathering about the Jews and pissing and moaning that I mentioned that you might want to read a book. Please don't read that book, ever. In fact, please never read another book, because I might be blamed for that, and I will have to read more of your bizarre posts about how I forced a book down your throat. Oh, and go ahead and think Pluto is a comet or whatever twisted thing you might think Pluto is, even though some of the greatest scientists in the world think it is a planet. Your opinion clearly is not based on fact or science. You have a little bit of knowledge, and enjoy pistol-whipping people with it.

"You are probably making that whole Neptune thing up."

Yeah, and I went and edited all the books on astronomy to do so!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, you believe a guy who claims he's out of a job if Pluto doesn't remain a planet because "[you] have no reason to believe he is lying, except to please you." yet you believe I've made it up WITHOUT EVER LOOKING merely to please yourself.

PS yet more strawmen arguments off you you internet retard.

Well done.

Mike, you do realize that this was the end result of a search to find a definition of a planet don't you? That there had never been a specific definition? That an earlier suggestion (prior to the meeting) would have kept Pluto but also included numerous smaller bodies, and that was met with a great deal of resistance, correct?
The fact that Pluto has had a special emotional place for many people is understandable, but it is not a scientific reason for keeping it as a planet.
Your repeated complaint that the Earth's orbit is not cleared is stating only part of the problem: Pluto's orbit is filled many things <b which are similar to it while the other planets' orbits are not. It is fundamentally different in that respect, despite your assertions to the contrary.
Finally, it should be noted that the voting process was not different than that used for other issues - again, despite your assertions to the contrary.
You haven't provided any scientific reasons the result is incorrect: all your claims, and your references, boil down to "it is wrong because we don't like it and Pluto deserves to be a planet". I return to your refusal to provide your own reasons for doing this: I believe you realize the science is not on your side and that your argument is sentiment-based only. Being passionate about an issue can be good, but passion alone does not make a scientific argument.
I'm not sure why you've decided on this to be your personal windmill to chase. However, you would be taken more seriously if your comments were in the least sense based on the facts rather than on opinion, second/third level anecdotes, and foot-stomping.

dean,

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't paint me in a false light, a caricature. I have stated numerous reasons. One that neither you nor Wow has addressed is why the sun is a star and a dwarf star and why dwarf galaxies are also allowed to be galaxies. I was not born yesterday. I have two degrees. I know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. I am not merely stating opinions. So give me a break. You want to turn me into a strawman so you can think this issue is over and done with. It is not. The science is continually rolling in. Bruno Sicardy's date suggests Pluto is larger than Eris, for example. If you want to harp on the fact that I mentioned a book by Alan Boyle like Wow ad nauseum, go ahead. I am tired of these baseless accusations that I am being subjective. Speak to the substance of my posts, please. Both you and Wow seem to have some intelligence, so why must you continually put me down and dismiss me? It is too easy, dude. You are talking down to me like I am the student and you are the teacher, or I am a singer on American Idol and you are Simon. I am stated arguments that both of you have not addressed. Try looking inside yourself instead of kicking me in the nuts for a nice little change of pace. The vote in Prauge was tainted. The resolution was specifically tailored to demote Pluto. Moreover, there is anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that it was done purposely. Therefore, it would be best to reopen the debate. Alan Stern thinks the new definition of a planet is a farce. He is a distinguished planetary scientist. Are you and Wow going to try to kick him in the nads, too?

As far as the orbits of Earth and Pluto being different, fine. No orbit of any planet is the same. The fact remains that if Earth was in Pluto's orbit, it would not clear its path. The further a planet is from our dwarf star, the larger it must be. This means that what is a planet in one area would not be a planet in another area. Therefore, the current defintion is arbitrary and capricious. It was also quickly whipped up on the last day of the 2006 GA. Such a definition doesn't do justice to our wonderful solar system.

"I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t paint me in a false light, a caricature."

Begging the question: is it false?

"One that neither you nor Wow has addressed is why the sun is a star and a dwarf star and why dwarf galaxies are also allowed to be galaxies."

Because it's irrelevant.

Note, by the way, two other "points" raised by you were answered and nothing ever changed about your assertions when they were debunked.

Pluto is a dwarf planet. Earth is a planet.

They both orbit the sun. But that's where their similarities end.

Pluto is a dwarf planet. Mercury is a planet.

They both orbit the sun. But that's where their similarities end.

And so on.

Pluto is a dwarf planet, not a planet.

What, precisely, is your problem on that score?

"No orbit of any planet is the same."

Not in the definition of a planet, dear.

"The fact remains that if Earth was in Pluto’s orbit, it would not clear its path"

Incorrect.

"“The fact remains that if Earth was in Pluto’s orbit, it would not clear its path”

Incorrect."

Or correct.

Depends what you are trying to say.

If Earth being tidally locked by Neptune and Neptune orbit crossing, then, yes, Earth would not be a planet.

Why is this a problem for you? If ducks were horses, would you ride a duck, not a horse?

However, if the Earth were at Pluto's distance and retained the "cleared its orbit", which is true for Earth in its orbit, then it would be a planet because it has cleared its orbit of perturbating influences on its trajectory.

Dean, I wonder if this isn't merely another anti-science person finding SOMETHING to claim that scientists (who exist in ivory towers and are not *really* human) are evil scum of the earth, declaring everyone else has to bow to their edicts.

You know, same as the whine about "LHC could DESTROY THE EARTH!!!!!!".

Do you know what "clearing its orbit" means? It means an object must be massive enough to absorb smaller objects in its path or so that its gravitational field can move them. The Earth fits that (it is, if I remember correctly, nearly 2 million times the mass of other items in its orbit.)
Stern does try to argue (with a more scientific basis than has been demonstrated comments above) that the Earth should would not be considered a planet according to that requirement, but he has failed to be convincing to his fellow scientific community. He also states that having only 400 out of 9000 IAU members vote could not give a representative choice, an interesting argument. Over 2000 people were registered at the conference, approximately one-half were at the session where the vote took place. For some reason, ('only") roughly 400 of those found the proposal important enough that they took part in the vote. The 400 hardly constitute a random sample, but a case could be made that the population of astronomers who were interested in this issue were the 1000 in attendance, and the voting group is a large (self-selected) sample. You could (I would have to think more) argue that the 400 voters were THE population to whom this issue mattered most strongly, and so the fact that the vote went strongly in favor of the proposal would then indicate that there is no serious opposition among those showing an interest.

Now this was hardly a case of "ram-rodding" (whatever that non-defined word means) a vote. The notion that the proposal was written at the last minute is deceptive at best: there had been three different proposals being discussed and reviewed in the time leading to the vote: discussions held, objections and suggestions for changes were made. Some of the items were changed, some weren't. During the pre-vote floor discussion of the final proposal some suggestions came from the floor on how the points included could be made more clear; some were implemented. So yes, discussions went down to the wire, but do not attempt to say this was all done in secret and sprung on a collection of the uninformed at the last minute, immediately before they were to leave; that is not the case.
I will also note that the petition you mentioned was, in short, laughable: only 79 of the 9000 IAU members signed it: most of the people were not scientists with any understanding of the issues (one person is apparently quite unhinged about science, believing some nonsense about viruses originating from Venus and being flown to Earth by the solar wind). Why should the opinions of non-experts for this issue be taken any more seriously than the opinion of non-experts on whether creationism should be given equal footing with evolution? (Hint: they shouldn't)

It is relevant that dwarf stars are stars and that dwarf galaxies are galaxies and that dwarf planets are not planets. Therefore, it is obvious that both of you are being subjective and that this issue is too personal for either of you to present a cogent case against dwarf planets being a subclass of planets. 300, not 79, scientists signed that petition. One of them is David Rabinowitz, a co-discoverer of Eris. Imagine that. How you dream up that I am anti-science is another sign of your delusional behavior. There has been nothing I have written here to suggest I am anti-science. Dream on.

"It is relevant that dwarf stars are stars and that dwarf galaxies are galaxies and that dwarf planets are not planets"

No it isn't.

One is about stars, and brown dwarfs are "failed stars".

The other is about galaxies (and dwarf galaxies are not, strictly speaking, galaxies, just like globular clusters around our galaxy aren't galaxies either: scale DOES matter).

And the latter is about planets and Pluto isn't a planet like Earth, but a dwarf planet like Ceres.

"it is obvious that both of you are being subjective and that this issue is too personal for either of you to present a cogent case"

It's always projection with you idiots, isn't it?

Where is YOUR "cogent case"?

Nowhere.

"One of them is David Rabinowitz, a co-discoverer of Eris. Imagine that."

Yup, that's easy.

So what?

More than 3x as many have no connection with the matter voted on and only after it's been made are whining. Those who could conceivably claim to have been excluded are less than 1/4 of that pitifully small petition.

But yet again, rather than have your own ideas, you merely shout "SQUIRREL!" and whine about how you're being persecuted.

Diddums.

300, not 79, scientists signed that petition.

Perhaps we are referring to two different petitions - possible, but not likely, and if not, the 300 is a false number.

But, even if you correct: what percentage of (approximately 9000) is 300? Is 300 greater than the number who thought it important enough to vote?

Side note: Mike Brown, co discoverer of Eris, stated (after joking that if a probe discovered a sign on Pluto that read "I'm a planet" he would change his mind) this:

But barring that there’s really nothing we could learn about Pluto that would change the fact that we know enough to say that it’s really part of this other population.
It doesn’t really fit in with the planets; it’s part of this other population. It’s really the size and the mass and its location that makes a difference.

Since you like spouting out items from authority, consider your latest one cancelled. When asked how he felt about the term "dwarf planet", he stated (emphasized item by me)

It’s OK. I don’t like the term “dwarf planet” because it sort of confuses people by having the word “planet” in there. It’s unnecessarily confusing. It makes people say, “Oh, so isn’t it still a planet?” No, it’s not a planet. So I would have preferred a different word, but it’s serviceable, and I am willing to go along.

Dump the persecution complex: the explanations have been attempts to show that your assertions of "ram-rodding" and other shenanigans don't hold water. If you choose to ignore the facts about the debate, or the numbers of people who attended versus number who found it important enough to vote, or the fact that "petitions" collect relatively few scientists as opposed to civilians who, for whatever reason, don't like the change, fine, you don't have to. If the facts of the case don't sway you then they don't: they should let other people know that the way you assert things went down are demonstrably false, and that the level of objection in the scientific world is not as high as you want to make it seem to be.

Yellow Dwarf Star. Our sun. Also a star. What is there not to get?

Brown Dwarfs. Not Yellow Dwarfs.

You blind as well as fucking stupid?

I could care less about your blather about brown dwarfs. I make my points and you make yours. Deal?

dean,

You seem like a nice guy, so I will say this real nice. Quoting Mike Brown doesn't impress me. The guy told his wife he discovered a planet when he co-discovered Eris. Now he claims he killed Pluto. I could start quoting Stern and Tombaugh and Disney. Did you know Brown publicly beheaded a doll of Disney's Pluto. He is a buffoon. A pathological narcissist. His book is tripe. Garbage. He never corrects book reviewers who say he discovered Eris or that it's larger than Pluto. You'd do better to quote Xena the Princess Warrior.

My allegations of shenanigans, moreover, are water-tight. The vote was hopelessly tainted.

The point is that trying to make an argument based on comments of "authorities" is not way to make an argument.
I'm not sure about your "corrects people who say he discovered Eris" - he was on the team that discovered it. Notice, also, that initially it was believed that Eris was larger than Pluto. Current measurements show it to be more massive, and the sizes are so close that the difference, whatever it is, is within the error bars of measurement. That information comes only from data gathered in 2010. We simply do not know, at this point, which is larger.
The Pluto stuff is foolish showmanship, no doubt about it. I doubt that his book qualifies as garbage
However,

My allegations of shenanigans, moreover, are water-tight. The vote was hopelessly tainted.

indicates an astounding willingness to ignore the facts and history of the vote.,

The fact is there are numerous accounts of shenanigans. I'm not just making these accounts up. See Kornfeld posts and take it up with her. Brown should correct the book reviewers and make sure Chad and David get their credit. To not do so is contemptible in the extreme. All 3 are credited on Wikipedia. The book came out and reviews were published long after Eris was downsized. Sicardy's paper has Pluto as at least 12 km larger than Eris. Mass is a secondary matter. Size matters more. Ask any woman. If not garbage, flotsam and jetsam.

When I watched video of the infamous session, I saw a few shenanigans, too. When you are in a position of power and cut someone off in mid-sentence, that qualifies as a shenanigan.

"Notice, also, that initially it was believed that Eris was larger than Pluto. "

And notice that Pluto was supposed to be a damn sight bigger.

"I could care less about your blather about brown dwarfs."

So how much less? A bit? A lot?

Moreover, when you're wibbling on insanely about "dwarf stars are stars" and brown dwarfs are *failed* stars, then brown dwarfs is rather pertinent.

It seems that you will only every deign to note or care for things that support your victimisation seeking.

"When you are in a position of power and cut someone off in mid-sentence"

Someone has never had responsibility for being the chair of a meeting.

Along with many adherents of a geophysical planet definition, I do not hold the view that a celestial object has to clear its orbit or even dominate its orbit to be considered a planet. Planet is a broad term referring to non-self-luminous bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium, of which there are many subtypes, including some that don't orbit any star.

There should be a streamlining of terminology in astronomy. The term dwarf is used as an adjective modifying a noun in the cases of both galaxies and stars. In the same way, it should be used as an adjective modifying a noun in the case of planets. Dwarf planets are a subclass of planets the same way dwarf stars are a subclass of stars, and dwarf galaxies are a subclass of galaxies. Brown dwarfs are really brown dwarf stars, the low end of the stellar category. They may be failed stars, but at some point, even if it was brief, fusion of hydrogen or deuterium took place in their interiors.

The person who was strong armed into voting for resolution 5b was a graduate student at the time. It is well known that the academic world has its own issues of politics and bureaucracy. It is unfortunate, but graduate students, post-docs, and even professors who dissent with those in positions of power often are blacklisted and not hired for full time positions and/or not given funding for their projects. This is nothing new.

Some planets clear their orbits while others do not. According to the geophysical planet definition, not clearing or dominating its orbit does not preclude an object t from being a planet; it just places the object in a different subclass of planets. And the fact that Earth would not clear its orbit if put in Pluto's location was mathematically determined by a dynamicist who supports the IAU definition, Dr. Hal Levison.

Many exoplanets do not clear or gravitationally dominate their orbits either, and most of these are giant planets, not small ones. In one case, a giant planet has such an eccentric orbit that it plunges through a belt of asteroids twice in its long orbit around its parent star. This planet and a good many exoplanets would never qualify as planets according to the IAU definition--even if the "requirement" to orbit the Sun was changed to a requirement to orbit a star.

Pluto is a part of more than one population. It's not an either/or. It is part of the planet population because it is a complex world with geology and weather that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity. At the same time, it is the largest member of a population of much smaller trans-Neptunian objects (though the latter are mostly icy, and Pluto is estimated to be 70 percent rock). To overlook Pluto's planetary qualities and lump it solely with a group of tiny iceballs is misleading and bad science.

Pluto is not tidally locked with Neptune. It is tidally locked with Charon, its giant moon, with both orbiting a common barycenter outside of Pluto; this is why some astronomers consider Pluto-Charon a binary planet system with four moons. Pluto's orbit is in a two to three resonance with Neptune, meaning Pluto orbits the Sun twice for every three times Neptune orbits the Sun. That is not the same thing as being tidally locked.

Earth and Pluto have far more similarities beyond their both orbiting the Sun. Both worlds are rocky; both have geology and weather; both are geologically differentiated into core, mantle, and crust; both have nitrogen in their atmospheres, and both have big moons formed via giant impacts. In fact, Earth has a lot more in common with Pluto than it does with Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

Many professional astronomers are not members of the IAU, having chosen not to join. That does not make them any less credible. The IAU has about 10,000 members; 2,500 attended the start of the 2006 General Assembly, and 424 remained for the vote. Most of those 424 were not experts in planetary science but in completely different areas of astronomy.

You said, "Weird. Ever think of doing that yourself?" Doing what?

This is not about a vote that didn't go someone's way. It is about a highly flawed definition recognized as such by many astronomers and the need to come up with something better that reflects the reality of what is really out there, and that is billions of planets.
At the Great Planet Debate, astronomers who were present in Prague reported personal experiences of the shenanigans Mike talks about. Most astronomers do not attend the entire two weeks of the General Assembly, and many had already made airline reservations they could not change without having to spend a lot more money. Of course, they had no way of knowing the IAU would violate its own bylaws and instead of voting on the definition put forward by its own committee, would vote on a hastily thrown together alternate resolution instead. That resolution was literally put together the night before the vote; it was not debated for 10 days.

Wow. Now that's a good post. My only criticism is that the word "numbnuts" wasn't in it.....

I have not mentioned brown dwarfs. You must be getting posters confused, dude. I have only mentioned yellow dwarfs when it comes to stars, viz., our sun.

@109. Wow (November 6, 2013)

“1) Why do you (“Wow”) think Pluto is NOT a planet precisely?”
Because it doesn’t meet the requirements for a planet, you fucking idiot.

Yes it does, asswipe.

Pluto meets all the criteria for planet that a reasonable and logical. The IAU's "orbital clearance" idea is neither logical nor reasonable for all the reasons I've stated repeatedly here starting with my first comment - # 30.

"“2) Did you read the links I’ve provided for you and try answering Croswell’s Pluto questions? How did you do and what do you think of them?”
No.

Further confirmation that you are a troll who is only here to annoy people and arguing in bad faith. Not that there's been any doubt about that for a long time.

Have a look at those links I provided tothe ken Croswell articles and his Pluto questions in comments 33, 34, 37 and think about the implications.

Here's an extra bonus one for you as well :

http://kencroswell.com/HD45364.html

But you are too gutless and pathetic to even look at information and ideas you disagree with and argue honestly but then that's not what you're here for it is it, bro?.

“3) Do you you think that having enough things that are X together suddenly somehow makes X into not-X? ”
Yes.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. Do you fail to realise you stupid you sound with that Wow?

Humans don't stop being humans when they gather in a crowd. Animals don't stop being animals when they gather in herds and flocks and packs and plants don't stop being plants when they're found crowded together in the jungle.

Equally, in exactly the same way planets don't stop being planets when they're close together and have unclear or crossed orbits. Saying otherwise is just plain dumb.

You really are a moron, Wow.

I'll just note once again the complete lack of substance and any supporting evidence or logic to your "arguments" here, Wow you troll.

@156. Wow (November 8, 2013) :

"If Earth being tidally locked by Neptune and Neptune orbit crossing, then, yes, Earth would not be a planet.
Why is this a problem for you?"

Because it fails the Reductio ad absurdum test of logic. It is an absurd statement and consequence that shows the current IAU definition is, frankly, silly.

"However, if the Earth were at Pluto’s distance and retained the “cleared its orbit”, which is true for Earth in its orbit, then it would be a planet because it has cleared its orbit of perturbating (sic) influences on its trajectory."

Your lack of comprehension and outright ignorance is revealed again Wow. Earth's orbit is perturbed all the time and is affected by the other planets and even, albeit very slightly, by spacecraft gaining gravity boosts such as the recent fly-by of the Juno spaceprobe on its way to Jupiter. Unperburbed orbits has never been part of the definition of planet.

The current erroneous IAU definition insists on supposedly "clear" orbits which then raises - superfluously and in violation of Occams razor - the questions of how clear and for how long? No planetary orbit is ever completely clear especially over a long enough timeframe showing again how ridiculous the present IAU definition is and why it needs to be scrapped and replaced with a better one ASAP.

@171 Wow : "Someone has never had responsibility for being the chair of a meeting."

That "someone" sounds like you - I very much doubt you've ever had that role, troll. Not that its relevant anyhow.

It doesn't require chairing any meetings for people to tell bad manners and dodgy shenanigans when they see 'em.

@170. Wow : "Moreover, when you’re wibbling on insanely about “dwarf stars are stars” and brown dwarfs are *failed* stars, then brown dwarfs is rather pertinent.

FYI. Brown dwarfs are actually given stellar classes L,T & Y and count as stars. Dwarf stars just like yellow dwarfs, blue dwarfs and white dwarfs among others. Brown dwarfs are in a sub-category of their own,yes, but then so too are stellar remnants like neutron stars too.

Gas giant planets include superjovians up to the brown dwarf mass limit. The ad hominem "insanity" is all yours.

"It seems that you will only every deign to note or care for things that support your victimisation seeking."

Wow, what a hypocrite! You've admitted not even looking at the links I provided to articles and questions that would make you're think your position on this showing you are arguing in bad faith and then you have the hypocrisy to come spout this? Wow indeed.

^ Typo fix. Penultimate line should read :

"You’ve (Wow - ed) admitted not even looking at the links I provided to articles and questions that would make you rethink your position on this showing you are arguing in bad faith and then you have the hypocrisy to come spout this?"

@169. Wow

“Notice, also, that initially it was believed that Eris was larger than Pluto. ”
And notice that Pluto was supposed to be a damn sight bigger."

Since Pluto and Eris are *both* planets this is about as relevant as noting that Uranus is physically larger - though less massive than - Neptune. Clearly Pluto and Eris are almost equal in size but it doesn't stop either body from being planetary in nature.

As a matter of fact, given their large numbers the average planet is around the size of Pluto just as the average star is a red dwarf around the size of Barnard's star.

@157. Wow : "Dean, I wonder if this isn’t merely another anti-science person finding SOMETHING to claim that scientists (who exist in ivory towers and are not *really* human) are evil scum of the earth, declaring everyone else has to bow to their edicts. You know, same as the whine about “LHC could DESTROY THE EARTH!!!!!!”.

Your typical troll tactic of trying to derail the debate by changing subjects and baselessly insulting other commenters - adding the fallacy of attributing motives /casting calumnous aspersions to your long list of errors here - when you're clearly losing the intellectual argument is duly noted.

@172. Laurel Kornfeld : Excellent comment there. Very well said and seconded by me.

"admitted not even looking at the links I provided to articles and questions that would make you rethink your position "

Nope, you're assuming they would.

However, if their argument were so persuasive, you'd be able to explain them here.

You haven't.

The arguments presented here have been asinine, illogical, petulant, childish and repetitive.

If you can't explain the "argument" that so convinced you, then you can't have understood it, can you?

@171 Wow : “Someone has never had responsibilit"y for being the chair of a meeting.”

That “someone” sounds like you – I very much doubt you’ve ever had that role, troll. Not that its relevant anyhow. "

Nope, I've had to chair a meeting and if there are timewasters you HAVE to keep to schedule.

Apparently you're unable to actually think, Steve. At least not if you can muddy waters and avoid having any actual content to your emissions.

"I have not mentioned brown dwarfs. "

Never said you did, mikey.

I did.

I said I did.

"“1) Why do you (“Wow”) think Pluto is NOT a planet precisely?”
Because it doesn’t meet the requirements for a planet, you fucking idiot.

Yes it does, asswipe. "

No it doesn't, shithead.

It hasn't cleared its orbit.

Ergo: not a planet.

"Since Pluto and Eris are *both* planets "

They are not.

Typos, Steve?

The problem doesn't appear to be your fingers but your brain.

in 33:

"providing his alternative definition and argument because I think its well worth reading and contemplating in this context."

And I have no reason to believe that your feelings on this carry ANY WEIGHT WHATSOEVER.

Furthermore, the definition of planet doesn't consider the distance between orbits, so your "oh, they're so very far apart from each other!!!" is a waste of ones and zeros.

re:34

"Plus Ken Croswell asks a couple of great thought-provoking questions on his site which I’d also like to link here if this is okay "

Ask them yourself.

#37 has nothing at all about definitions of plants.

So, A THIRD TIME your whining complaints about "Answer my questions!!!!" has been done.

Never bothered to thank me for doing as you demand, do you, steve?

"As a matter of fact, given their large numbers the average planet is around the size of Pluto "

And as a matter of fact, given that humans are alive and bacteria are alive, but vastly more common, the average size of a human is a few microns across!

Wow,

One could easily accuse you of being childish and petulant. You have called people names like idiot, moron, and numbnuts. You refuse to look at links, accuse people of shilling if they mention a book. Very petulant and unpleasant. If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist or whatever it is you are, you should take heed of my observations. There is, of course, the old adage, "It takes one to know one." If your nuts are numb, dude, I suggest you see a urologist.

Yeah, It's easy to do it. Just type it and you're done.

However, making anything of it is rather more difficult.

If you can't say what it is in that link that constitutes your argument, then you're not actually making any argument, are you.

I see your point. Links are best as a supplement.

Still 100% complete absence of the argument that you think so persuasive.

Wow,

Geophysical definition of a planet, dude. Dwarf planet don't have to gravitationally dominate their orbits. The have crust, mantle, and core and hydrostatic equilibrium. As worthy a subclass as terrestrials and jovians. You know it, too. You just like being difficult.

"Geophysical definition of a planet, dude"

Meaning what?

I have read the IAU definition.

A Planet requires clearing its orbit, be large enough to be round and orbit a star.

Pluto isn't a planet.

I'm taking the other, equally-valid definition. The one that in Honolulu or Vienna will overthrow the rancid one.

Talking, rather....

"I’m taking the other, equally-valid definition"

No, you're talking about the wrong definition.

You need to

a) describe that definition
b) show it is better than the current one

This is science. You don't just throw away Maxwell's Equations because you don't like them, you ONLY throw them away when you have a BETTER set of equations.

"l overthrow the rancid one."

And yet again, you with your vitriolic and empty rhetoric, even after whining pointlessly, yet so very tediously, over anyone else slagging you off for your complete asshattery here, never even glimpses above the parapet of your ignorance.

PS if the current IAU definition is "rancid" and had to be "ramrodded" then doesnt it make whatever vapid version you're wilbbling on about now also rancid and ramrodded?

After all, you've called it "equally valid". To a definition you think is invalid.

Not even you think that this "other definition" works..!

I am still befuddled as to what makes this such a hot button issue for the pro-Pluto group. As has been noted (and can be seen from the discussions at the conference) there were no shenanigans. The fact that only 400-ish of the people still there found it an important enough issue to vote on shows it was not a big deal for the attendees - if the rest had been rabidly against it they had the numbers to vote it down: that didn't happen. The "petitions" to overturn it found very few real scientists signing on: opinions of non-scientists are opinions but irrelevant to the science.
Screaming and saying the current definition is wrong because you say it is wrong is childish.

Could it change some day? Certainly, if new information is brought to light or the pro-Pluto group (there has to be a better name for that) can make a better case. Empty assertions of intimidation and threats are not a better case.

I could not have written a more confusing final sentence in #198 had I tried. I meant to phrase it along the lines of
"Empty assertions that the vote included intimidation of, and threats to, attendees as well as voters are not a better case."

Dude,

Stern coined the term "dwarf planet," so, of course, it should be used as a subclass of planet, as he intended. So, yes, the geophysical def is better than the IAU one in my book. Dude, if you invented a term, such as "asshat," which is, admittedly, a wonderfully-creative slur, and some fucktard misused it and the misuse became more popular than your intended usage, I would probably make it a point to call a few asshats and asshat now and then out of homage to you. Now would an asshat do that?

If a definition is rancid, it is not necesarily ramrodded, but, of course, in this case both apply. I was being polite when I said "equally valid."

Capeesh?

As far as me having to "prove" things when I comment on this blog, that is not a correct understanding of the nature of a comment. Do you see where it says "Submit Comment" ???????

dean

There is. We are Pluto huggers, dude.

dean,

If a shenanigan bit you in the ass, would you think it was a spider?

dean,

If a shenanigan bit you in the posterior, would you think it was a spider? Just because you say there were no shenanigans repeatedly, does not make the accounts disappear from the annals of history.

dean,

I agree that the shenanigan accounts are an entirely different beast than the case for a better definition of a planet. I don't agree that the accounts are empty. How do you know they are empty? I know the person who said he was threatened. Are you sure he is a liar? What if I called you a liar? How do you know a person you never met is a liar? Why is it so important to you to discredit this person without any investigation? Not very scientific, dean. Pure subjectivity, in fact.

Mike, anecdotes are not evidence: perceptions are not evidence. I believe you are smart enough to realize that.

We are Pluto huggers

Tongue in cheek aside, this seems (to me) to be a step backwards from "pro-Pluto".

I started today hiking a new (to me) nature area with camera, processing the shots, spend the afternoon grading, and am working on my second 4 fingers of Scotch, so my opinion on names may be slightly impaired.

Cheers! We have embraced "Pluto huggers." I know its original intention was derisive, but it's actually cool. I know it's pretty informal and colloquial, but it works and has stood the test if time. It's also in the Urban Dictionary.

I am a lawyer, besides an artist and writer. A firsthand account is evidence in a court of law. I saw his personal account of the incident in Prague. A judge would allow him to testify and his testimony would be considered evidence. I am just telling you what he said. We are not conducting a trial here.

Stern didn't invent the term.

And being a dwarf planet excludes pluto from being a planet just as it does for asteroids.

"A firsthand account is evidence in a court of law."

Then take it up in a court of law, moron.

However, this is science, where you do not get to decide what "truth" is by arguing with every trick to get your own way.

We do things differently.

I heard Stern did. Take it up with Laurel.

I know this is science. I was just making a comment. As far as who the moron is, that is self-evident, given your consistant penchant for hurling slurs and insults at people. No wonder you don't give out your real name. You are a coward hiding behind your little fake name. Moreover, you are not much of a scientist, if that is what you are holding yourself out to be. You are just playing devil's advocate and trying to put whatever people say in the worst possible light. That is also a trick. I am not the one playing games. You are. You are boring and dull, dude. Stop wasting space.

The Prague shenanigans of August 24 were not science. They were a blatant exhibition of ramrodding at its most rancid. No wonder 300 distinguished scientists protested in said petition. Take it up with them.

Pluto is a planet. Size and orbit are ancillary matters worthy of note, but not exclusionary in nature.

The way you said "we" implies you speak for the scientific community at large. Something tells me your mouth is outrunning your actual status within said community. However, if the IAU needs a good parrot, I'll put a good word in for you.

"The way you said “we” implies you speak for the scientific community at large"

Speaking on behalf of their expressed intent is absolutely 100% fine unless you're an anti-science moron, where every opinion is just as valid as any other arsehole's.

"I heard Stern did. Take it up with Laurel."

Nope, I'm taking it up with you.

YOU stated it. If YOU didn't know whether it was right, why did YOU parrot it? Why did YOU think it true?

If you merely parrot what others say (and pretend that you think it valid) why the hell are you even on here? Just let those who actually HAVE opinion state them.

"Pluto is a planet."

Pluto is not a planet.

"Size and orbit are ancillary matters worthy of note, but not exclusionary in nature."

It has to be big enough to reach hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e. be round) and has to have cleared its orbit.

Even though you discard the last thing, you USED to agree that its size was important. Now, when convenient, you pretend it is unimportant.

You must be a REALLY SHIT lawyer.

"The Prague shenanigans of August 24 were not science."

Maybe not, but nobody knows what the hell you're on about here.

Meanwhile the IAU definition was science.

You are a waste of my time.

You are the parrot of the IAU. That's worse than being Laurel's parrot. She's not a rancid ramrodder at least.

Pluto has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. What planet are you on. Stop parroting the absurd definition. You are boring me.

Size is important in that I want Pluto to be bigger than Eris because it will piss off Mike Brown. Sicardy's paper strongly suggests it it. However, both qualify as planets, but for the third rung of your belovedly rancid definition.

I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-ramrodding. I'm also anti-fucktard. That seems to be you. But maybe you are just playing one on this blog.

I mostly want Pluto to remain larger than Eris and all other KBOs because Pluto is awesome. Mike Brown sort of ruined Eris for me, but at least they didn't keep his stupid name for it.

My long comment to you, Wow, is awaiting moderation because I threw a cuss word at you.

Anyway, I think I said I may be Laurel's parrot, but it is better than being the parrot of the IAU, an organization that likes to ramrod its members.

I have the right to comment here. I do not have to prove to you that Stern coined the term dwarf planet. That is what I heard. You are a moron if you think I have to prove he coined it.

I suppose I have to prove the Earth is not flat, for you, too, if I say that the Earth is round?

It is hard to believe you are in the scientific community. You behave like a real cad. You and Mike Brown are an embarrassement to the scientific community.

As far as me being a shit lawyer, who said I wanted to be the next Perry Mason? I can be a shit lawyer if I want to be a shit lawyer. Not that I am, but I might be. Maybe I did not go to law school to even practice law. That is my business and not yours.

Also, it is cretinous of you to use the little personal information I just disclosed against me. Stick to the issues. I know that was the reason you wanted to hear personal anecdotes, too, so you could belittle me based on personal information gleaned from them. You have no class, dude.

Why don't you contemplate being a man someday, instead of a punk-ass troll|?

Size does not matter as far as hydrostatic equilibrium is achieved in regards to planethood. The only reason I mentioned the size of Pluto is that that was what originallly inspired the IAU to demote Pluto in that Eris's size was inflated by Mike Brown so he could wallow in his pathological narcissism. As you probably know, he at first considered it a planet, too. Sicardy's paper suggests Pluto is at least 12 km larger. I am very glad of that, but it has nothing to do with the definiton of a planet, or dwarf planet. I am glad for other reasons.

"Size does not matter as far as hydrostatic equilibrium is achieved in regards to planethood. "

Yes it does. Too light: not enough gravity to move things into a round shape. Shit, are you REALLY sitting on here being THIS dumb in public?

"You are a waste of my time."

You are a waste of your own time. THAT was a waste of your own time.

"You are the parrot of the IAU."

Squark!

Of course, you're a parrot of fuck all, aren't you, mikey?

I guess you whine at teacher for teaching you what the word "size" means by telling her "You're a parrot for the OED!" and thing you won, eh?

"I mostly want Pluto to remain larger than Eris and all other KBOs because Pluto is awesome."

Yup, fuck all science or even reason for it.

YOU JUST WANNA PLUTO!!!!

"I have the right to comment here. I do not have to prove to you that Stern coined the term dwarf planet. That is what I heard. "

You do have to prove it for it to be of any point whatsoever.

Do you know what "proof" means and why *evidence"* is so very important, EVEN TO SHYSTER LAWYERS who are frankly as shit at it as you appear to be?

How unsuccessful must you be if you're in court and say something in defence of a client and when brought up by the counsel for prosecution that it is not proven: "Well, that's what I heard, so there!".

Wow,

I said as long as hydrostatic equilibrium is achieved, size does not matter. Of course, a certain size is necessary. Ceres and Eris are smaller than Pluto and have it, so it is not an issue at all in the case of Pluto. You just need to bark at everything I say, is that it?

Why are you harping on about everything. It hurts your credibility. This is not a court of law. In court, yes, you call witnesses. I am not going to subpeona Dr. Stern so you can call him names here. Laurel says he coined the term. That is good enough for me. Whether that gets your panties in a bunch that I am repeating that is not my problem. Frankly, even if he didn't think dwarf planets should be a subclass of planets like the terrestrials and the jovians, I would, but he does. So should you, but you are obsessed with being a kowtowing parrot of the IAU. I realize you are incapable of breaking from the precious mother teat of the IAU. Whatever floats your boat, dude.

I am not out to prove to you anything. Obviously, you are impervious to Pluto huggery. Frankly, we don't want you on our side. You help us more by being on the other side.

Just because I appreciate the awesomeness of Pluto doesn't mean I'm unreasonable. It really is pathetic the way I can make you jump like a trained dog. I knew you would bark at that one. So what if I think Pluto is awesome? Get a life, dude. Find something you think is awesome. It is better way to use your time than to belittle others.

"I said as long as hydrostatic equilibrium is achieved, size does not matter."

And since you need size to GET hydrostatic equilibrium, size DOES matter.

"Ceres and Eris are smaller than Pluto and have it, so it is not an issue at all in the case of Pluto."

And none of those three are planets.

"Laurel says he coined the term. That is good enough for me."

And some dude said they would lose their job if Pluto wasn't a planet and that was enough for you.

However, IAU saying that it isn't a planet isn;t enough for you.

Why?

Because you'll ONLY accept people who support your point of view that Pluto must be special pled into remaining a planet and not accept the word of ANYONE who doesn't think that's correct.

Therefore your acceptance of what they said is irrelevant. It has no validity. It is not even wrong.

Because all you're doing is accepting someone who said something as being proof Pluto is a planet.

And your only "reason" for it is you are excited by Pluto but not Eris.

Well, your fantasies and preferences are not going to be ramrodded down the throats of everyone else on the planet. Sucks for you, but you're not god.

"This is not a court of law"

It is.

You're trying to convince the jury of your accusations.

The standard of evidence is just as high and you're flunking it deliberately because you KNOW you're talking shit.

Treat your case for the IAU definition for being wrong as if it were a court case.

And would you get away with hearsay evidence?

NO.

So don't fucking try it on here, shithead, 'cos you're trying to prove your case as if we're all a bunch of clueless morons and it's failing.

You're not?

You are.

I am not going to treat the comment board as if it was a court of law. I have made a few comments. Take them or leave them. The case for Pluto and the other dwarf planets being a subclass of planets is sound. The case was not allowed to be made in Prague. The other side ramrodded the exclusionary definition down the throats of the members. This is how the railroad companies behaved in the Old American West. If someone didn't want to sell their land to the railroad barons, the barons would find a way to get their land by hook or by crook. I see no difference here, yet you call it science. You are delusional. The accounts of the shenangans in Prague are disturbing. Yet, because the vote fell your way, you call the shenanigans science, or fictional, or say I have to prove them or they should not be mentioned at all. Whatever, dude. You are just being a bore. The fact is the definition sucks. It if didn't suck, it wouldn't have had to be ramrodded on the last day of the GA. But it sucked hard, dude. Very hard did it and does it suck. And it will go down in flames. Maybe in Honolulu. Maybe in Vienna. But it will go down in flames someday, and do you know why? Because it sucks. And the way it was ramrodded sucked, too, of course. Can I prove that someone in Prague was threatened? Sure, if I subpeoned him and convinced a jury of his veracity; but that is not the nature of internet blog comment boards, nor should it be. Your demands of me are unreasonable and troll-like.

I am cutting you some slack, because you are a rather intelligent troll, and I like to swear, too.

As to your statement that I do not question as hard that which helps the case for Pluto's planethood as that which hurts the case for Pluto's planethood, that may be. I try to call a spade a spade though. What if someone you knew said they were raped? Would you tell them to prove it? Would you be concerned, disturbed, or would you blow it off? I think you are such a lackey of the IAU that they can do no wrong in your book. You are not disturbed by any of the alleged shenanigans. You have maligned me for mentioning the accounts of them, in fact. You are a classic bully. You might want to look at inside yourself someday and realize what sort of image you are presenting to the world here. It is really ugly and unpleasant. It is a scary thought that you have actually chaired meetings. Wow.

"I am not going to treat the comment board as if it was a court of law."

Therefore you're not going to change your way and try and prove any of your accusations.

Fair enough.

So in the same spirit:

You're full of shit, kid.

Pluto is not a planet, the IAU's decision was democratic and you're a complete fraud.

You wish.

You moron.

The IAU has no respect for a truly democratic vote. Is "moron" your favorite word? If you are a scientist, maybe you should find a new favorite word. Maybe "methane."

The IAU held a democratic vote.

You just hate the result.

You wish.

I hate injustice. If they'd followed their own rules, I wouldn't be able to bitch.

I hate injustice. If they'd oh followed their own rules, it'd be harder for me to bitch, which, admittedly, is my wont.

Dude, the IAU is not the tooth fairy. It can, and it will, and it has, done wrong. Grow up and stop demonizing anyone who speaks ill against the mother teat.

You methane.

Still pegging 0% on argument, 100% on moronic, Mikey?

Well done.

Keep up the bad work, there's an internet Galileo prize for you if you manage to keep it up!

You hate injustice therefore invent it because the world isn't doing what you demand, therefore THAT'S UNFAIR!!!!

And the IAU is not a tooth fairy, only you've said it. Again with the moron?

Pluto is not a planet.

"If they’d followed their own rules,"

They did.

" I wouldn’t be able to bitch."

You aren't capable, but you still do, dear.

I thought there was only one tooth fairy. I guess you know better than me, methane.

Show me where strong-arming is in the rule book, methane.

Show me where strong-arming happened, retard.

Prague, methane. Pay attention!

Your tooth fairies distracting you?

Prague is not strongarming.

Are you drunk or just stupid?

This is Prague:

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-191501726-prague_vacations-i

And this is strongarming:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strong-arming

One is a geographical location (noun), the other is an adjective

You said where, methane. It's not my place to tell the tale. You wouldn't believe a firsthand account, anyway. The mother teat can do no wrong.

Don't you know what the words mean, shithead?

Didn't the mother teat teach you that if you have nothing nice to say (and in your case nothing whatsoever to say) then say nothing at all? I can see you are one of those boring, narcissitic types that always has to have the last word. You must be a riot to hang out with. You probably mouth off to the cops, too? Ever get a nice beatdown?

Still completely empty of anything approaching an attempt at a reason for your position, Mikey.

I guess you've never really had anything to your whine, just "I WANNA PLUTO!!!".

I'm tired of arguing with a cad.

The reasons for Pluto's planethood are copious and notorious. You just want to wield your abusive, obnoxious, and sophomoric personality some more. See you in Honolulu, Trixie.

"The reasons for Pluto’s planethood are copious and notorious."

By which you mean "Nonexistent and vapid".

NOT A SINGLE REASON has been given on this thread.

NOT ONE that hasn't been "But they were MEAN!".

Pluto: Not a planet, any more than the asteroids are, or Comets, or meteorites.

And note: even the "But they're MEAN" has been nothing other than assertion.

15th Aug, the draft proposal. Several reviews and plenty of consultation and on the 24th the vote taken.

Out of those who bothered enough on the subject to vote voted for the IAU definition.

The vetting process was "Anyone in the IAU who signed up to go to the discussion" which was valid.

The voting process was "Anyone who signed up to the discussion could vote" which was valid.

There is no shenanigans, no strong-arming, no ramming down of throats in any of this. Just a decision that the arsehole of humanity who don't even know what the planets ARE (see "As far as Pluto being locked to Neptune, I will have to check up on that. I know Pluto and Charon are tidally locked. I do not pretend to know everything." including the HILARIOUS "I do not pretend to know everything" schtick where mikey pretends to know what shenanigans went on based on some links that he posts but never explains what's said in them), for how clueless but how strident these fuckwits are).

"Oh, read this book, it has a good account of the problem!". Except that the only thing mentioned is how the non-astronomers don't like change and that changing things in the face of evidence with morons used to the certitude of religion produces suspicion in science. I.e. FUCK ALL about how Pluto must remain a planet.

"This link has an alternative and better definition" when said about a link that contains no such definition.

"This link has a couple of reasons why Pluto must remain a planet" that then goes on about how things are not visible at Pluto distances to the human eye, WHICH IS NOT A DEFINITION OF PLANET. Moreover, never says why this definition should include "can be seen by the naked eye" or why it's otherwise relevant.

No, it's all bluff and bluster hiding a mulish and childish whine of "I WAS TAUGHT IT AND I WILL NOT BE WRONG!!! I WANNA PLUTO!!!!!!!!"

Plenty of reasons throughout the thread, methane. See Laurel's posts, for example, methane.

I am sorry about the closed head injury.

Are you? So someone not accepting complete and utter unsubstantiated hearsay bullshit is "closed minded".

Xtian fundies use the same "You must be open minded like me!" to make insistence that their vapid shit must be given consideration as factual.

But you'd still prefer to fake concern rather than actually explain anything on your arguments for Pluto's planethood, preferring to whine and bitch and make out it's everyone else who is wrong.

And then pretend fake concern.

A straight-up passive-aggressive move.

And doesn't work, chump.

"Plenty of reasons throughout the thread"

No, only claims. Nothing substantiated you fathead shitstain ragbastard.

"Prague".

Nope.

"Man may lose his job!".

No he won't.

"The IAU got it wrong!"

But you can't say how.

Oh, methane.....that was a joke about you having brain damage for not having enough reading comprehension to know that reasons for Pluto's planethood populate this blog's comment thread in abundance. I must remember you are humor-impaired. Not sure why, but that is pretty obvious, unless, perhaps, you are making the joke.

Reasons for Pluto being a planet are, to name a few quickly, as I refuse to waste my entire life with you......geophysical def just as valid.....Pluto has all the tangible markings of a planet....core, mantle, and crust.....

Earth would not meet the def if as far out as Pluto, thus the 3rd rung of current IAU def is absurd. The further from the Sun, the larger a planet must be.

A reason to reopen the debate is the widely-reported taint of the vote in Prague, including the strong-arming of a voting member by another member who had leverage on him, the lack of notice or vetting of the new def that was changed the night before to demote Pluto, etc.

You just wanna Eris, methane. You are the one whining here and calling me and Steve names. Your behavior is childish and contemptible. You are a waste of my time. I am not going to pretend I am speaking with a rational person. Your ad hominem attacks and obvious infatutation with the mother teat of the IAU show you to be unworthy of my time.

The defintion you love so much sucks. It will be changed. What will you do then? Blow your brains out?

No, a joke has to be funny. Or at least an intent to be so.

Seems like "vote" is not the only thing you don't understand what it is.

* geophysical def just as valid…

Does not make the IPCC definition invalid. But you're not even saying what your definition IS, so fails twice.

* Pluto has all the tangible markings of a planet….core, mantle, and crust…..

Hasn't cleared its orbit, which is another required tangible characteristic of a planet.

* Earth would not meet the def if as far out as Pluto

The distance out from the Sun is NOT a characteristic required of a planet, moron.

* The further from the Sun, the larger a planet must be.

NO IT DOES NOT.

* A reason to reopen the debate is the widely-reported taint of the vote in Prague

BULLSHIT.

* the strong-arming of a voting member by another member who had leverage on him

No such strong-arming happened.

* the lack of notice

10 days notice is a "lack of notice"???

* or vetting of the new def that was changed the night before to demote Pluto

1) No, it was vetted and put forward and amended over 10 days before the vote in an ongoing process of getting a useful definition.

2) The changes were NOT made to demote Pluto the day before since the version 10 days earlier would demote Pluto too.

You seem to have the fantasy story of what happened. Fuck knows where you get it from.

* You just wanna Eris

Lame.

And no, Eris isn't a planet either. I have no problem with it.

* You are the one whining here

Yeah, I've already seen how divorced from reality you are, fuckwit. And this isn't a reason for Pluto's planetary status.

* The defintion you love so much sucks.

For reasons you've completely made up.

But in REAL life, it's fine. You just hate it. Cos "I WANNA PLUTO!!!!".

* It will be changed.

No it won't.

* What will you do then?

Accept the definition. Unlike you, whining and shitting and pissing all over the place because you're not getting your own way.

My joke was funny. It was just over your head. I can crack a joke with the best of them, Pierre.

I said what the geophysical def is. Core, mantle, crust, hydrostatic equilibrium. Talk to you is like talking to a baby. Goo goo gaa gaa.

The distance out is relevant because the further out you go, the larger you must be to clear your orbit. Get it now, methane? I do not want to have to explain things to you more than once. This has gone on far too long already.

There is one person who said he was strong-armed. What proof do you have that he was not? None. What if your mother told you she was raped? Would you be equally dismissive without any investigation? You really should consider not being a lackey of the IAU. It is really pathetic.

I got the story from Laurel. Take it up with her. She said it was changed on the night before the vote. I assume she did some research on it. It is pretty obvious that the entire new def was made to specifically exclude Pluto. It is equally obvious from watching the rancidly ramrodded vote that Bell hates Pluto with every fiber of her being. She is about as objective regarding Pluto as a pitbull is to a feral cat.

I am one with the cosmos. You are the one divorced from reality if you think your behavior on this blog is not making you look like a complete douchenozzle.

I look forward to you acceping Pluto back into the family of planets. In the meantime, I bid you adieu, methane.

No, it wasn't funny, moron.

"I said what the geophysical def is. Core, mantle, crust, hydrostatic equilibrium."

So our Moon is a planet?

Really?

"The distance out is relevant because the further out you go, the larger you must be to clear your orbit."

No you don't.

It's not even in the IAU spec which I guess you don't know anything about other than it doesn't let Pluto be a planet. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ThePlanetDefinition3.png

Distance isn't in it.

"There is one person who said he was strong-armed."

And accusation is not proof.

"I got the story from Laurel. Take it up with her."

You keep bringing it up, I'm taking it up with you. If you don't know why, then it is not something you can use in your argument.

I'm taking it up with you. You accept it SOLELY because it supports your whining tantrums about Pluto.

"I am one with the cosmos."

And you're a fuckwit.

PS whilst the definition of a planet excludes Pluto, why not STFU until it's changed, hmm?

I have a better idea. Why don't you. Change doesn't always come if no one stand up for the truth. What if the abolishonists had not existed? Maybe there would still be slavery. What if no one had protested in Tahir Square? Maybe there would've been no Arab Spring in Egypt. What if there had been no Declaration of Independence? You should stick to what you are good at, methane. What that is I have no idea, but it sure is not arguing with me.

The Moon is a moon, and the barycenter with Earth is within Earth, unlike the case of Charon. I am not going to spoonfeed you, methane. I did not give the entire def. I gave a few highlights. Of course, moons are excluded, but some call them satellite planets if they've achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. I personally don't have a problem with that,

I can use accusations in my argument. It isn't like it is all I have. But it is relevant. So is Bell's obnoxious behaviror whilst chairing the rancid session. Both suggest the fix was in. So does the lack of vetting and notice. I don't believe that the demotion of Pluto part of the resolution was known to the members who left. You have not proven it to me. It is one of your tricks to feign superiority over me on this issue. Laurel said it wasn't in it. So if I have to believe either her or you, I will believe her as she is using her real name and has some credibility within the astronomical community. You don't. As far I know, you live in a dumpster.

I am at one with the cosmos, methane. Deal with it.

* I have a better idea. Why don’t you.

It seems to have missed your pea brain, but the definition is that Pluto IS NOT A PLANET.

So, until it changes, if it ever does, YOU shut the fuck up, right?

You fucking moronic piece of arrogant shit.

* The Moon is a moon, and the barycenter with Earth is within Earth

OK, retarted shitstain, where the fuck in your definition here:

"I said what the geophysical def is. Core, mantle, crust, hydrostatic equilibrium."

does it say ANYTHING about "the barycentre"? Let alone "within [the body of another]".

ACCORDING TO *YOUR* definition that you supplied, our Moon is a Planet:

* Core?

Check.

* mantle?

Check.

* crust?

Check

hydrostatic equilibrium?

Check.

Moon, according to your definition IS A PLANET.

Which is why your definition IS WRONG.

PS try using some element of actual thinking in your arguments.

You whine and bitch and complain about ramrodding and vilify others, but you insist that it's just me that's rude? Fuck off smeg-head.

I didn't give the entire def of the geophysical def and you get all pissy with me. Of course, it accounts for moons, too. I could look up the def for you, but not if you are going to be all pissy with me. I am not vilifying anyone. Mike Brown and that Bell lady are wonderful human beings, except that they sort of suck when it comes to Pluto. Okay, well, Brown sucks a lot when it comes to Pluto. Okay, so does she. And you blind parroting of the IAU definition is very grating. You are like a lemming marching off a cliff, methane. Think for yourself for a change.

Oh, and yes you do have to be larger the further out from the Sun in order to clear your field. Ask Neptune, the King of the Kuiper Belt.

Oh, and better wash those pants of yours. They reek of urine. Might want to find a new dumpster to sleep in tonight.

[quote]I didn’t give the entire def of the geophysical def[/quote]

Then you should have said what the fuck it was when you said you'd said it, maybe, you moron?

[quote]I could look up the def for you[/quote]

So, how the fucking hell do you know that it's just as good? YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS!

So, your "point" there fails THREE TIMES OVER.

[quote] I am not vilifying anyone[/quote]

So you're not saying that the IAU broke their rules, strong-armed people or are committing massive fraud on everyone by making pluto a non-planet.

So what the hell ARE you saying?

[quote]And you blind parroting of the IAU definition is very grating.[/quote]

At least I know what the fucking definition IS, unlike you, you shitheaded moron.

[quote]Oh, and yes you do have to be larger the further out from the Sun in order to clear your field. [/quote]

No you don't.

And my pants are staying on, you perverted asshole.

You crack me up, methane. Yeah, I didn't give the entire def. You should know it by now if you read all the posts. So sue me. You are such a whiner. It is not vilifying when you tell the truth.

"Yeah, I didn’t give the entire def."

And you should.

"You should know it by now if you read all the posts."

Except that you didn't give the entire def in the posts you've made.

Even you say that.

So, yeah, your problem, moron.

"It is not vilifying when you tell the truth."

And it's simple truth that you're an ignorant anti-science moronic bigot drooling all over this site.

Yet you claim it's vilification of you and whine incessantly about it.

Or is the "rest of the def" the hidden coda "Unless I say it"?

You could just ask. Sheesh. Whine. Whine.

I did ask.

However, you decided not to put the entire definition up because you don't know it.

Sheesh.

Bitch, whine, moan, everyone else's fault you failed, whine.

Even better:

Rather than actually PUT the definition up even when you've been told many times and even acknowledge yourself that you've not defined it, you preferred to whine bitch and moan about how it's somehow my fault.

You could have done the typing to put the actual definition up.

But that wouldn't give you opportunity to whine, would it?

I'll put it up.

Still bang on form: posting without any content.

Grow up.

And yet again, another post that contains fuck all, despite all the "Well just ask!".

Seems like just asking isn't working with the latest retard from the school of opinionated fuckwits!

You whine pretty good for someone that doesn't whine, methane.

I'll post it. Sheesh. I'm tied up right now, dear.

"Any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star."

Three posts?

And still nothing about it?

"I'm too busy slagging you off for my problems to go and find out what it is I've been claiming is the better definition!!!!"

LOL!

Tell me, when you claimed that the IAU definition was crap and that this other definition was "equally valid", why didn't you tell everyone that you didn't know what that other definition WAS?

What a fucking loon!

Of course, if the definition now is completely different from, as opposed to merely an extension of your earlier claim, then the question arises: why did you claim one definition of a planet only to change the definition when it was discovered that the definition you'd used was patently absurd?

The follow on query then becomes why did you claim a definition better when you clearly have no idea what the definition is, otherwise you would not have issued two incompatible versions of that definition?

And rounding up the problems with your ridiculous circus of the grotesque is the question: why is it that the definition you use is so fluid that you will abandon any one proposed even by yourself if it can't be substantiated, only to insist that any answer that does not merely categorically keep Pluto for reasons that have absolutely no validity to them, must be not only wrong, but a vicious attack on "real science".

There you go again!

So, several problems with your completely different definition as of 290:

#1 either brown dwarf stars are now planets, or Jupiter isn't a planet any more.

#1a worse, since thermonuclear reaction isn't the source of the majority of the luminosity of either Jupiter or White Dwarfs (but not so of Brown Dwarfs), if Jupiter is a planet, then so are White Dwarf stars.

#2 Pluto is still not a planet: it's in orbit around Charon.

#3 It is not a geophysical definition any more, being based on orbital dynamics.

#4 As Steve tried with whining about how the IAU definition was wrong: since the Solar System is due to lose an inner planet, maybe Earth, does that make Earth not a planet? Either that whine is applicable here with your definition or it is not a valid criticism of the IAU definition, being an equal problem for either.

And in 293, yet another content-free whine.

Well done, boy! Have a bikkit!

Pluto and Charon are both planets, methane. As to the other stuff, that's not my field. I'll let the experts sort it out in Honolulu and/or Vienna. But the status quo sucks. I know that.

Jupiter is still a planet. Don't Bogart that joint, methane.

You are talking in circles. I hope you are amusing yourself with your feigned brilliance. Stars are not planets, dear.

"And it’s simple truth that you’re an ignorant anti-science moronic bigot drooling all over this site.

Yet you claim it’s vilification of you and whine incessantly about it."

I never said I was a scientist, but I am not anti-science. As far as being a bigot goes, you are the one that does not like morons. I never said I was vilified, hence I do not whine about it. You are the whiner here. I said I would post it and you need it the very next post. I was not in a position to look it up at your beck and call, Trixie.

#299, and I never claimed you were a lumberjack, either, yet you seem rather blase about it, moron. Why not post another message with how you're not saying you're a lumberjack?
Timewasting moron.

"Jupiter is still a planet"

Then white and brown dwarf stars are planets by your definition.

Or, as I say, your definition is bullshit.

So I take it that your redefinition is now the entirety of the "geophysical def" that now no longer contains anything about hydrostatic equilibrium, crust, mantle core, but rather concerns itself with dynamical features of orbital mechanics.

So your "geophys def" isn't actually a geophysical definition.

And doesn't work.

Whatever, dude. I'm just wondering why you bigoted against morons.

So not only do you not understand science, you don't understand what bigoted means.

Wow. What a moron!

Morons have feelings, too, methane. Not that I am one, of course.

As far as me understanding science, I understand that the Earth and the other terrestrial planets, as well as the dwarf planets, including Ceres and Charon, are non-self-luminous spheriods. You are the one with a faulty understading of the geophysical definition.

But that really is not the crux of the matter. The crux is that the current def sucks and the circumstances that led to the new def also suck; therefore, the issue needs to be reopened where real planetary scientists have input into a better def of a planet.

I will follow the goings-on, but I never said I was a scientist. I certainly hope the people working on a new def are not as peevish and obnoxious as you are. You shouldn't be allowed to be around people. Maybe we can fly you and your buddy Mike Brown to Eris.

"Morons have feelings, too"

So you have nothing to say, moron?

Jupiter produces, IIRC, 3% of the radiation it sends out by the release of gravitational potential energy of its atmosphere.

If it were at 30AU, it would be producing as much or more energy than it receives from the sun.

"But that really is not the crux of the matter."

Then why bring it up?

Oh, that's right: you have nothing. Therefore any distraction from any point to your argument must be taken.

"The crux is that the current def sucks "

The crux is that you still are of the opinion that it sucks, however, such suckage is merely your opinion and therefore must be weighed against the opinions of others and in that weighing, such opinion lost.

However, you will not accept that, but will still demand it of everyone else./

Why?

Because you#re a moron.

oh methane,........

I am not the only person who thinks the current def sucks. In fact, I can think of one very prominent planetary scientist who thinks it sucks. But you just want to bully me because you know you can outscience me as that is not my field. But I am onto your game, and I follow all things Pluto enough to know what is garbage and what is good science. I might not be able to define concepts off the top of my head, but I am not your average lay man when it comes to Pluto.

Did you see the launch, methane?

Have you seen Pluto through a telescope?

Anyway, does Jupiter luminate at all? That is the element in the def that you are taking issue with, is it not? If Jupiter produces light, this is the first time I've heard about it. I think you are talking about other stuff, not luminosity -- therefore, such properties of Jupiter don't mess up the alt def. If they do, I'd be happy to be enlightened.

So you can talk about Jupiter being at 30AU, but if I talk about Earth at the distance of Pluto, you jump all over me......okay, methane......I will let it go this time......

I am not a moron. I know a guy whose sergeant in the Marines called him an "oaf." I am not sure I have ever met a certified-moron. Maybe I will check out You Tube to see a real moron and see if I bear any resemblance. Just to humor you.

"I am not the only person who thinks the current def sucks."

Neither am I the only one who thinks the current definition is fine.

Indeed, its the majority view.

PS there's no such word as luminate, you nincompoop.

"I might not be able to define concepts off the top of my head,"

Since you rely on these for your arguments, you really DO need to define them off the top of your head.

Otherwise what are you basing your decisions on?

Oh, that's right: your whiney crybaby feelings.

PS your definition still has Pluto not a planet.

Yes, there is. Luminate is in Webster's.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Luminate

Lu´mi`nate
v. t.1.To illuminate.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

The majority view of who? IAU members? Yes, well, that is what you think, but after proper vetting and notice, a new, better def just might win, seeing as how the current def has a plethora of problems with it. I am not the right person to debate you as I am a lay man, but I have still held my own with you, despite your braggadocio. I do not rely on my feelings. But it is not your place in the universe to be my judge and jury. You are just a thorn in my side. If you want to argue with someone about this stuff, argue non-lay person. Will you verbally abuse them, too?

Grow up, dude.

Well whoopie for you.

In none of my dictionaries. You know, in England, UK. Where English comes from.

Did you know that you saying "Grow up, dude" is listed under the Websters' dictionary under the term "Irony"? It blew a few meters, you know.

Be thankful I am around to enlighten you, methane.

That explains a few derogatory references to Americans, then. Get over it, dude. We beat you when we were a colony, then we saved you from Hitler. And what is our thanks? You help take Pluto away from an American hero. If the science didn't back up Pluto's planethood, that would be one thing, but it does. Pluto is every bit as much a planet as Mercury and you know it.

You'd need to be talking fact rather than opinion, mikey, to even have a chance of enlightening people.

"We beat you when we were a colony"

No, *France* beat us when you were a colony. Then you called them "Surrender monkeys" when they didn't support your pres in trying to protect his dad's feelings by killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Moreover, the only war you won.

And it still required help from an European.

PS you're a 'merkin, eh? Guess that explains why you wanna pluto, eh?

Pluto isn't a planet.

Mercury is.

Live with it.

Weird thing, though.

You come up with a local dialect word and you're "enlightening" me.

I come up with

Pluto tidally locked by Neptune
IAU definition of what a planet is
Jupiters large self-luminosity
Brown Dwarfs being failed stars
The purpose of a meeting chairmanship
The 10 days discussion of the definition of a planet
The changing of several planets to non-planet status before Pluto's placement as a dwarf planet and no longer a planet

and rather than be enlightened, you rail and lambast these facts and ignore them at best.

Then you have the cheek to claim that I'm not open to information and you are?

Yep.

We beat you. Deal with it. I never said I didn't acknowledge a little help from our friends.

Jupiter luminates? What's in those fish and chips?

Pluto is tidally-locked with Charon, methane.

I acknowledge the Battle of Tours.

Ever hear of collateral damage? That being said, I'd've preferred assassination.

The only planet to be demoted before Pluto was Ceres. Vulcan never existed. If and when you luminate, I will acknowledge.

"The only planet to be demoted before Pluto was Ceres."

Firstly: Wrong.

Neptune was demoted to 8th planet from 13th. That requires 5 planets to be removed from the list.

Secondly, so what? That does not make Pluto a planet.

"We beat you."

You mean you've been trying to get Pluto demoted from planet status?

Because that's the case at the moment, therefore that's the side that won.

We beat you to win the American Revolutionary War.

That's not a demotion. Neptune's never been deplanetized.

Replanetize Pluto!

Since you've now given up even pretending to be on topic, you can put your fucking trash here:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

Where your irrelevant and whiney bullshit won't clog up the site used to educate rather than be a sounding board for your illuminati conspiracy theories.

Pluto is not a planet.

I am very much on topic, methane.

By the way, Neptune is not in the Kuiper Belt, so Pluto is King.

Take it here you moronic shithead:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

That's for you.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

Asshat.

You are the one with the abusive posts that indulge your penchant for confusing science with your ego. I stay on point much better than you do, methane. Furthermore, who farted and made you the Queen of Sheba?

No you fuckwitted streak of shit, that thread is where you go when you're ignoring everything you're being told and decided that your ignorance is far more important than anything else.

So, take your illuminati conspiracy shit over to that thread if you want to continue it or fuck off completely.

Pluto: it's not a planet.

I refuse to let you frame my comments. I never mentioned an illuminati conspiracy. You are the one calling people names on this thread. However, I will deal with you over there as you have to have the last word and it is usually retard or moron.

It isn't only non-astronomers who object to the IAU planet definition. Several hundred professional astronomers, as many as voted at the General Assembly, signed a formal petition rejecting the IAU definition within days. See http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/

If you watch the IAU proceedings, you will see that the definition put before the General Assembly was thrown together hastily one day before the vote. You can watch the proceedings here: http://www.iau.org/public_press/videos/detail/iau2006session1/

Just repeating ad nauseam "Pluto is not a planet" does not make it so. Just what a planet is and which definition should be used remain a matter of ongoing debate. That means there are two equally legitimate sides, which represent two equally valid ways of understanding the solar system. Time and new information, not a decree, will enlighten us and provide us with answers, assuming we continue exploring these fascinating worlds.

However, name-calling and personal attacks do nothing to advance anyone's cause and cannot help but make some people question whether certain commenters here really are who they say they are.

To advocates of the geophysical planet definition, spherical moons of planets are secondary or satellite planets. They were referred to as such all the way back to the mid-19th century. Earth's moon, being in hydrostatic equilibrium, is a satellite planet (as opposed to a primary planet). Interestingly, exomoons, or moons of gas giant exoplanets, are considered locations that could possibly harbor life.

Spotlight on Pluto by Science Author Dr. Fred Bortz

carlyo — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:12:01 +0000

Spotlight on Pluto by Science Author Dr. Fred Bortz

Today's guest blog post is by Featured Science Author Dr. Fred Bortz

Tune in Thursday, June 13th on our Facebook page at 10 am EST to discuss this post with Dr. Bortz!

More than ten years after it was posted at the "Ask Dr. Fred" page "Why Isn't Pluto a Planet Anymore?" remains by far the most popular page at "Dr. Fred's Place" on the web, getting anywhere between 50 and 100 hits on a typical day.

That's a lot of interest in an icy world that is smaller than the moon and so far away that sunlight takes at least 4 hours to reach it! What could possibly be so fascinating?

The reason, of course, is Pluto's history. When Clyde Tombaugh first discovered it in 1930, it seemed to solve a mystery. Uranus and Neptune didn't quite follow the orbits expected due to the gravitational pull of the Sun and the other planets, mainly Jupiter and Saturn. The best explanation was that an unknown planet about the size of Earth was orbiting in that far distant part of the Solar System.

But the more scientists studied Pluto, the smaller they measured it to be. In 1978, astronomer James W. Christy discovered that images of Pluto sometimes seemed to be elongated in one direction or another. After careful study, he concluded that Pluto had a moon, and he proposed the name Charon. By measuring the size and period of Charon's orbit, scientists were finally able to calculate Pluto's mass, and it was much too small to explain the mystery of Uranus's and Neptune's orbits.

That mystery was finally solved in the mid 1980s when two Voyager Spacecraft visited Jupiter and Saturn. (Voyager 2 went on to Uranus and Neptune, but Pluto was at the wrong position of its orbit for the spacecraft to reach it.) The effect of the gravity of those giant worlds on the Voyagers' trajectories was slightly different than expected, which gave astronomers a more accurate and slightly different measurement of their masses. That changed the expected orbits of Uranus and Neptune to match observations without needing such a large planet farther out.

So what kind of a body was Pluto? The best explanation came from a suggestion in a 1951 paper by Gerard Kuiper, who was studying how the solar system formed. He wrote that in the early solar system, a belt of orbiting icy bodies (now named the Kuiper Belt) would have formed at about Pluto's distance. Since he thought Pluto was much larger than it is, he calculated that it would be almost alone in its orbital region, having swept up other smaller bodies or sent them flying out of the belt.

Once scientists realized that Pluto was as small as it is, they also realized that there should be many more Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs), and they started looking for and discovering a few in the 1990s. In 2002, they found one half Pluto's size and named it Quaoar. Then in 2005 they found the KBO now known as Eris, which was first thought to be larger than Pluto but is now thought to be comparable in size.

In August 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) realized they needed a better definition of planet. Some members argued that the definition should include large KBOs and the largest asteroids, since their geology resembled the major planets in many significant ways. But on August 24, they settled on a decision that "demoted" Pluto and included those other large KBOs and asteroids in a class called dwarf planets.

Some people still argue about that definition, but no matter what we call Pluto will not change our reason to be interested in it and the rest of the Kuiper Belt. In fact, a few months before the IAU changed Pluto's category, NASA launched the New Horizons mission toward Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.

Image above: New Horizons baseline spacecraft design. Image Credit: The Boeing Company

In late December 2014 or early January 2015, New Horizons will send its first images of Pluto, Charon, and the other moons in the Pluto system. (Two other moons are named Hydra and Nix. Two more are currently designated P4 and P5 but will have names soon. And astronomers are speculating that there may be as many as ten more.) We'll know much more soon after July 14, 2015, when New Horizons will make its closest approach to the Pluto system. Then the spacecraft will head off toward another target in the Kuiper Belt that is yet to be chosen.

Stay tuned. Pluto and the Kuiper Belt will be in the spotlight for many years to come!

Discover more about the New Horizons mission here.

Follow the news about the New Horizons Mission and other interesting science at Dr. Fred's SciFact Central page on Facebook.

Young readers might also enjoy the chapter on the New Horizons Mission in Dr. Fred's 2011 book Seven Wonders of Space Technology . And readers of all ages will be delighted by Neil deGrasse Tyson's book about the status of Pluto called The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet.

Tune in Thursday, June 13th on our Facebook page at 10 am EST to discuss this post with Dr. Bortz!

carlyo Wed, 06/12/2013 - 13:12

Tags

USA Science & Engineering Festival

There Goes the Solar System

cevans — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:00:00 +0000

There Goes the Solar System

My Very Excellent Mother Just Served us Nine Pizzas.
My Very Easy Method Just Speeds Up Naming Planets.
My Very Early Morning Jam Sandwiches Usually Nauseate People.
Mon Vieux Tu M'as JetÃ© Sur Une Nouvelle PlanÃ¨te!

-- Various mnemonic devices for remembering the order of the nine planets

I just found out that Mercury is shrinking.

The planet, already our most diminutive neighbor, has lost around 3 miles of its 3,000 mile diameter in its life, or one tenth of one percent.This may not sound like much, but in geological terms, three miles is immensely significant.

This boggling fact was discovered -- well, rather, confirmed -- by the ongoing MESSENGER mission, which is the first long-term survey of Mercury since the Mariner 10 spacecraft became the planet's first terrestrial visitor in 1974. After an exorbitantly complex journey, in 2008, MESSENGER (short for MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging) revealed hitherto-unseen views of Mercury: cliffs and faults criss-crossing the planet's ragged surface, vast lava plains, and a particular geological feature, a kind of curved cliff, called a lobate scarp.

A lobate scarp of note, Discovery Rupes.

These lobate scarps are witness to Mercury's shrinkage. See, Mercury is a tiny planet mostly made up of a giant iron core, which was presumably once entirely molten. This core, as it's cooled and solidified over the eons, has contracted the entire planet in on itself and literally buckled its surface into craggy faults -- causing the aforementioned lobate scarps. This process, ostensibly, is still going on. Sure, these geological features aren't particularly exotic-looking. But they're the indicators of some serious change, and it's something we should reckon with.

OK. Space is something with which we, as a technological species, must inevitably relate. And yet, its inconceivable vastness and lack of warmth -- the fact that we, with our wet eyes and spongy lungs, die instantly beyond the comfort of our atmosphere -- make it difficult to work with. Certainly, we're interested. Our scientists send probes to the planets to map, find lobate scarps, and name them; as people, we endeavor to understand our surroundings, and delight in new discoveries like these.

And yet, how many among us look up at the starry night sky and think, "all this is home"? The Universe, to most, is an uncaring colossus, impersonal and frightening. The very idea of floating in space conjures up horrific images of Frank Poole drifting out to his tenebrous death in 2001: A Space Odyssey (I often nightmare upon this subject). Few of us think of space, or the Universe for that matter, as being a direct part of our experience; we are, for all intents and purposes, ideologically separate from it, our planet a warm little island in a sea of otherness, nothingness.

The only aspect of outer space that strikes us with any sense of familiarity is our cosmic family unit, the solar system. "Our" solar system. We learn the order of the planets in grammar school, through various absurd mnemonics, and all know bits and pieces of scientific lore about each: Mercury oppressively small, Mars close, dusty and red, Saturn with its elegant rings, and Jupiter a giant of swirling red clouds. Some of us have affinities and distastes -- I, for example, find Venus horrible. We know "our" planets, see them as our fellows, as odd-coupled roommates in the neighborhood. We feel, au fond, territorial.

Which is why, perhaps, any changes in the established order can irk us fantastically. Take Pluto, for example. Long a beloved member of the solar system, its 2006 demotion from planet to dwarf planet ignited ire among thousands, who saw the move as needlessly draconian, as well as an affront to the harmony of our solar system. 54 members of the California state assembly proposed a resolution condemning the International Astronomical Union for "scientific heresy," and for inciting "psychological harm to some Californians who question their place in the universe." Of course, Pluto continued to exist, unconcerned.

Will Mercury's gradual shrinkage stir up our collective possessiveness of the solar system in the same way? Mercury, like Pluto, remains the same planet, and, perhaps, a few miles of lost girth won't have the same effect on the populace. Still, I find its contraction stupidly, personally upsetting. I am, in short, like the supposed Californian, for whom incremental, nominal, or perceived changes in the solar system causes them to question their place in the universe.

As Pluto shrank in status, so now Mercury shrinks in stature. Is nothing sacred?

cevans Mon, 03/29/2010 - 04:00

Tags

I gather we have no idea whether it will continue to shrink, and how rapidly? Theoretically, if it continues, it'll eventually lose orbit and crash into the sun, right? That would be a bummer - with the loss of Pluto, we appear to be running out of planets, which I'm sure is in some way the fault of Republicans - but let's face it, it would also be sortof awesome.

I will make it my quest for the month of April to discover how much more, if any, shrinkage is to come!

Theoretically, if it continues, it'll eventually lose orbit and crash into the sun, right?

No, it may get smaller but it will still retain the same mass. Not an expert but I don't think the orbit will change at all.

Mercury's orbit may not be changing, if it's not losing mass, but it's rotation will be changing. This has consequences further for it's geology due to changing tidal stretching.

The question of if it loses mass as a result of volcanism related to the faults s how much volatile material is let out.

Very interesting. Learn something new every day.

I think Mercury will be okay. Well at least until our beloved sun starts running out of helium and gets 30 times larger. Then we shall join Mercury, Venus and perhaps Mars inside the walls of a big puffy star. You also have to count all the material that falls on Mercury, and there is loads of it.

Mercury is AN AWSOME planet!

thank god! i thought i was the only in the world that actully knew something about space! god bless you all!!!!!

I got a better mnemonic: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, (maybe Pluto)

Pluto. Planet, or not?

rallain — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:03:14 +0000

Pluto. Planet, or not?

Still moving stuff over from my last server. Here is one that keeps coming up.

Surprisingly, I STILL get comments and questions from students and teachers about Pluto. Questions such as:

"Why do scientists hate Pluto?"
"How did they discover that Pluto was not a planet"
"What will happen to our planet songs without Pluto?"
"Why does Goofey wear clothes, but Pluto doesn't even though they are BOTH dogs?"

Here is the explanation I like to give. I like to start with the following question:

Suppose you were outside and saw this (image from wikimedia):

What would you call it? Some might call it a tree, others might call it a bush. Does the name change what it is? What if scientist came up a classification for determining if something was a bush or a tree. According to wikipedia, there is not complete agreement on the definition of a tree. This is ok, because the name of something isn't really that important.

That is the point, Pluto is like a green leafy plant that some would say is a bush and some would say is a tree. To make things clear, scientist have created the following definition of a planet. A planet is an object that meets the following requirements:

Orbits the sun (this is ok for Pluto)
Large enough to be spherical (this is also ok for Pluto)
The most massive object in its neighborhood of the solar system (this is where Pluto fails).

Pluto fails the last criteria because it is in the area of Neptune (sometimes it is even closer to the Sun than Neptune). Thus, alas, Pluto is not classified as a planet. It shall be called a dwarf planet.

rallain Thu, 07/30/2009 - 04:03

Tags

Astronomy

Science

Pluto

Wait, what? It was all true until the very last sentence :) The problem with Pluto isn't that it crosses Neptune's orbit 1/10 of the time. It's that it's a member of the Kuiper Belt which is full of similarly-sized objects. That's why it doesn't meet criterion #3.

Very interresting! I will lead all my friends! I actually am researching about PLuto. Need alot of information! Next week monday, I need to present my presentation. I have a skit too! Very funny!!! NoW I dont know what to even say, dude...

Adam is correct, there are a few errors near the end, although it is not merely that Pluto is a member of the Kuiper Belt --- #3 is incorrectly stated. It is not "most massive," it is "cleared the neighborhood," which means it has obtained gravitational & mass dominance in its respective neighborhood.

Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt (Neptune is not part of the Kuiper Belt), but it constitutes only 0.07% of all the mass in the neighborhood (Kuiper Belt) and is sufficiently influenced by other objects in the Kuiper Belt so as to undermine its qualification for #1 (orbiting the Sun). Still, the ultimate disqualification is #3, in that it does not dominate within it's neighborhood, within the Kuiper Belt.

Correcting myself, Pluto constitutes only 7% of all the mass in its neighborhood.

pluto for me is a planet it was first a planet then no more now just 8 planets

Actually, Pluto's not even the largest known Kuiper Belt object, that honor goes to Eris. And given how little we know of the Kuiper Belt, it's possible that there may a few others larger than Pluto that we haven't found yet.

It is true because the universe also runs to some gravity power , but the pluto was some changes to other planets.

That third requirement stating an object must "clear its orbit" to be considered a planet was contrived for the specific purpose of excluding Pluto and should be thrown out. Pluto is still a planet, as are Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Please do not blindly accept the controversial demotion of Pluto, which was done by only four percent of the International Astronomical Union, most of whom are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASAâs New Horizons mission to Pluto. Stern and like-minded scientists favor a broader planet definition that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star. The spherical part is important because objects become spherical when they attain a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they are large enough for their own gravity to pull them into a round shape. This is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. Pluto meets this criterion and is therefore a planet. Using this broader definition gives our solar system 13 planets and counting: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. At the very least, you should note that there is an ongoing debate rather than portraying one side as fact when it is only one interpretation of fact.

Pluto should be a planet!!!, here is a funny joke I saw about why pluto should be a planet, http://ponderingstuff.com/2011/02/12/pluto-planet/

International Astronomical Union: February A 'Dwarf Month'

sheril — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:48:19 +0000

International Astronomical Union: February A 'Dwarf Month'

Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy posted this terrific piece that started off my Saturday with a smile. It reads like The Onion, though I also can't find the original source. Take a look and see if you agree that author Michael Haber might be onto something...

Emboldened by their success in declaring Pluto not a
planet, the International Astronomical Union determined this week by a
close vote that February is too short to be considered a true month. It
has, however, been granted the newly created status of "dwarf month."
It shares this dubious distinction with several other calendar time
spans, including Labor Day Weekend, Christmas Vacation, and the Time
Between When You Were Supposed to Get Your Oil Changed and When You
Actually Did.

"It only seems fair," said IAU President Ron Eckers. "February
reaches a peak size of 29 days, averaging only 28 days for 75 percent
of the time. Recent research has shown that other periods, such as the
Time Between When You Were Supposed to Get Your Oil Changed and When
You Actually Did, often exceed this meager time frame. In fact, this
erratic behavior only strengthens our case that February does not
belong in the same classification as the eleven 'true' months."

Eckers also warned that the crop of 30-day "so-called" months should
be careful to maintain their number of days. "They're already cutting
it pretty close in my book."

sheril Sat, 03/07/2009 - 05:48

Tags

Bravo! I think that it would be necessary to vote for 20-hour day, the year has 300 days.

This kind of mockery just shows how much the IAU risked by demoting Pluto--especially as it was hardly an astronomical consensus that this ought to be done.

That's very funny. I vote for the 30 hour day and 10 day week, 5 for working, 5 for the weekend.

I've never understood the big ado about Pluto. It was either demote Pluto or recognize dozens of new planets. I'd prefer 8 over dozens myself. I doubt Pluto would ever have been called a planet if it weren't for the quirk of history that lead to it being discovered several decades before others of its kind.

The IAU deserves every bit of mockery it gets. Anyone who watches the 2006 planet definition session (the video is on the IAU's web site) can see what a circus this session was. The definition adopted violated the IAU's bylaws, which prohibit the introduction of a new resolution in real time before it has been vetted by the appropriate committee. It also makes no sense in saying that dwarf planets are not planets at all, which is inconistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. And it classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. Any definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another location is one that begs to be overturned.