Serious This just in: Pluto is (officially) a planet again!

Chee said:
So basically, everything is back as it should be. I never lost faith in you, Pluto!!
Click to expand...
Honestly I agree I liked it when Pluto was a planet (or was first a planet), but it bothers me that non-science people can change the terminology of science just because a high number of them want it a specific way. So don't get me wrong.. Yea for Pluto! Just boo for science heh..
 
Naming a thing should define what it is; changing what we call a thing doesn't change what it is. At some point in the future I don't doubt people will revisit this with better reason to redefine what we call Pluto - not that it'll matter to anyone outside academia. Or, you know, those potential folks in the far flung future who might be speeding past Pluto in their spaceship.
 
First of all the link says that members of the public voted at a debate. This does not mean that there has been an official vote, and Pluto is still technically a dwarf planet, which is a class of planet anyway.
To qualify as a planet, a body must orbit the sun and be large enough to be at least roughly spherical. It must also have gravitationally “cleared its neighborhood” of other bodies, meaning it has its orbital traffic lane all to itself, which Pluto doesn’t.
Eris, which is bigger than Pluto would need to be classified as a planet, and so would about 20 others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_possible_dwarf_planets
Would also have to classify the moon as a planet and say that the Earth and Moon is a double planet system.
The reason that people want Pluto to be a planet is because it is challenging people's view of the world and people do not like that. It is unscientific to name something against the nomenclature and will only cause problems later on. It is also unscientific to try and shut out the progression of our knowledge and to convince yourself that scientists are evil because they want to make a classification more systematic and in the process reclassify what one of hundreds of small lumps of rock are defined as.
And remember, inanimate objects do NOT have feelings.
 
theThanatologist said:
Naming a thing should define what it is; changing what we call a thing doesn't change what it is. At some point in the future I don't doubt people will revisit this with better reason to redefine what we call Pluto - not that it'll matter to anyone outside academia. Or, you know, those potential folks in the far flung future who might be speeding past Pluto in their spaceship.
Click to expand...

True changing a name does not change it physically but it has several side effects, as when you call something a planet you can make other further assumptions about the object. So though it may not be important as other nearby planets are, that does not change the fact that if you change the definition for one that you change the definition of all of them (Including the planet we are on now). So just because we can't reach it yet, doesn't mean it isn't important, as it isn't just Pluto we are talking but a definition of what is what in our whole solar system.

bounding star said:
The reason that people want Pluto to be a planet is because it is challenging people's view of the world and people do not like that. It is unscientific to name something against the nomenclature and will only cause problems later on. It is also unscientific to try and shut out the progression of our knowledge and to convince yourself that scientists are evil because they want to make a classification more systematic and in the process reclassify what one of hundreds of small lumps of rock are defined as.
Click to expand...
Honestly it seems they came out with this whole Dwarf Planet to narrow down specific things other then limit them, so I would think they would "borrow" from other things like binomial nomenclatur. Maybe called it Planet Dwarf, other planets like earth and Planet Large (note that may be backwards heh), so they are both technically planets because they follow some of the same rules that make them planets, but because other rules vary they change the specific epithet (I think the second part is called). But no.. they just have to throw in a "Dwarf Planet" and say not its not a planet.. even though it has it in the name.

Though In either case I do agree it should take more then just a "Popular Vote" to change anything about what science uses to classify and complete its studies. I don't tell the trash-collectors to call my Trashcan a Bin even though it is popular in another country. I shouldn't be telling science to rename their things because its popular in mine.
 
Last edited:
bounding star said:
And remember, inanimate objects do NOT have feelings.
Click to expand...

That's what vegans convince themselves about with plants to feel good about eating them, tho.

Comparing Pluto-Charon to Earth-Moon leaves a nice dent in your rant, too - Pluto and Charon are almost the same size, whereas the Earth is quite visibly larger than the Moon. Some of Jupiter's satellites are larger than the Earth too, does that mean that the Earth should also be called a "satellite"?

And Eris, Makemake (which is a deity's name, by the way, in case the "lulz silleh name!" group didn't know) and the rest of the gang should not get scientific racism either. Planets are planets are planets. Pluto and Charon are a binary planet - they were probably closer to each other than the rest of the "not planets" and thanks to Neptune's meddling, at some point, they just got stuck into the same orbit.

What scientists and those idolizing them as perfect beings should remember is: Science also makes mistakes, but the good thing is, it can sometimes admit them. Resisting change is bad, making pointless changes is just as bad.

Anyhow, a minute of silence for Lilith. Rest in Asteroids.
 
I would like to spare a thought for Sedna (officially 90377 Sedna), which if it indeed is a planet of any classification, is likely to be the loneliest by far.
 
Razor Knight said:
Comparing Pluto-Charon to Earth-Moon leaves a nice dent in your rant, too - Pluto and Charon are almost the same size, whereas the Earth is quite visibly larger than the Moon. Some of Jupiter's satellites are larger than the Earth too, does that mean that the Earth should also be called a "satellite"?
Click to expand...
The reason I make this comparison is not because the moon is large, but because the relative size of the moon and earth is large. Now I'm not saying that it should be classified as a double planet, but it just shows the need for constant standards that are not subject to the public, who feel pity on the lonely little planet that is one of the least lonely in the solar system.
Perhaps we need an even more rigorous and clear-cut set of classifications, what do you think?
 
Sorry, I wans't clear enough with my point of view in this matter: I see this as a case of "if it's not broken, don't fix it" and the whole "dwarf planet" dungpile was exactly that.

So no, there's no need for any further scientific defecation upon a term that works.
 
Razor Knight said:
Sorry, I wans't clear enough with my point of view in this matter: I see this as a case of "if it's not broken, don't fix it" and the whole "dwarf planet" dungpile was exactly that.

So no, there's no need for any further scientific defecation upon a term that works.
Click to expand...
Umm... Correct me if I am wrong, but it was broken because they found out information about Pluto and the bodies around it. How they handled it could of been better, but they had to do something as they learned more and found things that challenged their system.

What scientists and those idolizing them as perfect beings should remember is: Science also makes mistakes, but the good thing is, it can sometimes admit them. Resisting change is bad, making pointless changes is just as bad.

Razor Knight said:
What scientists and those idolizing them as perfect beings should remember is: Science also makes mistakes, but the good thing is, it can sometimes admit them. Resisting change is bad, making pointless changes is just as bad.
Click to expand...
I agree you shouldn't idolize scientist, or science. But they have things in place as we learn more, and realize mistakes they have mad so we can change our ideas of what is scientifically correct or not. It can be a slow process but usually if something is not right someone will come up with proof why and get it fixed. And if it is pointless it usually gets pushed aside or (right or wrong) laughed at as scientist can be quite mean to each other in the peer review system
 
Last edited:
So "we found more planets" equals "we have to create a bull:red: new name for those other planets, and let's throw Pluto into it too because it's not unique anymore!"

Seems like a rather logical and scientific thing to do, really. //Sarcasm.
 
This made Pluto happy :3 happy pluto.png
 
Demoting Pluto from a planet was done out of pure laziness, so that their wouldn't be 20+ planets.

A planet is an orbital body that orbits the sun and is large enough to be roughly spherical. Period, end of definition. Pluto is a planet, Eris is a planet, and all those other Pluto like objects are planets. The moon is not a planet because it orbits the earth and not the sun.

The new rule about clearing their lane of travel is bull:red: and was added only to limit Pluto and its siblings from being planets and had no scientific reasoning behind it. There are 20+ planets, not 8, and scientists just need to accept it instead of making up unneeded new definitions and classifications.
 
Jeckel said:
Demoting Pluto from a planet was done out of pure laziness, so that their wouldn't be 20+ planets.

A planet is an orbital body that orbits the sun and is large enough to be roughly spherical. Period, end of definition. Pluto is a planet, Eris is a planet, and all those other Pluto like objects are planets. The moon is not a planet because it orbits the earth and not the sun.

The new rule about clearing their lane of travel is bull:red: and was added only to limit Pluto and its siblings from being planets and had no scientific reasoning behind it. There are 20+ planets, not 8, and scientists just need to accept it instead of making up unneeded new definitions and classifications.
Click to expand...

Dang, nice elaboration there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom