# So...why is Pluto not a planet?



## The Condition of Keegan (Feb 1, 2016)

I know this has been a thing for awhile but I can never figure out why it isn't a planet. I mean, the moon I can understand but why Pluto? 

Sent from my RCT6213W87DK using Tapatalk


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

Pluto is not a planet, because if NASA included Pluto as a planet, they would also need to include scores of other exo-planets as well. Then we'd have like a 30 "planet" solar system.

TLDR: they didnt want to be hypocrites


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

2006 definition: A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that:

-is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity,
-is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and
-has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.

I guess that observation has already confirmed that Pluto, Ceres, Eris, Makemake, etc. don't meet all the requirements.


----------



## slyfox (Nov 18, 2007)

Could still consider it an honorary planet


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> Pluto is not a planet, because if NASA included Pluto as a planet, they would also need to include scores of other exo-planets as well. Then we'd have like a 30 "planet" solar system.
> 
> TLDR: they didnt want to be hypocrites


What if, when Hubble discovered other galaxies apart from our own, he came up with an arbitrary definition for what a galaxy should be, just so we didn't have to have a big long list of galaxies?

It's a stupid reason and it isn't how science is supposed to work.



eukz said:


> 2006 definition: A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that:
> 
> -is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity,
> -is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and
> ...


Neptune hasn't cleared Pluto and other Kuipper Belt objects from its orbit yet. Earth hasn't cleared out the near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter and Mars haven't cleared out the asteroid belt.

Move Murcury to another part of the Solar system and suddenly it isn't a planet anymore. Imagine if the biological sciences worked like that. Two groups of animals that are biologically identical in every way. The only difference being the environment they live in. So biologists categorise them as different species. Suddenly _**** sapiens_ are split into a multitude of different species.

That's stupid!


----------



## CloudChaser (Nov 7, 2013)




----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> What if, when Hubble discovered other galaxies apart from our own, he came up with an arbitrary definition for what a galaxy should be, just so we didn't have to have a big long list of galaxies?
> 
> It's a stupid reason and it isn't how science is supposed to work.





> Why Is Pluto Not Called a Planet Anymore?
> In 2003, an astronomer, Michael Brown, discovered a new object beyond Pluto. He had found a new planet. The object he saw appeared to be larger than Pluto. He named the object Eris (EE-ris).
> 
> Finding Eris caused other astronomers to talk about what makes a planet a "planet." There is a group of astronomers that names objects in space. This group decided that Pluto was not really a planet because of its size and the strength of its gravitational field. So Pluto and objects like it are now called dwarf planets.
> ...


http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/pluto/basic

Take it up with NASA!


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/pluto/basic
> 
> Take it up with NASA!


NASA have no authority in this matter. But if it's NASA you look to, then look at this article from shortly after the vote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm



> *Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


One of the arguments for the redefinition was that it would be difficult for schoolkids to remember so many names. Real science doesn't concern itself with school memory tests!

(It seems he used the exact argument I did. Either we think along the same lines, in which case I'm in good company, or I remembered that from 11 years ago. Which would mean I have a really good memory.)


----------



## flyingMint (Aug 31, 2015)

hehe the name Makemake makes me laugh


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> NASA have no authority in this matter. But if it's NASA you look to, then look at this article from shortly after the vote:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm
> 
> ...


lol well excuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeeee. I should have said take it up with the international astronomical union, but maybe since NASA is one of the largest space agencies in the world, the premier space research institution in the world, and the fact that American scientist make up 22.51% of the IAU scientist (by far the largest group), can you find it within your infinite wisdom to allow me the mistake? I think you are conflating my role as mere educator with you're imposed idea that I'm supporting the IAU's decision. I have made and well make no comment on the veracity of their decision, I was only telling the OP why pluton isnt officially a planet anymore. btw, it means you are either in company with some contingent of scientists (not good company because what is a planet seems to be more convention than objective fact) or it means that your memory is good enough to remember 9 planets...hardly a note worthy feat. however, if you got your way, youd have to remember hundreds, maybe thousands "planets". Having said all that, you should stop attacking me and write a strongly worded letter to the IAU. you seem to have some strong convictions about it lol. Damn those dirty dynamicists! Didnt they know how you felt about pluto before they hijacked the vote! lol


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

They let their subscription lapse


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> Neptune hasn't cleared Pluto and other Kuipper Belt objects from its orbit yet. Earth hasn't cleared out the near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter and Mars haven't cleared out the asteroid belt.
> 
> Move Murcury to another part of the Solar system and suddenly it isn't a planet anymore. Imagine if the biological sciences worked like that. Two groups of animals that are biologically identical in every way. The only difference being the environment they live in. So biologists categorise them as different species. Suddenly _**** sapiens_ are split into a multitude of different species.
> 
> That's stupid!


Apparently that's not entirely correct. The thing is, from what I've read, there's a relationship between the distance of the body from the star and its mass, which determinates how able it is to clear its neighbourhood:










source

This could easily provide another reason why Mercury and Venus don't have moons or too many objects around them.


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> lol well excuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeeeee. I should have said take it up with the international astronomical union, but maybe since NASA is one of the largest space agencies in the world, the premier space research institution in the world, and the fact that American scientist make up 22.51% of the IAU scientist (by far the largest group), can you find it within your infinite wisdom to allow me the mistake? I think you are conflating my role as mere educator with you're imposed idea that I'm supporting the IAU's decision. I have made and well make no comment on the veracity of their decision, I was only telling the OP why pluton isnt officially a planet anymore. btw, it means you are either in company with some contingent of scientists (not good company because what is a planet seems to be more convention than objective fact) or it means that your memory is good enough to remember 9 planets...hardly a note worthy feat. however, if you got your way, youd have to remember hundreds, maybe thousands "planets". Having said all that, you should stop attacking me and write a strongly worded letter to the IAU. you seem to have some strong convictions about it lol. Damn those dirty dynamicists! Didnt they know how you felt about pluto before they hijacked the vote! lol


That's nice, but disagreeing with someone on the internet isn't the same as 'attacking' them.


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> That's nice, but disagreeing with someone on the internet isn't the same as 'attacking' them.


No its not, but your tone, as much as I could surmise from the text, was decidedly passive aggressive. Moreover, you have literally zero basis for even disagreeing with me. I haven't and will not offer my opinion on wether Pluto should be a planet. I have only ever offered an admittedly paraphrased (but correct none the less) version of the official reason why Pluto is no longer a planet. If you disagree, you are not in disagreement with me, as I am just the messenger. You disagreement lies with the IAU. So you have to logical courses of action, you can either blog it somewhere or write to your local representative at the IAU.

btw, before you comment about the fictitiousness of the IAU have local representatives, it was intentionally incongruous. I wouldn't want have another NASA/IAU snafu, would I!?


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> No its not, but your tone, as much as I could surmise from the text, was decidedly passive aggressive. Moreover, you have literally zero basis for even disagreeing with me. I haven't and will not offer my opinion on wether Pluto should be a planet. I have only ever offered an admittedly paraphrased (but correct none the less) version of the official reason why Pluto is no longer a planet. *If you disagree, you are not in disagreement with me, as I am just the messenger.* You disagreement lies with the IAU. So you have to logical courses of action, you can either blog it somewhere or write to your local representative at the IAU.
> 
> btw, before you comment about the fictitiousness of the IAU have local representatives, it was intentionally incongruous. I wouldn't want have another NASA/IAU snafu, would I!?





novalax said:


> Pluto is not a planet, because if NASA included Pluto as a planet, they would also need to include scores of other exo-planets as well. Then we'd have like a 30 "planet" solar system.
> 
> TLDR: they didnt want to be hypocrites


I definitely disagree with this post of yours. So it certainly looked to me like I was in disagreement with you.

Frankly though, saying you are "just the messenger" seems like a cop-out.


----------



## StarNinja (Feb 23, 2017)

Just gonna leave this video here if yous want some more imformation. =)


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> I definitely disagree with this post of yours. So it certainly looked to me like I was in disagreement with you.
> 
> Frankly though, saying you are "just the messenger" seems like a cop-out.


I honestly can't tell if you are really this myopic or if you are trolling me. There is literally no way you could disagree with me. I gave a paraphrased version of the official reason why Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Since I haven't provided my personal opinion on the topic, you must only disagree with the IAU. Have you really not considered that you can disagree with a post and not the poster?

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn lol. It can seem like whatever you want, but rest assured, me being "just the messenger" is the immutable truth. In what possible way could you consider the truth as a cop-out? Maybe it seems like a cop-out to you because you were so cock-sure about me being wrong and now there is no way for you to back pedal out of it. Or maybe it seems like a cop-out because you could never best me in politics or economics either! I will say though, you have awfully strong convictions about what is and isnt suitable criteria for planethood for someone with, I believe, degrees in geosciences and taxonomy lol.


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> I honestly can't tell if you are really this myopic or if you are trolling me. There is literally no way you could disagree with me. I gave a paraphrased version of the official reason why Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Since I haven't provided my personal opinion on the topic, you must only disagree with the IAU. Have you really not considered that you can disagree with a post and not the poster?
> 
> Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn lol. It can seem like whatever you want, but rest assured, me being "just the messenger" is the immutable truth. In what possible way could you consider the truth as a cop-out? *Maybe it seems like a cop-out to you because you were so cock-sure about me being wrong and now there is no way for you to back pedal out of it*. Or maybe it seems like a cop-out because you could never best me in politics or economics either! I will say though, you have awfully strong convictions about what is and isnt suitable criteria for planethood for someone with, I believe, degrees in geosciences and taxonomy lol.


You're projecting. And accusing me of trolling? Even though it's you who went off on one over nothing?

I studied some astrophysics as part of my Geosciences degree. http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/modules/s282 I've also done some private study on my own. But no formal study in astronomy is required to have an informed opinion.



novalax said:


> Pluto is not a planet, because if NASA included Pluto as a planet, they would also need to include scores of other exo-planets as well. Then we'd have like a 30 "planet" solar system.
> 
> TLDR: they didnt want to be hypocrites


This post certainly seems like a statement of belief. Maybe you should be careful what you say or how you say it in future.


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> You're projecting. And accusing me of trolling? Even though it's you who went off on one over nothing?
> 
> I studied some astrophysics as part of my Geosciences degree. http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/modules/s282 I've also done some private study on my own. But no formal study in astronomy is required to have an informed opinion.
> 
> This post certainly seems like a statement of belief. Maybe you should be careful what you say or how you say it in future.


I'm certainly not projecting. You are the one that started this, I even gave you an out.

I'm truly sorry. Had I known you had a full 30 credit hours of semi-relevant corse work, at the undergraduate level, as part of an entirely irrelevant major, I would have respected your authority on the topic. My post only looks like a belief to those that are ignorant of the official position of the IAU.


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> I'm certainly not projecting. You are the one that started this, I even gave you an out.
> 
> I'm truly sorry. Had I known you had a full 30 credit hours of semi-relevant corse work, at the undergraduate level, as part of an entirely irrelevant major, I would have respected your authority on the topic. My post only looks like a belief to those that are ignorant of the official position of the IAU.


I'm willing to bet that it's more than you've ever studied. You do know what 'geosciences' means don't you? Geology, climatology, the Earth-life system, etc. I know much more about planets than people who have studied politics or economics.

By the way. A good scientist doesn't accept something as fact just because an 'authority' says it's so. Much more important are supportable hypotheses and evidence, but also, the principle of parsimony, otherwise known as Occam's Razor (i.e. the simplest explanation is the one that's best).

So let's get back to the science, shall we?



> -is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity,
> -is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion


These are simple criteria...



> -has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.


...this isn't.

In the first case, an object is either rounded or it isn't. In the second, it's either undergoing fusion or it isn't. In the third case...what's a 'planetesimal' and what counts as being 'cleared'?

Obviously asteroids aren't counted as planetesimals, otherwise the Earth isn't a planet. Even Pluto itself can't be counted as a planetesimal, otherwise Neptune wouldn't be a planet. If the theorised 'Planet 9' exists and, even if it's three times the volume of Earth and 10 times the mass, as is hypothesised, then that can't be an actual planet because it hasn't cleared out the Kuiper belt yet.

Or 'cleared' doesn't actually mean cleared in the common use of the word. So that means there are even more criteria to add onto the definition.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Aug 10, 2014)

novalax said:


> Pluto is not a planet, because if NASA included Pluto as a planet, they would also need to include scores of other exo-planets as well. Then we'd have like a 30 "planet" solar system.


That would be very awesome. 
Also those aliens would **** their pants thinking about attacking us. They'd be like "Man these guys got 30 planets in their solar system. Better not mess with 'em".



slyfox said:


> Could still consider it an honorary planet


This.
I can't believe the utter disrespect that is not considering Pluto a planet. It has ruined my childhood dreams. Because when I was a kid we bought a book about planets, and Pluto has been my favorite planet ever since.
I don't give a damn what "scientists" say. Pluto is and will always be a planet for me


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

^ Honestly not sure if this Pluto thing is trolling, a serious case of fanatism, or both. Who cares if it's not a planet anymore? What were people supposed to do with their lives had it kept being a planet? :serious:


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> I'm willing to bet that it's more than you've ever studied. You do know what 'geosciences' means don't you? Geology, climatology, the Earth-life system, etc. I know much more about planets than people who have studied politics or economics.
> 
> By the way. A good scientist doesn't accept something as fact just because an 'authority' says it's so. Much more important are supportable hypotheses and evidence, but also, the principle of parsimony, otherwise known as Occam's Razor (i.e. the simplest explanation is the one that's best).
> 
> ...


You are absolutely correct. You trump me by a whole 24 credit hours of relevant or semi-relevant corse work. however, I have a question for you. Given that I have both not provided a personal opinion and have expected told you as such, would you hazard a guess as to why I might have done so? Its because I don't have a relevant background! So, instead, I rely on the official definition from the appropriate governing body. I do, in fact, know what geosciences mean. Thank you for the fantastic refresher though and also for highlighting the fact that most of your major doesn't have anything to do with the relevant physics or astronomy involved.

Again, you are correct. A good scientist doesn't rely on mere authority alone, but I'm neither a scientist (maybe one day ill be an economist though) nor would I agree that a scientist shouldn't use contemporary thought as a guide post, especially when said scientist does not have any formal background in the field. You don't need to educate me on Occam's razor. I'm both a huge fan of Willam of Occam and his titular razor. Although it was named for him, not by him. I am, however, getting off topic. So, yes, allow me a few words on the science of it.

You are, no doubt, one of superior education. Moreover, all of your education is within the realm of science. Therefore, it should be abundantly clear to you that often times applying names to things is irrelevant to the study of those things (the irony of saying this to a taxonomist is not lost on me, but I believe it to be true, at least in the astronomical sense) especially names as arcane and nebulous as "planets". The origin of the word planet, was whatever the greeks saw that shined bright in the sky. Although the scientific definition of what constitutes a planet as evolved, it is still murky at best. Why not allow the title of planet to be relegated to lower levels of scientific study (I.E. children learning that F=Ma when Newton's equation was F=p where p was the time derivative of momentum) and call Pluto a trans-neptunian plutoid. At the end of the day, that is all it really is.


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

geraltofrivia said:


> That would be very awesome.
> Also those aliens would **** their pants thinking about attacking us. They'd be like "Man these guys got 30 planets in their solar system. Better not mess with 'em".


There is a push by some scientist to reclassify 103 celestial bodies as planets. I was apparently very conservative with my 30 planet estimate.


----------



## Fever Dream (Aug 18, 2015)

eukz said:


> ^ Honestly not sure if this Pluto thing is trolling, a serious case of fanatism, or both. Who cares if it's not a planet anymore? What were people supposed to do with their lives had it kept being a planet? :serious:


Other than coming up with a accurate scientific definition for what a planet is, yeah, it doesn't really affect much. Pluto is still Pluto, whether we call it a planet, dwarf planet, or "that's no moon...". Although in the future that could cause a few problems. But I expect most (if not all) of the problems will be man made. "Sorry, we only fund those kinds of missions to planets" or "Too bad Plutonians. Those rights only apply to people who live on planets" You know, BS like that. In any case, it may be best to work out how we are going to define it now.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

Fever Dream said:


> Other than coming up with a accurate scientific definition for what a planet is, yeah, it doesn't really affect much. Pluto is still Pluto, whether we call it a planet, dwarf planet, or "that's no moon...". Although in the future that could cause a few problems. But I expect most (if not all) of the problems will be man made. *"Sorry, we only fund those kinds of missions to planets" or "Too bad Plutonians. Those rights only apply to people who live on planets"* You know, BS like that. In any case, it may be best to work out how we are going to define it now.


I really doubt things will work like that in the future :lol


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> You are, no doubt, one of superior education. *Moreover, all of your education is within the realm of science*. Therefore, it should be abundantly clear to you that often times applying names to things is irrelevant to the study of those things (the irony of saying this to a taxonomist is not lost on me, but I believe it to be true, at least in the astronomical sense) especially names as arcane and nebulous as "planets". The origin of the word planet, was whatever the greeks saw that shined bright in the sky. Although the scientific definition of what constitutes a planet as evolved, it is still murky at best. Why not allow the title of planet to be relegated to lower levels of scientific study (I.E. children learning that F=Ma when Newton's equation was F=p where p was the time derivative of momentum) and call Pluto a trans-neptunian plutoid. At the end of the day, that is all it really is.


Actually, I used to be an accountant. So I've studied accounting and business law as well.

Naming conventions are amongst the most important aspects of science. They allow us to classify things together and often give us a quick way to understand the properties, relationships and morphologies of those things, whether they be planets, organisms, crystals, rocks, etc. Scientific names and classifications are never irrelevant. To call something a planet is to draw attention to certain properties that it shares in common with other planets. However, if a planet can stop being planet, just because a few large rocks happen to enter its orbit one day, then there's something wrong with the definition.


----------



## Fever Dream (Aug 18, 2015)

eukz said:


> I really doubt things will work like that in the future :lol


I'd like to agree with this statement. I would really like to.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

Fever Dream said:


> I'd like to agree with this statement. I would really like to.


Pluto isn't precisely like the Americas. People won't start traveling there during the 22nd century out of necessity and start reproducing like birth control didn't exist XD. A group of colonies full of educated people and robots could probably happen in Mars... probably. But beyond Jupiter things are too cold and distant for huge human colonies from what I understand.


----------



## Fever Dream (Aug 18, 2015)

eukz said:


> Pluto isn't precisely like the Americas. People won't start traveling there during the 22nd century out of necessity and start reproducing like birth control didn't exist XD. A group of small colonies full of educated people and robots could probably happen in Mars... probably. But beyond Jupiter things are too cold and distant for huge human colonies from what I understand.


I'm pretty much referring to people attitudes, and half joking that labeling Pluto could have unintended consequences. But yeah, a actual colony on Pluto isn't currently feasible. It might be someday, but by that point, it might be worth more to put the resources into trying to terraform Mars, or planning an interstellar expedition.


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> Actually, I used to be an accountant. So I've studied accounting and business law as well.
> 
> Naming conventions are amongst the most important aspects of science. They allow us to classify things together and often give us a quick way to understand the properties, relationships and morphologies of those things, whether they be planets, organisms, crystals, rocks, etc. Scientific names and classifications are never irrelevant. To call something a planet is to draw attention to certain properties that it shares in common with other planets. However, if a planet can stop being planet, just because a few large rocks happen to enter its orbit one day, then there's something wrong with the definition.


Bless your heart. I haven't a mind for accounting and find it a positively excruciating process, I'm glad there are people like you that are (or were) willing to do it. That leads me to wonder how a accountant decides on becoming taxonomist? or at least to pursue a degree in taxonomy, it thats even true (i actually have no clue if you are or aren't). however, next time I'd appreciate it if you endeavored to reply to my whole post.

Naming conventions are important as a form of heuristics, however often times they provide little insight into the nature of a thing. For example, if I said I set up you up on a date with a girl and you asked me to describe her. If I tell you she is bi-pedal, omnivorous, and has an encephalization quotient of roughly 7.44, you'd respond that you still have no clue what this person is like. The problem with the world "planet" is that is not very scientific to begin with and is completely nebulous and arbitrary. One needs a naming convention that draws attention to pertinent properties, not any properties. Earth and Neptune are both planets, using only what you know about earth, describe with detail, the attributes of Neptune. However, if this conversation is strayed far from its path. I gave the official position of the IAU. I don't really care about the taxonomy of planets.


----------



## Arbre (Mar 9, 2014)

I think the biggest reason why is because it didn't clear its orbit. Pluto only counts for a small portion of the mass in its orbit because of all the other objects in the area, while planets make up almost all of the mass in their orbits.



novalax said:


> There is a push by some scientist to reclassify 103 celestial bodies as planets. I was apparently very conservative with my 30 planet estimate.


Those scientists want all moons to count as planets. If dwarf planets like Pluto were counted as regular planets, we would have 14 planets in our solar system (there are four other known dwarf planets with potentially more like Sedna).


----------



## Sliusarek (Aug 14, 2016)




----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

Arbre said:


> I think the biggest reason why is because it didn't clear its orbit. Pluto only counts for a small portion of the mass in its orbit because of all the other objects in the area, while planets make up almost all of the mass in their orbits.
> 
> Those scientists want all moons to count as planets. If dwarf planets like Pluto were counted as regular planets, we would have 14 planets in our solar system (there are four other known dwarf planets with potentially more like Sedna).


yet more proof that the term "planet" is a horrible and dated naming convention.


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> *Bless your heart.* I haven't a mind for accounting and find it a positively excruciating process, *I'm glad there are people like you that are (or were) willing to do it.*


Oh look, you're being patronising. How childish.



> That leads me to wonder how a accountant decides on becoming taxonomist?


Why would you think my reasons were any different to anyone who decides to change career?

If you must know...



ThatGuy11200 said:


> When I was a child I wanted to be a palaeontologist but I went into accounting instead (mainly because I didn't want to go to university or get a job, because of SA, after I finished my A-levels). After two years of study and then three years of work and study, I realised I couldn't stand accounting so, two and a half years ago, I quit. I'm now studying geology with the intention of going into palaeontology and, even though I don't have a job, I'm happier than I ever was, which is the important thing as far as I'm concerned.





> it thats even true (i actually have no clue if you are or aren't).


Now you're questioning my honesty. Why? Is it because I'm not bowing to your opinions. Oh, sorry, I meant your 'not-opinions'.



> however, next time I'd appreciate it if you endeavored to reply to my whole post.


I couldn't care less what you'd appreciate.



> Naming conventions are important as a form of heuristics, however often times they provide little insight into the nature of a thing. For example, if I said I set up you up on a date with a girl and you asked me to describe her. If I tell you she is bi-pedal, omnivorous, and has an encephalization quotient of roughly 7.44, you'd respond that you still have no clue what this person is like. The problem with the world "planet" is that is not very scientific to begin with and is completely nebulous and arbitrary. One needs a naming convention that draws attention to pertinent properties, not any properties. Earth and Neptune are both planets, using only what you know about earth, describe with detail, the attributes of Neptune. However, if this conversation is strayed far from its path. I gave the official position of the IAU. I don't really care about the taxonomy of planets.


Dating isn't science, and science is the point. If we were talking about phylogenetics, then the information you provide would tell me something about her. It would tell me that her immediate ancestors and closest relatives are likely to be bipedal and omnivorous, for instance.

If the IAU had introduced formal sub-categories of planets, such as icy-dwarfs, gas giants, rocky planets, etc. (" pertinent properties"), and merely sub-categorised Pluto as an icy-dwarf, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they didn't do that. They produced a flawed definition to suit an unscientific agenda; demote Pluto. That may not mean much to you, but astronomers are discovering hundreds of planets around other stars, so the classification matters. Just as the classifications of stars, stellar remnants and galaxies matter.

So if you think that 'planet' is "a horrible and dated naming convention", then how do you think astronomers should categorise those...large things that orbit stars?


----------



## TheInvisibleHand (Sep 5, 2015)

Pluto has SA and is a loner.OTher planets dont like him.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

TheInvisibleHand said:


> Pluto has SA and is a loner.OTher planets dont like him.


He hangs out with the dwarf planets now, so no.


----------



## TheInvisibleHand (Sep 5, 2015)

eukz said:


> He hangs out with the dwarf planets now, so no.


Yeah he is sitting at the looser's kid table now.


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

my mouse is too far away

OK I learn IAU. obvious

I started by defaulting to " I 'Ate You"

Telly Phone ain't a planet. Everyone thinks it is, or a god, invisible, phantom universe? Maybe it is a Babel fish?


----------



## novalax (Jun 7, 2013)

ThatGuy11200 said:


> Oh look, you're being patronising. How childish.
> 
> Why would you think my reasons were any different to anyone who decides to change career?
> 
> ...


I was actually being dead serious. I dont like accounting and I'm horrible at it. I'm glad there are people that are able and willing to do it so I dont have too. Its not very scientific of you to jump to conclusions lol. Trust me, I have no problems letting you know when and if i've insulted you.

Why would I think your reasons were any different to anyone who decides to change career? maybe because going from an accountant to a taxonomist is just a little out of the ordinary... has that really not dawned on you?

I wasnt questioning your honesty, I'm honestly not 100% certain what you have study/ what you are studying. In fact I have no clue why I thought you were studying taxonomy. Again, you sure are fond of jumping to conclusions for someone that fancies themselves to be scientific. That was a good zinger by the way, my not-opinions! (except most people call not-opinions facts...)

aww, now I'm sad  but I also couldnt care less about you're inability to care less 

Dating isnt a science? I'm sure there is a whole bunch of psychologists, sociologists, and sexologists that would disagree. 1. we actually aren't talking about phylogenetic so I gives a **** and 2. while it does give you some information, it doesnt give you anything usable. For example, I can safely conclude that I can't wear a planet, however that is useless information.

lol your correct! if the IAU used a better naming convention we wouldnt be debating right now! I think you literally just proved my point. I agree its a flawed definition, your starting to see the light! I knew you'd get there eventually!

lol nice try, but I dont need to have a perfect solution, or any solution for that matter, to know that the current answer is wrong. However, again I would call pluto a trans-nepuntian plutoid.

Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a semi-major axis greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighbourhood around their orbit. Satellites of plutoids are not plutoids themselves.

^ that is the IAU definition of a plutiod.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

It's got something to do with it"s goofy orbit, I think.


----------



## Fever Dream (Aug 18, 2015)

WillYouStopDave said:


> It's got something to do with it"s goofy orbit, I think.


Nah, it's because Pluto is so mini. :b


----------



## ThatGuy11200 (Sep 3, 2012)

novalax said:


> I was actually being dead serious. I dont like accounting and I'm horrible at it. I'm glad there are people that are able and willing to do it so I dont have too. Its not very scientific of you to jump to conclusions lol. Trust me, I have no problems letting you know when and if i've insulted you.
> 
> Why would I think your reasons were any different to anyone who decides to change career? maybe because going from an accountant to a taxonomist is just a little out of the ordinary... has that really not dawned on you?


Do you know many accountants who have changed career then? I myself only know one other. She had her own accountancy business and changed to geology during her 50s. She was one of my tutors during my Geosciences degree.



> I wasnt questioning your honesty, I'm honestly not 100% certain what you have study/ what you are studying. In fact I have no clue why I thought you were studying taxonomy. * Again, you sure are fond of jumping to conclusions for someone that fancies themselves to be scientific.* That was a good zinger by the way, my not-opinions! (except most people call not-opinions facts...)


Then perhaps you need to be more careful with what you type. You certainly come across that way.

Perhaps you thought I'm studying taxonomy because I told you. I used to study accounting when I worked in it, but switched to studying geosciences, which I finished a few years ago. I'm currently studying taxonomy.



> aww, now I'm sad  but I also couldnt care less about you're inability to care less
> 
> Dating isnt a science? I'm sure there is a whole bunch of psychologists, sociologists, and sexologists that would disagree.


I was being literal in what I said. If you are on a date, you aren't doing science, as in, "dating isn't science".



> 1. we actually aren't talking about phylogenetic so I gives a ****


But we are talking about a scientific classification. Hence the analogy.



> 2. while it does give you some information, it doesnt give you anything usable. For example, I can safely conclude that I can't wear a planet, however that is useless information.


But it would give you more useful information if you were an astronomer working in that field. Someone looking for planets around other stars, for example.



> lol your correct! if the IAU used a better naming convention we wouldnt be debating right now! I think you literally just proved my point. I agree its a flawed definition, your starting to see the light! I knew you'd get there eventually!
> 
> lol nice try, but I dont need to have a perfect solution, or any solution for that matter, to know that the current answer is wrong. However, again I would call pluto a trans-nepuntian plutoid.


Then why are you even arguing about it?



> Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a semi-major axis greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighbourhood around their orbit. Satellites of plutoids are not plutoids themselves.
> 
> ^ that is the IAU definition of a plutiod.


But are they planetesimals?


----------



## Canadian Brotha (Jan 23, 2009)

It's discussed quite well in this BBC Podcast...


----------



## softly (Apr 24, 2017)




----------



## blue2 (May 20, 2013)

I'd say pluto doesn't care much if earths head lice doesn't consider it a planet, it's to cool to care, and is hanging out at the back so as not to get cooties.


----------

