ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags astronomy , pluto

Reply
Old 10th September 2018, 10:03 AM   #41
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,073
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
But I learned Pluto is a planet back in school. So ..
And school children from ~1800 to ~1850 learned that Pallas, Juno, Ceres, and Vesta were planets.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:11 AM   #42
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So Ceres is a planet too?
YES! It was before, and like Pluto it deserves to be again.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:23 AM   #43
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,552
Originally Posted by Mike! View Post
Pluto is far from a minor character, having had shorts built exclusively around his activities...

And so they should. You can’t have a dog appearing in movies with his activities dangling out in the open.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:36 AM   #44
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 15,359
All this commotion about how to label some body.

Let Pluto be Pluto.
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:37 AM   #45
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-pluto-...ed-planet.html

Pluto pulled itself into a round shape, is geologically the second most complex solar orbiting object, and was most disgracefully red carded.

Thank you for this revising revisionism.
Wait a second. That's not the definition of clearing one's neighborhood, is it?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:40 AM   #46
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Wait a second. That's not the definition of clearing one's neighborhood, is it?
Clearing one's neighborhood shouldn't be part of the definition of planet.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:42 AM   #47
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
'Disgracefully red carded'

People are way too much emotionally attached to a situation like this with Pluto.

Face it.
Whatever the criterium is for 'planet' status. The universe is big enough that there will be edge cases, which can mean they will fall on the planet side or the minor planet side of the equation, depending on how you look at it.
Personally I don't mind the demotion. With all the new bodies that are being discovered it was just a matter of time before a more stringent classification system was adopted and some planets got the boot. I just wish they had picked a better name than "dwarf planet", which somehow includes the word "planet" but isn't one.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:43 AM   #48
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Clearing one's neighborhood shouldn't be part of the definition of planet.
Maybe, I don't disagree with you. But that's irrelevant: it IS part of the definition, and Pluto doesn't qualify. Neither does Ceres, even though it's clearly the biggest asteroid in the belt.

In any case, Pluto's orbit suggests a different origin than the eight canonical planets.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:47 AM   #49
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Maybe, I don't disagree with you. But that's irrelevant: it IS part of the definition, and Pluto doesn't qualify.
It's completely relevant, because the definition can be changed. That's how it became part of the definition in the first place: by changing it to include that criteria. And it should be changed again to remove it, because it's a crap criteria, for a whole host of reasons.

Quote:
In any case, Pluto's orbit suggests a different origin than the eight canonical planets.
So what?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:47 AM   #50
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And four is cleaner than eight, so why not say that only Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are true planets? There's a much cleaner dividing line between Neptune and Earth than there is between Mercury and Pluto.

Choosing your criteria just to reduce the number of planets is cowardly. Be brave. Choose a solar system with 20+ planets.
I don't think "why this definition and not this other one" is very useful to the discussion. Sounds too much like "why 15$ an hour and not 100?".

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It won't be the case with the earth forever either. The moon's orbital radius will eventually increase by roughly 40%, which should put the barycenter a bit outside the earth's surface. It would be strange for this gradual and smooth process to suddenly demote the earth from planet status.
Not really. A status can change over time. It all depends on how you construct your classifications. Earth's moon is pretty damned big, compared to its primary.

Quote:
Give it some credit here.
I don't give rocks credit. They tend to spend it on booze and junk food.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 10:49 AM   #51
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's completely relevant, because the definition can be changed.
No, it's irrelevant to what the definition IS. Currently that's the definition, and thus Pluto isn't a planet. If someone can make a good argument for further change they're welcome to do so. "Poor Pluto" doesn't qualify.

Quote:
So what?
So it's one more reason for a different classification. All classifications are arbitrary. We added one because the number of 'planets' was getting out of hand. How many planets are there in the solar system, you think, if we keep the old system ? 60,000?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:03 AM   #52
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, it's irrelevant to what the definition IS.
But we aren't only talking about what the definition is. Nor is there any requirement that we all adopt the same definition as the IAU, which has no authority to impose its definition on anyone.

Quote:
If someone can make a good argument for further change they're welcome to do so.
Many have.

Quote:
"Poor Pluto" doesn't qualify.
Of course. I don't think anyone is saying that in seriousness, and I certainly don't take it seriously.

Quote:
So it's one more reason for a different classification.
It's not a good reason to classify it as not a planet.

Quote:
All classifications are arbitrary. We added one because the number of 'planets' was getting out of hand. How many planets are there in the solar system, you think, if we keep the old system ? 60,000?
There are not 60,000 bodies large enough to gravitationally pull themselves into spheroids.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:08 AM   #53
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But we aren't only talking about what the definition is.
No, we're not. You're right.

Quote:
Nor is there any requirement that we all adopt the same definition as the IAU, which has no authority to impose its definition on anyone.
No, but it's useful if everyone means the same thing when we use words.

Quote:
Many have.
Let's heard yours. I have my own, by the way. But it still wouldn't include Pluto.

Quote:
Of course. I don't think anyone is saying that in seriousness, and I certainly don't take it seriously.
I really hope not.

Quote:
It's not a good reason to classify it as not a planet.
Why not? It's as good a reason as any. What's a good reason?

Quote:
There are not 60,000 bodies large enough to gravitationally pull themselves into spheroids.
You don't know that. We found quite a few of them in just a few years and in a very small portion of the solar system. There indeed may be thousands.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:22 AM   #54
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,073
The Solar System:
Age: 4.568 billion years.
Address: Orion-Cygnus arm of the Milky Way Galaxy.

- 1 G-Type Main Sequence white/yellow dwarf Star
- 4 Rocky, terrestrial planets.
- 4 Gas Giants
- 5 Dwarf Planets (5 named, multiple likely further candidates)
- Unknown quantity (at least 778,897) of Minor Planets
- 525 natural satellites (185 planetary, 347 minor planetary)
- Asteroid Belt, Kuiper Belt, Oort Cloud, may various trans-Neptuian objects.
- At least 4,017 comets
- 1 Teapot (Status contested)
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 10th September 2018 at 11:26 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:26 AM   #55
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Let's heard yours. I have my own, by the way. But it still wouldn't include Pluto.
A planet should orbit the sun and not some larger planet (ie, Titan is a moon and not a planet), and it should be large enough to gravitationally shape itself into hydrostatic equilibrium.

I'm open to arguments to narrow this down a little more, perhaps with a mass or diameter threshold, but clearing your neighborhood is a bad criteria. For one thing, it's hard to tell if a neighborhood has been sufficiently cleared (none of the solar system is totally cleared, so this requires some sort of threshold for what counts as cleared). For another, that criteria means that planets can potentially lose and gain planetary status multiple times even with no change to their own properties. That seems ridiculous.

Quote:
Why not?
Because the definition shouldn't be history-dependent.

Quote:
You don't know that. We found quite a few of them in just a few years and in a very small portion of the solar system. There indeed may be thousands.
That is very, very unlikely. It is highly probable we haven't found every dwarf planet in our solar system, but if there are thousands of dwarf planets, then there are going to be a much larger number of things that aren't quite dwarf planets but are still pretty large. And we should be seeing a lot more of them than we are.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:27 AM   #56
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,073
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because the definition shouldn't be history-dependent.
But it has to be as we gain further knowledge or we are forever bound to definitions that don't make sense anymore.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:29 AM   #57
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
But it has to be as we gain further knowledge or we are forever bound to definitions that don't make sense anymore.
I was referring to the history of the object under consideration, not the history of the word. So the present properties of an object should determine whether or not it's a planet, not what the object's past history is.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 10th September 2018 at 11:30 AM.
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:31 AM   #58
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,073
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I was referring to the history of the object under consideration, not the history of the word. So the present properties of an object should determine whether or not it's a planet, not what the object's past history is.
Nobody's saying Pluto and Ceres and Eris and all them were never considered planets, just that they aren't planets under the definition we are using now.

We can say the Greeks used to consider the Sun and Moon planets under their definition but we don't know, why is this any different?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:32 AM   #59
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,646
Exactly. Things should be as they were, when I was young. Especially my hair.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:34 AM   #60
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,552
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Exactly. Things should be as they were, when I was young. Especially my hair.

Yeah, and kids having respect for their elders.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:36 AM   #61
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
A planet should orbit the sun and not some larger planet (ie, Titan is a moon and not a planet), and it should be large enough to gravitationally shape itself into hydrostatic equilibrium.
Do you think we should define this orbit in terms of barycenter? I ask because Pluto-Charon's is outside either bodies, as is Sun-Jupiter's. How about binary star systems? Or do we just stick to this system for now?

Quote:
I'm open to arguments to narrow this down a little more, perhaps with a mass or diameter threshold
Gravity and orbital eccentricity, perhaps.

Quote:
but clearing your neighborhood is a bad criteria.
I personally dislike it. I don't find that it's particularily well-defined, to begin with. Jupiter has 'cleared' its neighborhood but there's a ton of small bodies along its orbit.

Quote:
For another, that criteria means that planets can potentially lose and gain planetary status multiple times even with no change to their own properties. That seems ridiculous.
That doesn't bother me. If a planet is blown apart by a collision, it loses its status as planet because it no longer exists, and gains it back if it coalesces again.

Quote:
Because the definition shouldn't be history-dependent.
Why not? I'm being serious. Why shouldn't it be?

Quote:
That is very, very unlikely. It is highly probable we haven't found every dwarf planet in our solar system, but if there are thousands of dwarf planets, then there are going to be a much larger number of things that aren't quite dwarf planets but are still pretty large. And we should be seeing a lot more of them than we are.
Most of them are at a distance comparable to Sedna and beyond and are very small and dim. Odds are that just haven't been looking in the right places. It may just be a few hundreds but maybe more, given the size of the system, and I don't want kids in the classrooms to have to memorise more than those we decide to call planet.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:56 AM   #62
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Do you think we should define this orbit in terms of barycenter? I ask because Pluto-Charon's is outside either bodies, as is Sun-Jupiter's.
What difference does that make?

If you're suggesting that Pluto shouldn't be a planet because the Pluto/Charon barycenter is outside Pluto, I disagree. That will happen to the Earth/Moon system in the future too, and that shouldn't demote the earth. If you're just noting that Jupiter orbits the barycenter of Jupiter/Sun and not the center of the sun, sure, but it still goes around the sun and not around another larger planet.

Quote:
How about binary star systems?
I don't think that changes anything. The object with either orbit one sun (orbital distance less than the distance between the two suns) or it will orbit both suns (orbital distance greater than the distance between the two suns). In either case, it will still be either orbiting a sun or suns, or it will be orbiting some larger body which the will both orbit the sun(s) together. In the former case it may be a planet, in the latter case it's a moon.

Quote:
Gravity and orbital eccentricity, perhaps.
Gravity is essentially equivalent to mass. Not identical, but sufficiently related that one or the other would serve essentially the same purpose. I don't think orbital eccentricity needs to be a criteria. Imagine, for example, a Jupiter-like planet orbiting another star on a very elliptical orbit. Should it not be considered a planet because its orbit is elliptical? That doesn't seem right.

Quote:
I personally dislike it.
That's the criteria used to boot Pluto.

Quote:
That doesn't bother me. If a planet is blown apart by a collision, it loses its status as planet because it no longer exists, and gains it back if it coalesces again.
A planet that gets blown apart should lose its status because it's no longer gravitationally formed into hydrostatic equilibrium, so that's not the problem. The problem is that other planets can lose their status because a neighbor was blown apart by a collision. Nothing about those other planets needs to change for their status to change, under that definition.

Quote:
Why not? I'm being serious. Why shouldn't it be?
Because we should be able to determine its status as a planet or not planet based upon its current properties. We shouldn't have to discover the history of its creation to know this.

Quote:
Most of them are at a distance comparable to Sedna and beyond and are very small and dim. Odds are that just haven't been looking in the right places. It may just be a few hundreds but maybe more, given the size of the system
The farther out you go, the harder it is for large bodies to form. There is less and less material available, it's more and more dispersed, and it takes longer and longer for that material to coalesce.

Quote:
and I don't want kids in the classrooms to have to memorise more than those we decide to call planet.
I'm OK with kids not memorizing everything in our solar system we call a planet. In general, kids already don't memorize any of the names stars other than the Sun, and I bet most kids couldn't name a galaxy other than the Milky Way.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 11:59 AM   #63
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Nobody's saying Pluto and Ceres and Eris and all them were never considered planets, just that they aren't planets under the definition we are using now.

We can say the Greeks used to consider the Sun and Moon planets under their definition but we don't know, why is this any different?
Did you not read my previous post? I wasn't referring to the history of the word. I was referring to the history of the object, as in, how and where did the object form, how did it arrive at its current location. The Greeks don't have anything to do with that. Past word usage doesn't have anything to do with that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 12:22 PM   #64
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What difference does that make?
I'm just throwing ideas out there. Definitions are arbitrary, so I'm wondering why we would pick one criterion and not the other.

Quote:
That will happen to the Earth/Moon system in the future too, and that shouldn't demote the earth.
Again with the value judgments. Do you have a relationship with Pluto that we should know about?

Quote:
I don't think orbital eccentricity needs to be a criteria. Imagine, for example, a Jupiter-like planet orbiting another star on a very elliptical orbit. Should it not be considered a planet because its orbit is elliptical? That doesn't seem right.
What does the highlighted even mean?

Quote:
That's the criteria used to boot Pluto.
I know. I was agreeing with you.

Quote:
A planet that gets blown apart should lose its status because it's no longer gravitationally formed into hydrostatic equilibrium, so that's not the problem. The problem is that other planets can lose their status because a neighbor was blown apart by a collision. Nothing about those other planets needs to change for their status to change, under that definition.
Yeah, but that's because of your personal definition of planet. Regardless of definition, a planet's status would change if it fails even temporarily to meet the requirements.

Quote:
Because we should be able to determine its status as a planet or not planet based upon its current properties. We shouldn't have to discover the history of its creation to know this.
You keep using "shouldn't" as if it's convincing on its face. I want you to provide me with reasons that don't amoung to your personal like or dislike.

Quote:
The farther out you go, the harder it is for large bodies to form. There is less and less material available, it's more and more dispersed, and it takes longer and longer for that material to coalesce.
That might be true, but doesn't rule out a few hundred dwarf planets. The solar system's huge, and has quite a lot of material.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 12:54 PM   #65
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah, but that's because of your personal definition of planet.
No, that's because of the IAU definition.

Quote:
Regardless of definition, a planet's status would change if it fails even temporarily to meet the requirements.
Sure, but the issue is what sort of changes would make this happen. Changes which don't directly affect the planet itself should not change its status.

Quote:
You keep using "shouldn't" as if it's convincing on its face. I want you to provide me with reasons that don't amoung to your personal like or dislike.
Any evaluation of competing possibilities will always come down to some value judgment. Preferring fewer criteria to more criteria is a value judgment. Preferring simpler criteria to more complex criteria is a value judgment. Preferring criteria that are easy to evaluate over criteria that are hard to evaluate is a value judgment Preferring criteria which keep classifications stable over criteria which lead to fluid classifications is a value judgment. And any value judgment can always be framed as a personal like or dislike. I don't see how I can satisfy your request, for any possible criteria.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:07 PM   #66
jeremyp
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The Solar System:

- 1 Teapot (Status contested)
Pretty sure there’s more than one teapot in the solar system. In fact, I can see two from where I’m sitting.

Maybe Elon Musk could have put one on that rocket instead of a Tesla Roadster. That would put a spanner in the works for the atheists.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:14 PM   #67
jeremyp
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 466
I’m still bitter about the quiz night for charity I attended at my nephew’s school which had the question “name all the planets in the solar system”. The official “question master is always right” answer had eight planets, including Pluto but not including Venus.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:14 PM   #68
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,073
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
I’m still bitter about the quiz night for charity I attended at my nephew’s school which had the question “name all the planets in the solar system”. The official “question master is always right” answer had eight planets, including Pluto but not including Venus.
Technically Venus is an arachnid.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:21 PM   #69
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,972
Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
I always thought 'big enough to pull itself into a sphere' was the best and most obvious definition...
So the Moon is really a planet?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:45 PM   #70
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,862
I am not an astronomer in any way. However I do have a PhD. So with all the vast authority granted to me as a consequence of those extra 5 years of avoiding a real job I hereby grant to all posters here the right to call Pluto a planet if they wish to so. Neil deGrasse Tyson is unlikely to overhear you, even highly drunk customers in Biker Bars are unlikely to punch you for it, and at some time you will give a 9-year kid intense pleasure "correcting" you.

Did you know that not drawing pants on Pluto was okay because he did not speak and was presented as a dog/pet, whereas drawing pants on Goofy was considered crucial for decorum because he speaks in the cartoons and therefore was human-enough to need clothes. Presumably Goofy's ancestors ate of the fruit of knowledge in Eden; Pluto's did not.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 02:12 PM   #71
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,362
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...But we aren't only talking about what the definition is. Nor is there any requirement that we all adopt the same definition as the IAU, which has no authority to impose its definition on anyone ...
I hope you know what you're doing, Zig. The IAU is not to be trifled with. There are more things that can be done with sweater vests, pocket protectors and inappropriately sexist comic book themed self printed T-shirts than just wearing them as a de rigueur nerdist fashion statement!

You have been warned!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 02:21 PM   #72
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, that's because of the IAU definition.
"Nothing about those other planets needs to change for their status to change, under that definition." has to be under your definition, since you say that under the IAU definition the status can change.

Quote:
Sure, but the issue is what sort of changes would make this happen. Changes which don't directly affect the planet itself should not change its status.
Sorry, but by definition all criteria that are part of the definition of planet affect the planet itself. Otherwise by what would you determine if it affects the planet or not?

Quote:
Any evaluation of competing possibilities will always come down to some value judgment.
Maybe but there's arbitrary and then there's arbitrary. If you choose a definition based on a number of criteria because they allow you to categorise bodies in a way that's useful for a number of purposes, that's fine. But so far your arguments can be summed up like this:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That doesn't seem right.
But yes, you can satisfy my request. All you have to do is make a case as to why your definition would be more useful, or why the current one is problematic in a way not easily addressed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:14 PM   #73
Faydra
sinning sybarite
 
Faydra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,987
I can't get out of the sand metaphor.

I imagine Jupiter coming along and kicking the Universe's sand in Pluto's face and then Pluto desperately trying to kick the sand back out of it's own orbit and just continually getting sand back in it's own non-planety face.

It's making me laugh way too much, and I haven't even smoked any pot in like a month!
Faydra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:19 PM   #74
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 15,359
Pluto smokes pot. Look at that orbit.
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:07 PM   #75
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
"Nothing about those other planets needs to change for their status to change, under that definition." has to be under your definition, since you say that under the IAU definition the status can change.
You're misinterpreting something, and I'm not sure what, so let me lay it out more explicitly in one place.

If we use the IAU definition of planet (not mine), then if Mars blows up and throws debris into Earth's neighborhood, Earth gets demoted from planet to dwarf planet. Nothing about Earth itself, the physical object, changed, but its classification does, under the IAU definition.

Quote:
Sorry, but by definition all criteria that are part of the definition of planet affect the planet itself. Otherwise by what would you determine if it affects the planet or not?
That's backwards. Things affect objects independently of how we classify objects.

If you add or subtract mass to Earth, that affects Earth directly. If you put Earth in orbit around Jupiter, that affects Earth directly. If you blow up Mars, that does not affect Earth directly. None of this is dependent upon the definition of the word "planet". It's a simple examination of physical interactions.

Quote:
Maybe but there's arbitrary and then there's arbitrary. If you choose a definition based on a number of criteria because they allow you to categorise bodies in a way that's useful for a number of purposes, that's fine. But so far your arguments can be summed up like this:



But yes, you can satisfy my request. All you have to do is make a case as to why your definition would be more useful, or why the current one is problematic in a way not easily addressed.
We've already done that. You even agreed with me that clearing the neighborhood is a bad criteria. It's hard to evaluate, and it's not even a useful distinguisher between different astronomical bodies. In the hypothetical where Mars blows up and scatters debris, that could lead to Jupiter being demoted to dwarf planet status. So that criteria is garbage, because it makes no sense to have Jupiter be a dwarf planet while Mercury is a planet. That violates the entire purpose of separating dwarf planets from planets in the first place..

So why not simply throw out that criteria? Maintain the other criteria (orbiting the sun, not a bigger planet, gravitationally shaped into hydrostatic equilibrium), because they work perfectly well, and you're fine. It's simpler, it's easier to evaluate, and it doesn't lead to absurd possibilities like Jupiter being a dwarf planet.

The primary objection on offer is that it leads to too many planets, but no case has been made for why that's actually a problem. You suggested (but didn't actually advocate for) another criteria, a limit to how elliptical an orbit should be, but that criteria is as arbitrary as it gets, and serves no purpose except to exclude certain candidates because... well, we never got that far. And again, it would lead to Jupiter-like extrasolar planets being classified as dwarf planets, which makes zero sense.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 06:11 PM   #76
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,070
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
It's my theory that the Solar System has little planets on the inside, big ones in the middle, and little ones on the outside.

That is my theory, it is mine and belongs to me, and I own it and what it is, too.

Also, it looks like a Brontosaurus.
Ann? Is that you? It's been a looooong time!
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 08:29 PM   #77
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,168
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
So Ceres is a planet too?
yes
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 03:47 AM   #78
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,786
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You're misinterpreting something, and I'm not sure what, so let me lay it out more explicitly in one place.

If we use the IAU definition of planet (not mine), then if Mars blows up and throws debris into Earth's neighborhood, Earth gets demoted from planet to dwarf planet. Nothing about Earth itself, the physical object, changed, but its classification does, under the IAU definition.
Yes I get that. What I'm saying is that when you say it shouldn't work that way, it's based on your definition, but you've not provided a reason why it shouldn't work that way,

Quote:
That's backwards. Things affect objects independently of how we classify objects.
That's not what I said. Consider: Is an egg still an egg once I break it open and empty it of its contents?

Quote:
We've already done that. You even agreed with me that clearing the neighborhood is a bad criteria.
That's not the same as agreeing with YOUR definition.

Quote:
So why not simply throw out that criteria? Maintain the other criteria (orbiting the sun, not a bigger planet, gravitationally shaped into hydrostatic equilibrium), because they work perfectly well, and you're fine. It's simpler, it's easier to evaluate, and it doesn't lead to absurd possibilities like Jupiter being a dwarf planet.
However we end up with a large number of planets, which is what the change was meant to address. You say it's not a problem, but it becomes a problem of classification. Sure, if you call Sedna "Sol 17" instead, you have no problem. But some of us want to be able to have a clear definition of what's a planet that doesn't necessarily include the icy, largely irrelevant bodies that lie in the kuiper belt.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 04:48 AM   #79
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,872
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But some of us want to be able to have a clear definition of what's a planet that doesn't necessarily include the icy, largely irrelevant bodies that lie in the kuiper belt.
I don’t get what “relevance” has to do with it. This surely depends on what we consider relevant at any one time. We have probes visiting Ceres and Pluto and even landed one on a comet, so they have some relevance to someone. We could argued that really only Jupiter has much relevance to Earth by its apparent sweeping up of Earth-bound meteors.

Besides, if we are talking about planets we can see in the sky or of a certain size then the exoplanets would not be relevant either. Apparently the definition of planet only relates to bodies in the solar system which seems a strange definition. Maybe we could just divide them into major planets (of which there are eight according to IUA rules) and the others can be dwarf planets and together they are all planets.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 05:12 AM   #80
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,183
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes I get that. What I'm saying is that when you say it shouldn't work that way, it's based on your definition, but you've not provided a reason why it shouldn't work that way,
At a certain point, this stuff should be obvious. A dwarf planet should be something too small to be a real planet. A definition of dwarf planet that includes Jupiter is a bad definition, because it's misleading.

Quote:
That's not what I said. Consider: Is an egg still an egg once I break it open and empty it of its contents?
No, it isn't. An egg shell is not an egg.

Quote:
That's not the same as agreeing with YOUR definition.
Sure, but you've offered neither objection nor alternative.

Quote:
However we end up with a large number of planets, which is what the change was meant to address. You say it's not a problem, but it becomes a problem of classification.
No, it's not a problem of classification. It's not a problem at all. You keep saying that my preferences are arbitrary, but so is the preference for a smaller number of planets.

Quote:
Sure, if you call Sedna "Sol 17" instead, you have no problem. But some of us want to be able to have a clear definition of what's a planet that doesn't necessarily include the icy, largely irrelevant bodies that lie in the kuiper belt.
And why does your personal preference matter? Furthermore, I've already suggested multiple better ways to eliminate those smaller objects from the definition.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.