Celestia Forums

This is how it feels to be a second class planet. Pluto just got its minor planet number. From now on, it's 134340 Pluto. How demeaning!.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl ... -list.html

Somewhat inevitable though. And since it's a minor planet now, it does need a number.

I just wish some of the professional astronomers who are against its demotion or the IAU proposal would stop throwing a tantrum about it though and just get over it. The DPS has the right idea about how to reach a better definition - by working within the auspices of the IAU. I can appreciate as much as others do that the current definition (and the way it was arrived at) is flawed, but it's a start at least.

Malenfant wrote:stop throwing a tantrum about it

NEVAAAAH!!!!!

PlutonianEmpire wrote:

Malenfant wrote:stop throwing a tantrum about it

NEVAAAAH!!!!!

You're a professional astronomer?

Malenfant wrote:

PlutonianEmpire wrote:

Malenfant wrote:stop throwing a tantrum about it

NEVAAAAH!!!!!

You're a professional astronomer?

Whoops.

No.

lol

The IAU decision was terrible, even NASA won't recognize it.

For me,after that,the IAU lost its importance.It became a political organization,giving voice to the minorities,like the Uruguaians.
If it was for the inclined orbit,Mercury should be demoted,too.But no one dare to mess up with the planets of Antiquity.(the Greeks)
It??s really a shame!

Red1530 wrote:The IAU decision was terrible, even NASA won't recognize it.

Why should Mercury be demoted? It clearly isn't a member of a belt of other bodies, while it is becoming more and more clear that Pluto is merely one of the larger members of a belt of objects beyond Neptune and thus clearly not in the same category as the other planets.

The IAU decision is a step in the right direction there.

However the IAU decision is severely lacking in certain areas (e.g. it's heliocentric chauvinism), and linguistically dubious ("dwarf planet"... so what's a planet that isn't a "giant planet"???).

It would not surprise me to see the definition revised in the future.

danielj wrote:It became a political organization,giving voice to the minorities,like the Uruguaians.

Yay! Squish the minorities, for they are always wrong!

And sorry, what do Uruguaians have to do with this again, I confess I haven't been following this as closely as I might have since the definition doesn't particularly interest me all that much...

An Uruguaian proposed Pluto??s demotion.
I insist:Pluto and Charon are so close,even in size,that it HAVE to be a larger planet ages ago.No other minor planet has a moon as large,not even close.Following this definiton,exactly,Earth was a dwarf planet,billions of years ago,shortly before Orpheus?? collision and the creation of Moon.

chaos syndrome wrote:Why should Mercury be demoted? It clearly isn't a member of a belt of other bodies, while it is becoming more and more clear that Pluto is merely one of the larger members of a belt of objects beyond Neptune and thus clearly not in the same category as the other planets.

The IAU decision is a step in the right direction there.

However the IAU decision is severely lacking in certain areas (e.g. it's heliocentric chauvinism), and linguistically dubious ("dwarf planet"... so what's a planet that isn't a "giant planet"???).

It would not surprise me to see the definition revised in the future.

danielj wrote:It became a political organization,giving voice to the minorities,like the Uruguaians.

Yay! Squish the minorities, for they are always wrong!

And sorry, what do Uruguaians have to do with this again, I confess I haven't been following this as closely as I might have since the definition doesn't particularly interest me all that much...

I really don't see how the nationality of the person who proposed the demotion of Pluto is relevant in any way.

So what if Pluto was a bigger object in some maybe-what-if-hypothetical prehistory? The definition deals with the object as it is now...

danielj wrote:An Uruguaian proposed Pluto??s demotion.

And that has nothing whatsoever with the decision that was made. The race, gender, nationality, or anything else of whoever proposes it is not relevant (and besides, it was a group of people that proposed it, not an individual. I don't think any Uruguayans were in there at all, I think they were all European as far as I could see)

I insist:Pluto and Charon are so close,even in size,that it HAVE to be a larger planet ages ago.No other minor planet has a moon as large,not even close.Following this definiton,exactly,Earth was a dwarf planet,billions of years ago,shortly before Orpheus?? collision and the creation of Moon.

So? What matters for the definition (or any definition) is what the object is now, not what it once was or might have been or will be.

"... There are currently 136,563 asteroid objects recognized by the MPC; 2,224 new objects were added last week, of which Pluto was the first.

Other notable objects to receive asteroid numbers included 2003 UB313, also known as "Xena," and the recently discovered Kuiper Belt objects 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9. Their asteroid numbers are 136199, 136108 and 136472, respectively. ..." - USA Today (By Ker Than, SPACE.com)


"The IAU decision is a step in the right direction there." - chaos syndrome

I tend to agree with that, but I think the decision was premature - more time and thought should have gone into these reclassifications with eyes toward the future and with all relating branches of the sciences in agreement before changing all the books.

My 2-cents.

Just wondering --

Do IAU meetings function under the auspices of Robert's Rules of Order? If so, one could argue that the vote was invalid because there wasn't a quorum. (Only 5% of the membership present according to New Scientist)

Of course, I really don't know how the IAU is structured, which would impact the definition of "Quorum".

The Singing Badger wrote:From now on, it's 134340 Pluto.

At least they could have given it a catchy number. Quaoar is 50000, so why couldn't Pluto have a nice round number too? A number like 100000 or 123456 would have been so much better.

(My first post in "Physics and Astronomy", hi everybody!)

At least they could have given it a catchy number

I would call it "0 Pluto" .
Why begin a list with 1 when we have 0 < 1?

Red1530 wrote:The IAU decision was terrible, even NASA won't recognize it.

Sorry to interrupt here, but why was their decision so "terrible?"

Seems to me that those of us with an interest in outer space and the
solar system in general have been given a brand-new gift...

Just imagine...

We now have a whole new realm of unexplored worlds to get into.

They're called Kuiper Belt Objects or Kuiper Belt Worlds.

What's so terrible about exploring a whole new classification and realm
of objects which were previously pretty much ignored by the general
public?

Just my opinion here, but I simply LOVE the excitement caused by
the furor over Pluto's re-classification.

Take care, Brain-Dead

BrainDead wrote:

Red1530 wrote:The IAU decision was terrible, even NASA won't recognize it.

Sorry to interrupt here, but why was their decision so "terrible?"

It's "terrible" because the definitions are so poorly pinned down - they need refinement (e.g. what does "cleared out its neighbourhood" actually mean). But I'm sure it'll get nailed down more later on as it gets discussed more.

We now have a whole new realm of unexplored worlds to get into.

They're called Kuiper Belt Objects or Kuiper Belt Worlds.

Well, er, no. Those worlds have always been there. Whether anyone thinks they're important enough to be called planets (however that's ultimately defined) has never detracted from their importance or existence, and nobody's ignored them. Besides, they're called Dwarf Planets now...

What's so terrible about exploring a whole new classification and realm of objects which were previously pretty much ignored by the general public?

Nothing. The problem is that the definition was made on somewhat shaky grounds, by a minority of the IAU.

Just my opinion here, but I simply LOVE the excitement caused by
the furor over Pluto's re-classification.

I take it this is from the perspective of someone munching on the popcorn in the gallery, watching the fists fly down below?

I take it this is from the perspective of someone munching on the popcorn in the gallery, watching the fists fly down below?

Damn, you just ain't ever happy with anything ANYONE has to say are you?

Obviously, I'm not sitting on the sidelines, or I wouldn't have voiced my
opinion here. I mean that the decision (either right or wrong) has at least
focused the attention of yer "average joe" on the exciting worlds left OUT
of the general public knowledge most of the time. <shrug>

Love, Brain-Dead

Unwarranted insults aside... (this is what I get for answering your question on why it was a "terrible decision"? I guess nobody should waste their time answering any more of your questions if you're going to react like that)

I don't think these worlds were left out of public knowledge at all before this debate. Their discoveries were announced when they happened and I certainly saw them on news websites (with some fanfare in Xena's case, since it was bigger than Pluto). But now the fuss has all blown over it's all receded into the background again anyway - meanwhile it's not as if the scientists have suddenly declared that these dwarf planets are valid targets for exploratory missions now, and it's not as if they weren't before (Pluto notwithstanding, since New Horizons was already on its way there anyway, and the fact that it's been "demoted" isn't going to affect that mission at all).

I think the general public (who cared enough to follow it anyway) were probably quite bemused/amused by all the fuss about what is or isn't a planet though. Hence my last comment (which for some reason you decided to take personally) - because it HAS been a bit of a show for people outside it all to watch from the peanut gallery (and that's where anyone who isn't in the IAU and part of the decision making process is sitting anyway).