Pluto no longer a Planet

General physics and astronomy discussions not directly related to Celestia
Topic author
Polchey
Posts: 21
Joined: 29.12.2003
With us: 20 years 10 months

Pluto no longer a Planet

Post #1by Polchey » 24.08.2006, 16:48

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.

Planet X
Posts: 79
Joined: 07.03.2005
With us: 19 years 8 months
Location: booted from planethood

Post #2by Planet X » 24.08.2006, 17:05

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

Avatar
Cham M
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14.01.2004
Age: 60
With us: 20 years 10 months
Location: Montreal

Post #3by Cham » 24.08.2006, 17:09

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

EDIT : Actually, I agree mostly with this new definition and to remove Pluto from the select club of planets.
Last edited by Cham on 24.08.2006, 19:59, edited 2 times in total.
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

danielj
Posts: 1477
Joined: 15.08.2003
With us: 21 years 3 months

Post #4by danielj » 24.08.2006, 18:46

[ Idiotic post deleted ]

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #5by t00fri » 24.08.2006, 18:49

danielj wrote:Astronomers are dumb.


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

Christophe
Developer
Posts: 944
Joined: 18.07.2002
With us: 22 years 4 months
Location: Lyon (France)

Post #6by Christophe » 24.08.2006, 19:05

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

chris
Site Admin
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28.01.2002
With us: 22 years 9 months
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Post #7by chris » 24.08.2006, 19:06

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

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #8by t00fri » 24.08.2006, 19:28

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)
Last edited by t00fri on 25.08.2006, 21:57, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 22
With us: 22 years 7 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #9by t00fri » 24.08.2006, 19:52

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
Image

Malenfant
Posts: 1412
Joined: 24.08.2005
With us: 19 years 3 months

Post #10by Malenfant » 24.08.2006, 22:11

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.
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system

Avatar
Cham M
Posts: 4324
Joined: 14.01.2004
Age: 60
With us: 20 years 10 months
Location: Montreal

Post #11by Cham » 24.08.2006, 22:15

We didn't get "Plutonian Empire" comment yet ? :wink:
"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin", thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

AlexChan
Posts: 33
Joined: 29.09.2004
With us: 20 years 1 month

Post #12by AlexChan » 24.08.2006, 23:04

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?

bdm
Posts: 461
Joined: 22.07.2005
With us: 19 years 4 months
Location: Australia

Post #13by bdm » 25.08.2006, 01:19

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.

Malenfant
Posts: 1412
Joined: 24.08.2005
With us: 19 years 3 months

Post #14by Malenfant » 25.08.2006, 01:38

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.
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system

buggs_moran
Posts: 835
Joined: 27.09.2004
With us: 20 years 1 month
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post #15by buggs_moran » 25.08.2006, 01:43

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."
Homebrew:
WinXP Pro SP2
Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe
AMD Athlon XP 3000/333 2.16 GHz
1 GB Crucial RAM
80 GB WD SATA drive
ATI AIW 9600XT 128M

Topic author
Polchey
Posts: 21
Joined: 29.12.2003
With us: 20 years 10 months

Post #16by Polchey » 25.08.2006, 01:50

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.

Malenfant
Posts: 1412
Joined: 24.08.2005
With us: 19 years 3 months

Post #17by Malenfant » 25.08.2006, 01:59

There's no chance Mercury would get booted - it's not a large member of a swarm of bodies sharing its orbit.
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system

Scorpiove
Posts: 49
Joined: 14.03.2004
With us: 20 years 8 months

I like the new definition

Post #18by Scorpiove » 25.08.2006, 04:04

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.

Don. Edwards
Posts: 1510
Joined: 07.09.2002
Age: 59
With us: 22 years 2 months
Location: Albany, Oregon

Post #19by Don. Edwards » 25.08.2006, 11:53

I think Ceres will be falling into the Dwarf Planet catagory. Here is why I think so.

Taken from the web.



Image


Image

Just another 2 cents.

Don. Edwards
Last edited by Don. Edwards on 25.08.2006, 20:08, edited 1 time in total.
I am officially a retired member.
I might answer a PM or a post if its relevant to something.

Ah, never say never!!
Past texture releases, Hmm let me think about it

Thanks for your understanding.

Malenfant
Posts: 1412
Joined: 24.08.2005
With us: 19 years 3 months

Post #20by Malenfant » 25.08.2006, 14:49

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...
My Celestia page: Spica system, planetary magnitudes script, updated demo.cel, Quad system


Return to “Physics and Astronomy”