The Pluto Issue

[Split Rock]

But like I said, if you want to talk about PLUTO and the definition of a planet start a thread and tell us how yo would define a planet and why the current definition is flawed.

I second this. For all the complaining that AVET does over changing the terminology of "planet" so that it doesn't include Pluto, he has never told us what the definition should be or why Pluto should still be considered a planet.

 

[AV1611VET]

I second this. For all the complaining that AVET does over changing the terminology of "planet" so that it doesn't include Pluto, he has never told us what the definition should be or why Pluto should still be considered a planet.

33 -- (bottom paragraph).

 

[Delphiki]

Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.

So this is the definition you're going with?

Then you also accept Eris, Ceres, Haumea and Makemake all as planets of our solar system as well, correct?

 

[Freodin]

I´d say a simple phrase taken from one of AV´s posts here show on of his major motivations: "...our ninth planet..."

These evil scientists have taken away something that belongs to us!

Mine! Mine! Mine! Give me back what is mine!

 

[AV1611VET]

So this is the definition you're going with?

[/font] Then you also accept Eris,Ceres, Haumea and Makemake all as planets of our solar system as well, correct?

Did you click on the right link?

 

[AV1611VET]

I´d say a simple phrase taken from one of AV´s posts here show on of his major motivations: "...our ninth planet..."

I'd say that's pretty accurate.

 

[Delphiki]

Did you click on the right link?

I guess not, but by that definition:

If we use the alternate, broader term that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star--which many planetary scientists prefer over the IAU definition--we can then use subcategories to distinguish the types of planets. While we previously recognized two subcategories, the terrestrials and the gas giants or jovians, the new discoveries show us there is a third class-the dwarf planets. These are planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium--but of the dwarf subcategory because they are not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. In fact, Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet," never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. If this one area is amended so the IAU resolution establishes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, much of the controversy would evaporate.

I'm still asking the same question. If dwarf planets could just be a different class of planet, does mean you'd consider them planets as well?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I guess not, but by that definition:

I'm still asking the same question. If dwarf planets could just be a different class of planet, does mean you'd consider them planets as well?

Would that be like a planet X

http://www.christianforums.com/t7500148-5/#post55730425
Where Is That So Called Planet X That Was Supposed To Show Up Last Month?

 

[Delphiki]

Would that be like a planet X

http://www.christianforums.com/t7500148-5/#post55730425
Where Is That So Called Planet X That Was Supposed To Show Up Last Month?

Say what? The last time I ever heard the term "Planet X" was either a Duck Dodgers cartoon, or watching a TV documentary on the wacky ancient astronaut theories. What does this even have to do with anything?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Say what? The last time I ever heard the term "Planet X" was either a Duck Dodgers cartoon, or watching a TV documentary on the wacky ancient astronaut theories. What does this even have to do with anything?

 

[Nabobalis]

Would that be like a planet X

http://www.christianforums.com/t7500148-5/#post55730425
Where Is That So Called Planet X That Was Supposed To Show Up Last Month?

Planet X doesn't exist.


Now, Why can I not find the definition that AV has mentioned? I must be going blind.

 

[Delphiki]

I don't know, but I could have sworn the first quote I posted was grabbed right from the link "33". Either way, it's a similar definition. I'm still asking the same question.

Simple put, would AV still consider Eris, Ceres, etc planets as well?

They are round. Well, Haumea being more elliptical, though still rounded due to it's own gravity.

Has anyone ever considered the fact that these dwarves are also referred to as "plutoids"? That is, any dwarf planet, in our solar system, in orbit around our sun.

I speculate that as we get further out, and deeper into the Kupier belt, things gradually become more numerous, less round, and smaller -- possibly with a gradual change in composition to comets and the like. There will be objects that will blur the line between round and lumpy. At what point does the terrain feature of an object trump it's geometry?

 

[Upisoft]

So, if I make a round snowball it will be a planet, because it will orbit the Sun and it is round and it is not self-illuminating.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, if I make a round snowball it will be a planet, because it will orbit the Sun and it is round and it is not self-illuminating.

Those are called comets.

 

[Upisoft]

Those are called comets.

So, I was playing with comets when I was young?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, I was playing with comets when I was young?

I don't know -- were you orbiting the sun with it?

 

[Delphiki]

So, if I make a round snowball it will be a planet, because it will orbit the Sun and it is round and it is not self-illuminating.

No, because the definition is that it's shape was a result of it's own gravity, let alone due to it's size. It also wouldn't be orbiting the sun on it's own. It would be heavily influenced by the earth's gravity. Hey, I'm trying to AV the benefit of the doubt here. lol I just haven't got an answer from him yet.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you classify Pluto as a planet, then we'd actually have something more on the order of 14-ish or so planets in our solar system... depending on where you would draw the line as to how small something can be before it;s no longer a planet. How round is round?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, I'm trying to AV the benefit of the doubt here. lol I just haven't got an answer from him yet.

Thank you -- and since you're being nice about it, I suppose I could answer you.

Read Laurele's post again -- the answer is in there.

She said we have two subcategories: gas and [something else -- Jovian, I think].

If we include a third -- the dwarfs -- then we'll have a problem.

Even the guy that discovered them didn't intend for them to be considered a category.

(Something like that. I'll have to go back and read the post again, myself. I'm terrible at debating on the scientific level. As one person once said, don't argue science with a scientist; he will drag you down to his level, then beat you to death with experience.)

 

[Upisoft]

I don't know -- were you orbiting the sun with it?

Definitely. I had an object orbiting the Sun under my feet. And that means I was also orbiting the Sun and the snowball too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Definitely. I had an object orbiting the Sun under my feet. And that means I was also orbiting the Sun and the snowball too.

Well, there ya go then -- you answered your own question.

It would be a snowball, not a planet.