Kylie's Pluto Challenge

[Kylie]

On 24 August 2006, the International Astronomical Union created a clear definition of what constitutes a planet. (Before this, there was no clear definition of what an object needed to count as a planet or not.)

The definition stated that a planet:

1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

By this definition, Pluto (which had long been considered a planet) was no longer counted as a planet. Instead, it was placed into a category called "Dwarf Planet", since it fit only the first two criteria.

My challenge is this:

Does reclassifying Pluto to be a dwarf planet change our scientific understanding of Pluto in any way? If so, what way?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don't see why it would.

The classification is just words, a human construct that helps us order and group the celestial bodies better, it shouldn't have any bearing on the actual facts surrounding the planet and the understanding of it.

 

[quatona]

As far as I understand it, it´s something like this:
I have a commode for my smaller clothings - say, one drawer for underpants, one for footwear, one for ties, one for gloves, etc.
At some point, I decide to have separate drawers for socks and stockings.
Absolutely nothing about my understanding of clothings in general and footwear in particular changes.

 

[Radrook]

Mountains, valleys, blue sky atmosphere, ice, has a moon! Sure looks more like a regular planet to me than boring, crater-faced Mercury does..

 

[dickyh995]

I don't think it changes anything about the scientific understanding simply by changing the descriptive label.

 

[juvenissun]

On 24 August 2006, the International Astronomical Union created a clear definition of what constitutes a planet. (Before this, there was no clear definition of what an object needed to count as a planet or not.)

The definition stated that a planet:

1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

By this definition, Pluto (which had long been considered a planet) was no longer counted as a planet. Instead, it was placed into a category called "Dwarf Planet", since it fit only the first two criteria.

My challenge is this:

Does reclassifying Pluto to be a dwarf planet change our scientific understanding of Pluto in any way? If so, what way?

We do not know much about Pluto. There is not much to challenge about.

 

[Radrook]

We do not know much about Pluto. There is not much to challenge about.

Well, they knew enough to disqualify it as a regular planet and demote it to the dwarf status.

 

[AV1611VET]

The definition stated that a planet:

1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

By this definition, Pluto (which had long been considered a planet) was no longer counted as a planet. Instead, it was placed into a category called "Dwarf Planet", since it fit only the first two criteria.

So the one criteria that sets Pluto apart from the other eight planets is so vague it is put in quotes?

Sounds sciency to me.

Does anyone know what "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the one criteria that sets Pluto apart from the other eight planets is so vague it is put in quotes?

Sounds sciency to me.

Does anyone know what "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" mean?

Yes.

 

[pgp_protector]

So the one criteria that sets Pluto apart from the other eight planets is so vague it is put in quotes?

Sounds sciency to me.

Does anyone know what "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" mean?

yes

 

[AV1611VET]

9 Reasons Pluto is a Planet: Is Pluto's Dismissal as a Planet More Political than Factual?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

9 Reasons Pluto is a Planet: Is Pluto's Dismissal as a Planet More Political than Factual?

No.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It changes nothing about the facts of Pluto per se, but it is a big conceptual change.
It alters what many understand as the 'solar system' and the popular view.

In two or three generations Pluto will likely become as little known as other random rocks in the solar system. It will become a random trivia fact thrown around that it used to be called a planet. Demented geriatrics may grumble about it, while their grandchildren will be blithely unaware of it.

 

[Radrook]

Mercury looks less like a planet to me than Pluto does.

 

[jacks]

According to my criteria (Big thing in sky that isn't an asteroid, moon or star.) Pluto is still a planet.

 

[pgp_protector]

According to my criteria (Big thing in sky that isn't an asteroid, moon or star.) Pluto is still a planet.

So according to your criteria, how many planets do we have?

 

[jacks]

So according to your criteria, how many planets do we have?

Is this a trick question? If I say "nine" are you ready to pounce?

 

[Radrook]

According to my criteria (Big thing in sky that isn't an asteroid, moon or star.) Pluto is still a planet.

So a comet is a planet?

 

[Radrook]

Why not disqualify Mercury as planet simply because it looks too much like our moon?

 

[Kylie]

According to my criteria (Big thing in sky that isn't an asteroid, moon or star.) Pluto is still a planet.

So Halley's Comet is a planet?