Pluto to be gently demoted from "full" planet stat

[Airconvent]

oh no.....is nothing sacred.
fortunately its discoverer did not live to see this day but a pity for his widow who still lives though. Previously they had proposed the cut off size for a planet to be based on Pluto but now they have moved in favour of "classifications" instead. sigh....


http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/robbritt

[soulfrost]

and so.. solar system has been demoted to a system of 8 full planet and a dwarf thingy? sounds cool to me~

~gin

[Lily]

I have been following this debate of Pluto with interest. I am all for the idea of coming out with a broader and scientific classification of planets.

With the advent of technology astronomers can study further into deep space objects. We already classified planets into terrestrial planets and Jovian planets, so Puto and 2003 UB 313 can well be a different kind of planets (or sub-planets) that orbits around the sun in Kuiper Belt. Since Solar system extends all the way to Oort Cloud, who can say those objects at Kuiper Belt are no planets?


Cheers,
Lily

[soulfrost]

heh. interesting thought, lily

[Airconvent]

mmm..I for one is against demoting Pluto. It still has all the characteristics of a planet and has been one for so many years. I don't believe there is any real compelling reason if not for the sake of scientific curiosity to want to throw away years of tradition. In fact, they should have set it as the reference point by which an object is defined as a planet or kuiper belt object....
The world can be simple until man comes and segregrates it. I mean next year you can't say there are 9 planets in the solar system anymore.
You need to say 4 terrestrial planets, 4 gaseous planets, 1 undefined object, a couple of more-or-less undefined objects, many tiny asteroids, maybe 29 classes of comets, and yes, there's a class for each different colour of kuiper object found.....

[Lily]

mmm..I for one is against demoting Pluto.

Nope, scientific classification is not equal to demotion. In my view, Pluto is still considered a planet but different class of planet.

In fact, they should have set it as the reference point by which an object is defined as a planet or kuiper belt object....

Why can't a Kuiper belt object that has similar property as Pluto called planet (probably different kind of planet)? If one can say 9 planets in solar system. Isn't Kuiper belt part of Solar System too?

The world can be simple until man comes and segregrates it.

In a way yes, I wish man can be simpler (proud to call myself a simpleton). But classification makes understanding of universe simpler .

4 terrestrial planets, 4 gaseous planets, 1 undefined object

No! Pluto (I assume you meant Pluto here) is not an undefined object, it is a special kind of planet.

Just realized this discussion is getting philosophical rather than 'astronomical' but nevertheless interesting. I am happy that we do have 1 point in common - that is, Pluto is a planet! Yay!

Have a nice day.



Lily

[jermng]

I thought Pluto was Mickey's dog .... :?:

[Airconvent]

I thought Pluto was Mickey's dog .... :?:

actually that was how Pluto was named. a niece (i think) of Tombaugh actually proposed the name Pluto (the dog) and it stuck. I think the niece is still alive today if I read a past issue of Sky&Telescope article correctly..

btw, more here :

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... _fate.html

[rlow]

I think Pluto was named after the Roman god of the underworld; the Greek god equivalent is Hades. This is in succession to the other planets which are also named after Roman gods.

[Airconvent]

I think Pluto was named after the Roman god of the underworld; the Greek god equivalent is Hades. This is in succession to the other planets which are also named after Roman gods.

hi richII
oops...looks like I made a blooper....must be getting old and forgetful!
here is the correct version :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4596246.stm