Celestia Forums

Today the International Astronomical Union of astronomers officially declared that Pluto is no longer a planet under the new definitions of what a planet is. Pluto is now defined as a dwarf planet. I say Yay, I'm glad they finally dropped Pluto as a planet. I always thought Pluto was a bit odd for being a planet. With its highly eccentric orbit and inclination I would have to agree that pluto is in another category of its own. Now I'll have to go change the data file in Celestia to remove Pluto from the planets category and make it an asteroid.

I already did that on my files about a week ago. In fact, I also did it to Mercury as it may be next in line to get booted in the future due to orbital eccentricity. BTW, I totally disagree with all this. Later!

J P

I also removed Earth from the planet category, as there's life on it. Can't be a planet, isn't ?

EDIT : Actually, I agree mostly with this new definition and to remove Pluto from the select club of planets.

[ Idiotic post deleted ]

danielj wrote:Astronomers are dumb.

I consider this a racist statement! Selden?
Is that the recent level of P&A??

I find it amazing that people get so passionate about the scientific definition of a word. This is the kind of intense nonsensical arguments our immortals must have at the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad?©mie_fran?§aise]Acad?©mie fran?§aise[/url], has the world gone French? (I know, kind of scary).

t00fri wrote:

danielj wrote:Astronomers are dumb.

I consider this a racist statement! Selden?
Is that the recent level of P&A??

I thought it was offensive and inflammatory, so I deleted it. And no, I don't think it's indicative of the overall level of discourse here.

--Chris

OK, to get back to more sensible matters, have a look here

http://www.celestiaproject.net/forum/viewtopic ... 5655#75655

Bye Fridger
(I moved my Dark Matter post to where it belongs)

Christophe wrote:I find it amazing that people get so passionate about the scientific definition of a word. This is the kind of intense nonsensical arguments our immortals must have at the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad?©mie_fran?§aise]Acad?©mie fran?§aise[/url], has the world gone French? (I know, kind of scary).

Christophe,

you know that I practically always agree with you

Cheers,
Fridger

I'm glad they settled on a saner definition than the one they originally proposed though. At least this way we have eight planets and lots of minor planets (I refuse to call them "dwarf planets). I bet the writers of the astronomy text books are breathing a sigh of relief so that they don't have to worry about their books being out of date the moment someone discovered a new iceball "planet" at the edge of the solar system...

It was kinda inevitable for Pluto to go though. Sad, but necessary.

Question is, how do we implement this in Celestia? I think the best way would be to have a new class called "Dwarf Planet", with its own orbit colour. So we'd have Asteroids, Comets, Dwarf Planets, and Planets. Or maybe we can lump Asteroids and Comets under "Small Solar System Bodies" which is what the IAU are calling everything else.

We didn't get "Plutonian Empire" comment yet ?

I don't like asteroids and comets combined in "Small Solar System Bodies"....
Why? They are different, and i hate the new name, 4 words....too long

And I have a question, now Charon is a moon or a dwarf planet?

Malenfant wrote:It was kinda inevitable for Pluto to go though. Sad, but necessary.

You make it sound as if Pluto's just been voted out of the solar system, Survivor-style.

I'm sure it's still there, unperturbed by its change of status. Sure, its gold pass to the exclusive Planet Club no longer gets it into the washroom with the gold fittings, but in exchange it gets to become a venerable member of the Dwarf Planet Club. I hope it can tolerate the rowdy crowd there.

AlexChan wrote:I don't like asteroids and comets combined in "Small Solar System Bodies"....
Why? They are different, and i hate the new name, 4 words....too long

Yeah, it's a bit cumbersome isn't it... I think they're still going to be called asteroids and comets though in practice.

And I have a question, now Charon is a moon or a dwarf planet?

I think it's a moon, as it should be . I think they dropped that double planet definition.

Christophe wrote:I find it amazing that people get so passionate about the scientific definition of a word. This is the kind of intense nonsensical arguments our immortals must have at the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad?©mie_fran?§aise]Acad?©mie fran?§aise[/url], has the world gone French? (I know, kind of scary).

Ah, mais non, don't you remember when President Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

Planet X wrote:I already did that on my files about a week ago. In fact, I also did it to Mercury as it may be next in line to get booted in the future due to orbital eccentricity. BTW, I totally disagree with all this. Later!

I assume you are talking about the week before where the IAU was planning to expand the number of planets to 12. I would totally disagree with that - having them make every space object a planet - except for earth because it has life on it.

There's no chance Mercury would get booted - it's not a large member of a swarm of bodies sharing its orbit.

Have to say I like this new definition for Pluto. While demoting it actually labeling it a dwarf-planet. I do think it was to big to be an asteroid or comet. Does this mean that Ceres is also a dwarf planet? I would hope because Ceres seems to big and round to be a simple asteroid.

That said, this decision may get toppled.

Apparently only the 500 or so members of the IAU that were physically present in the room were allowed to vote, and the othre 9,500 or so members who weren't there had no say at all. A revolt does seem to be brewing....

The IAU are making a right pig's-ear of this, that's for sure...