I just got a call from the folks at Coast to Coast AM radio; they want me on briefly to talk about the status of Pluto as a planet or not. I have about an hour’s worth of (solidly science-based) opinions on this topic, but I’ll have to squeeze it down to maybe 5 or 10 minutes. Oh well. I’m scheduled to be in the first hour, possibly as early as 10:15 Pacific time, but maybe later.
Pluto’s status has been making the news lately (like here and here and lots of other places) even though nothing has changed recently. The only thing going on is the IAU meeting, where people are waiting for the committee on the naming of names to declare whether Pluto is a planet or not.
My opinion: who cares? It is what it is, and calling it a planet won’t change that. The real question is, what’s a planet? And that’s far more than I can tackle in a simple blog entry…
August 14th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I say purge Pluto. Send it off not to coldest Siberia, but to coldest Kupier Belt. It’s orbit is too inclined and too eccentric to be included with the proper planets.
Of course it will never happen. People don’t like to be made to look stupid and to have a planet demoted to a mere Kupier Belt object will make a lot of people feel stupid.
August 14th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
This was mentioned in the recent (yay!) Skepticality. Aren’t the IAU coming up with definitions as to what is a planet, and that is the issue re Pluto?
(But more importantly, think of the impact this will have Astrologically!)
August 14th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
I hope you’ll be addressing the really important stuff, Phil… like, what implications this refined nomenclature could have on Planet X.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Jesus hates Pluto.
I’m pretty much with Phil. It is what it is and that’s all that it is (insert Popeye laugh). Planet is just nomenclature as far as laypeople are concerned. I doubt they’ll stop considering it as anything other than ‘planet’ whatever is decided and textbooks won’t be revised to reflect this for a while anyway… if they are. The state of high school and middle school textbooks is kind of shaky anyway.
Astronomy is out of my field of expertise (and what is in my field of expertise is not real expertise… being only a BS in Microbiology), but as a scientist I find the discussion really interesting.
I’ll try to listen to the broadcast.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
According to everything I’ve read, the public is overwhelmingly against reclassifying Pluto. I wonder if they would change their collective mind if they knew that including it in the definition is likely going to require adding a dozen or more “planets” to the system.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
I don’t care what ANYONE says, I still think Pluto should not be a planet, I have thought that for the last few years. If it is a planet, we might as well label everyother thing orbiting Earth thats at least 3 miles in circumfrence a planet! That happens to be a lot of planets.
A planet should be bigger then Mercury and a planet should have some sort of atmosphere.
I can’t to hear you on Coast to Coast, I’m sure my friend the “UFO geek” will be exited to hear you too. Have a nice one! ^_^
August 14th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Pluto should be reclassified if only to torque up astrologers. That said, I’m a much bigger fan of the “let’s call it a planet if it’s big enough to have made itself round due to its own gravity” definition. Then there’s 50-odd planets and that alone should cause astrologers to implode into their own digestive-tract terminii.
Instead of the Earth and a Moon, it would be a binary planet system, Gaia and Luna or some such thing. That rocks, so to speak.
August 14th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
You’re following Richard Hoagland by the way. You may be tempted to use your time to refute whatever information he is sharing.
August 14th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Squid,
I think the BA has pretty much shot down RCH’s nonsense at every turn, and he’s probably tired of playing Whack-A-Mole with that egotistical nutjob.
Onward and upward, I say.
August 15th, 2006 at 2:48 am
But … but … but – Pluto has its own Sailor Soldier! (Of course, so does the moon…)
August 15th, 2006 at 4:03 am
I agree. Let’s get rid of Pluto’s status! It doesn’t change a thing for us, and it doesn’t change anything in its nature (But I strongly believe that everything should be called a “thingie revolving around our sun.” It’s so much simpler.)
And thus, the astrologers will be all “errrr…”! (And they’ll make a new excuse. Unfortunately.)
August 15th, 2006 at 4:04 am
The best definition of a planet I can think of is as follows;
It should be large enough for gravity to pull into a sphere.
It should not be so massive as to undergo nuclear fusion
It should either be orbiting a star or free floating in the galaxy
It should not be orbiting a body that is in turn orbiting a star or fee floating
It should be gravitationally dominant in the area through which it orbits,not as part of a swarm
The above definitions include all eight from Mercury to Neptune but rule out Ceres, Pluto, the seven giant moons and Sedna, Varuna, Xena etc.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:14 am
Is the sun really a yellow dwarf? If we give star classifications some slack, perhaps planetary classifications should be given some too. Of course, subclasses might be helpful.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:23 am
I’m firmly in the Pluto isn’t a planet camp. Its quite obviously a large Kuiper Belt Object.
Sure it has a big moon (and two ‘lil ones.) and sure it has supposedly an atmosphere (or at least a trace of it.) But Ida has a moon and its an asteroid and Titan has an atmosphere (And one that is far thicker then Pluto’s would probably be!) and its a moon.
The only reason to keep Pluto a planet is out of sentimentality. But that does not make for good science. If people went by that they’d still say the sun revolves around the earth out of sentimentality. After all people love being the center of the cosmos.
Now I do think Pluto is interesting to study. But does it need to be called a planet to be that? I think Ceres would be interesting to take a closer peek at too really…
Also, maybe the term ‘planet’ is to broad to be scientifically useful. Maybe by now its time to form a taxonomical family for astronomical objects. And a system based on what body a body orbits might not be the best for that anyway. (A massive gas giant in an other solar system could conceivably have a moon that might have alot in common with Earth for example. And maybe such a moon should be in the same class with Earth if its ever discovered. (Maybe with a little note on how its a moon.)
A system based on how astronomical bodies are related to eachother. I mean, Mercury is very different from Earth, with its massive core and high metallicity. And Jupiter is very different from both. Whilst Jupiter and Saturn are different from Neptune. And Uranus is different from all of them since unlike the other three gas-giants it doesn’t radiate more heat then it receives from the sun. (Not to mention its bizarre tilt.)
Actually in this solar system perhaps only Earth and Mars could roughly be put in the same class. To Venus would probably be closely related.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:51 am
I think if “lesser planet-like objects” in the solar system were granted a more glamorous classification, then the public would respond less negatively towards an official downgrade of Pluto. Doubtlessly, classifying “lesser planet-like objects” as “Kuiper Belt objects” or “dwarf planets” not only conveys extreme dullness but sounds highly insulting to the objects involved. Consequently, I’m proposing that the nomenclature of the solar system needs an overhaul. Just an biology has reclassified life-forms on a number of occasions, astronomy is in need of reclassifying gravitational bound objects in the solar system.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:05 am
I don’t care if it’s a planet or not, just as long as they give it back its proper name – Yuggoth
August 15th, 2006 at 6:41 am
David,
Your definitions clearly makes Pluto a planet. Plus, it does have two moons orbiting it: Nix and Hydra.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:08 am
This is strange.. Why are we reconsidering what a planet is in the light of the discovery that there are many pluto-like objects way out there in strange orbits? Aren’t they just strange little planets too? That’d be way cool
August 15th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Is there anyway I can hear this without having to register for more spam and paying for that privilage
August 15th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Hmmm, planets, moons, planatismals,,,just raw material for space colonies and satellite power systems. The only REAL planet is the one with life on it. All the rest are just rocks!
GAry 7
August 15th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Phil,
“…The real question is, what’s a planet? And that’s far more than I can tackle in a simple blog entry… ”
Why not? Voice your opinion. Make it into several entries if you’d like (and find time for it).
August 15th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Kit, it’s complicated and to do it right would take me two or three thousand words. I don’t have time right now for it. But with the IAU about to make an announcement, it’s maybe time I did. I’ll see what I can do.
August 15th, 2006 at 10:31 am
“A planet should be bigger then Mercury and a planet should have some sort of atmosphere.”
By your definition, Mercury is not a planet, since:
1) Mercury is NOT bigger than Mercury (duh).
and
2) Mercury does not have an atmosphere.
FWIW – Pluto does have an atmosphere.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Kaptain K, I reconize that I made… to many typos in that blog. Earth should be changed into the Sun, and many more gramatical and scientific errors.
Thanks for catching that! But I still think Pluto should not be called a planet. as for your number 1 reason, I have to say… Is that the best you can come up with?!? Jeez, a 5 year old could do better….
