Pluto: We hardly knew ye

[Burning Zeppelin]

The 2006 redefinition of "planet" by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that a planet is a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun; has the shape of a body in hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round); and has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

What's this!? Pluto, no longer a planet, but now a dwarf planet!? Mmm, yeah, I'm not too hung over it either, but it does feel akward, that a planet we have loved for so long is now not considered one. The whole idea of a dwarf planet is stupid anyway-- and if it were up to me they'd be called planetoids, the infinitely cooler name.

With three new "planets" being found recently, people thought "we can't have more than ten! What would become of planet X!?" the term planet was redefined and, in doing so, poor Pluto had to wave goodbye to being cool. Now all the text books are wrong! Well, they're still more correct than my encyclopedias which say that the USSR is still among us and that the Berlin wall is yet to fall.

I pfft at trans-Neptunian objects. The entire universe is trans-Neptunian.

Discuss?

[Romana]

I just see all the planets/moons/potatoes as big rocks, and nothing much else.

Pluto lives on in our hearts!

Long live Pluto!

[Zaperking]

I love Pluto. It'll always be a planet in my heart.

God damn hippy scientists. Keep Pluto as a planet, bastards. Pluto was pronounced a planet before we redefined what a planet was supposed to be, so hence it shouldn't be affected, but all the new planets should be. It's so unfair. It's like that guy who was trialed on rape but got away with it because of some glitch in the law system. The next day after his trial, they changed the law so that the loop hole was fixed, but he still got away.
The same thing should go with Pluto.

[Magus22]

You can fit Pluto and its moon Charon into the the country of the United States. That's how tiny they are.

Pluto has been classified a planet, so it should stay a planet. Those are my views. It's orbitting our sun just like any other "rock" or "gaseous giant" is doing right now.

However, our moon and even some of Saturn and Jupiter's moons, such as Titan, are bigger than these little rocks. Pluto, along with its moon Charon, Sedna, Xena and Quaoar are smaller than our moon. This brings up a pointless debate of how to categorize these rocks which are individually orbitting the sun at odd eliptical trajectories.

They need to leave Pluto alone. The new debate should be the other "outer rocks" near the Kuiper Belt.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I love Pluto. It'll always be a planet in my heart.

God damn hippy scientists. Keep Pluto as a planet, bastards. Pluto was pronounced a planet before we redefined what a planet was supposed to be, so hence it shouldn't be affected, but all the new planets should be. It's so unfair. It's like that guy who was trialed on rape but got away with it because of some glitch in the law system. The next day after his trial, they changed the law so that the loop hole was fixed, but he still got away.
The same thing should go with Pluto.

I've never heard of that case in particular, but, at least in the United States, a law may not be retroactive. That is to say, if you do something that is legal, and then it becomes illegal, you may not be prosecuted for having performed the action prior to it being made illegal. What you are asking them to do for Pluto is a grandfather clause, which means allowing something to happen because it has in the past.

But this isn't politics. It's science. If science gives in to politics and emotion, it ceases to be science, and it ceases to benefit man kind.

[Burning Zeppelin]

You can fit Pluto and its moon Charon into the the country of the United States. That's how tiny they are.

Pluto has been classified a planet, so it should stay a planet. Those are my views. It's orbitting our sun just like any other "rock" or "gaseous giant" is doing right now.

However, our moon and even some of Saturn and Jupiter's moons, such as Titan, are bigger than these little rocks. Pluto, along with its moon Charon, Sedna, Xena and Quaoar are smaller than our moon. This brings up a pointless debate of how to categorize these rocks which are individually orbitting the sun at odd eliptical trajectories.

They need to leave Pluto alone. The new debate should be the other "outer rocks" near the Kuiper Belt.

We should just be called moons of the Sun then. And then call the Sun the moon of the...Milky Way.

Has there been any cases where a moon had another moon?

[Lord J Esq]

We should just be called moons of the Sun then. And then call the Sun the moon of the...Milky Way.

Stars have different physical properties than planets. The reason we give different names to various celestial bodies is because of the significance of those differences, and, equally, the uniqueness of all these classes of difference. It's the same thing as giving a different word to all the various types of food, rather than just saying "I'll have some food for dinner." There are some kinds of food you won't eat, can't digest, or wouldn't want. "Celestial bodies," likewise, is a good term for emphasizing that asteroids and supernovae have something in common, but without a functional nomenclature to communicate the important unique qualities of all the celestial bodies out there, we cannot proceed in our scientific discourse.

That's why the Pluto case was so important. As our astronomical observation capabilities have improved, the number of known objects in the universe has increased, blurring some of the old distinctions we use to make between "celestial bodies." Now, newer distinctions evidence themselves. This is scientific progress in its purest form. I was proud of these scientists for going against what they knew would be a strong cultural inertia and classifying Pluto not as the planet we have all grown to think of it, but as the planetoid (or dwarf planet, if you like) that it more properly is. In science, reality must eventually win...or it's not science.

In fact, the romance with which we view planets is more properly a game of perception. The fact that Pluto's fate is being received by the public in a way exemplified by this topic, is more a ballet of human psychology than a serious astronomic debate.

[Burning Zeppelin]

We should just be called moons of the Sun then. And then call the Sun the moon of the...Milky Way.

Stars have different physical properties than planets. The reason we give different names to various celestial bodies is because of the significance of those differences, and, equally, the uniqueness of all these classes of difference. It's the same thing as giving a different word to all the various types of food, rather than just saying "I'll have some food for dinner." There are some kinds of food you won't eat, can't digest, or wouldn't want. "Celestial bodies," likewise, is a good term for emphasizing that asteroids and supernovae have something in common, but without a functional nomenclature to communicate the important unique qualities of all the celestial bodies out there, we cannot proceed in our scientific discourse.

That's why the Pluto case was so important. As our astronomical observation capabilities have improved, the number of known objects in the universe has increased, blurring some of the old distinctions we use to make between "celestial bodies." Now, newer distinctions evidence themselves. This is scientific progress in its purest form. I was proud of these scientists for going against what they knew would be a strong cultural inertia and classifying Pluto not as the planet we have all grown to think of it, but as the planetoid (or dwarf planet, if you like) that it more properly is. In science, reality must eventually win...or it's not science.

In fact, the romance with which we view planets is more properly a game of perception. The fact that Pluto's fate is being received by the public in a way exemplified by this topic, is more a ballet of human psychology than a serious astronomic debate.

It was a joke.

[Lord J Esq]

Oh. Hard to tell with you sometimes. Ha ha.

[Magus22]

We should just be called moons of the Sun then. And then call the Sun the moon of the...Milky Way.

Has there been any cases where a moon had another moon?

Well I guess we are kind of moons of this sun. And our Sun, or the many stars out there, orbit our Milky Way galaxy. In fact our entire solar system orbits the Milky Way.

Anywho, I have never heard of a moon orbitting another moon. I believe it is possible for an object with a smaller mass could orbit the moon. However, the gravitational pull wouldn't be as great, so our moon wouldn't suffice.

Getting on subject, I feel bad for Clyde Tombaugh right now. This whole Pluto - planetoid thing is bull.

[Silvercry]

Does this mean Sailor Pluto will be booted out of the Outer Senshi now?  Too bad.  She was one of my favorites.

Dead Scream > you.

[Lord J Esq]

You win my coveted Pun of the Week Award.