backlash against pluto status reduction

A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip Pluto of its status as a planet.

the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the ruling, calling it "embarrassing".

source

looks like there could an argument for some time to come whether pluto deserved to be reduced in status and maybe a small hope of being upgraded again?

[edit on 25-8-2006 by solidshot]

[edit on 25-8-2006 by solidshot]

Surely everyone can see that it makes sense ? What difference does it make to the New Horizons mission ? It's not as if Pluto is suddenly a less interesting place to visit.

in some ways i agree something so small shouldnt really be given planetary status (neither should half the new "planets") but pluto has been a "planet" for so long i believe an exemption really could be used in this case?

I understand why some people find it difficult to accept, but this really is the simplest and most elegant solution. You really can't call Pluto a planet, and then say that 2003 UB313 is simply a "KBO". That's just absurd.

i think its a good idea that there are now 8 planets, the demotion of Pluto makes it so that there aren't going to be any unessessary addtions to the number of planets in the solar system. We will just change the books this one time and that will be it (hopefully).

However i dont think its a good idea to have Pluto, Ceres etc under the new "Dwarf Planet" title. i think that everything orbiting the sun that isnt of planet size should just be classified as an asteroid. Pluto in my opinon is a big asteroid.

I can imagine it now:
Riots in the streets! Protesters shouting "Don't Obey, Pluto Stay!"

It is interesting though that the entire scientific community is not all together on this decision. This probably should have been a gradual moving to taking away the planet status after input from various groups.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by granoladude]

for some reason i am wondering what people will think in 1 or 2 thousand years time when they come across writings or pictures we made today which depict pluto as a planet (thinking along the lines of zacharia sitchin and his sumerian planets theory).

i wonder if people then would be as confused as they are at present and were in ancient past regarding what exactly a planet is

for some reason i am wondering what people will think in 1 or 2 thousand years time when they come across writings or pictures we made today which depict pluto as a planet

Yeah, they'll probably say "why did people call Pluto a planet back then ? Everyone knows that it's a comet"

I honestly don't care what the scientific community has decided
about Pluto.
I still consider it a planet, simply because that's what
it's always been to me, and I mean it does have two moons.

Though I do agree adding more planets was a bad idea.

They should have just let Pluto be exempt.

I really think that in this specific area of science, they need to
realise that the world is a democracy (I know not the whole world
is democractic) and the people want Pluto as a planert,
so therfore what the scientists want is a null point.

[edit on 8/25/2006 by iori_komei]

Actually, Pluto has three moons (Charon, Nix, and Hydra). Pluto also has an atmosphere. Although it is a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), it is the second largest known KBO behind 2003UB313. I really don't see why people have trouble with Pluto being a planet, even if that would open the door to a hundred planets. I liked the first proposal for the definition of "planet" as it was short and simple while acknowledgeing that the KBOs are different by referring to KBO planets as "plutons." I don't see the problem with a hundred planets, as everyone would know that 90+ of them are plutons. The problem now is that if you read the deinfition strictly, Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are all dwarf planets as all three have hundreds or even thousands of asteroids that share similar orbits. Does this mean that these three planets do not meet condiiton (c) of the new defintion, which is: "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"? Thats right folks, if you read the defintion of planet strictly, we are all now inhabitants of a dwarf planet.

The problem now is that if you read the deinfition strictly, Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are all dwarf planets as all three have hundreds or even thousands of asteroids that share similar orbits.

The IAU should have made it crystal clear that "clearing out" refers to small objects with low eccentricity, low inclination orbits that move just inside or just outside of a planet's orbit. These objects would very quickly be "cleared out", simply because the planet would gravitationally perturb them on a frequent basis.


[edit on 26-8-2006 by Mogget]

Originally posted by engineer2005
Actually, Pluto has three moons (Charon, Nix, and Hydra). Pluto also has an atmosphere. Although it is a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), it is the second largest known KBO behind 2003UB313. I really don't see why people have trouble with Pluto being a planet, even if that would open the door to a hundred planets. I liked the first proposal for the definition of "planet" as it was short and simple while acknowledgeing that the KBOs are different by referring to KBO planets as "plutons." I don't see the problem with a hundred planets, as everyone would know that 90+ of them are plutons. The problem now is that if you read the deinfition strictly, Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are all dwarf planets as all three have hundreds or even thousands of asteroids that share similar orbits. Does this mean that these three planets do not meet condiiton (c) of the new defintion, which is: "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"? Thats right folks, if you read the defintion of planet strictly, we are all now inhabitants of a dwarf planet.

Pretty much agree with what you say.
They had the right solution to begin with...who cares if there are a 100+ planets...are we going to stop educating people because "oh my gosh...to much info".
This "dark age" mentality is ridiculous. Whatever happened to exploration and expanding ones horizions vs. the "know it all" attitude.

Well, I dont have to live by the rules of the scientific organization in how I view things...after all, the newest definition has inconsistencies in it already.

Peace

Dalen

I simply cant understand why people have a problem with this, its not as if were going to blow it up because its no longer classed as a planet. Pluto is still Pluto nothings going to change that the only difference is it has been reclasifyed.

Seriously if you have such a problem with this why arn't you up in arms about there being more than one class of star? or more than one class of galaxy? Its only logical that if you have a problem with more than one class of planet you must have a problem with more than one class of everything else.

Yeah I think most of the angst about this new definition is more with the definition itself rather than the reclassification of Pluto. We already differentiate between terrestrial planets and gas giants, which one is the lesser? Does it really make a difference.

I think the important thing to remember is that before this there was no scientific definition of what a planet is. Science is a process, this is definition 0.1, its still in beta testing.

As we learn more about the processes that went into the creation of the planets (and maybe as we are able to view the makeup of other solar systems) the definition is bound to be updated and made more specific. The problem wasn't really with Pluto or any other known KBO being a planet, it was the fact that it meant every time something similar was discovered there was a whole lot of wasted time worrying about if it was a planet or not.

Personally I liked the idea (not sure where it was posted) that terrestrial planets inside the orbits of the gas giants should be in a different class to those outside, assuming those inside were formed inside the solar system and those outside were captured outside.

But hey, then we run into a whole new argument on where the solar system ends.

I think the important thing to remember is that before this there was no scientific definition of what a planet is. Science is a process, this is definition 0.1, its still in beta testing.

There's a lot of truth in that statement. I wouldn't be surprised to see the definition of the word "planet" change yet again when more and more distant objects are discovered.

Does this mean we don't have to send Pluto Foreign Aid? Then again, with 12 planets I guess we will have to increase the foreign aid budget. Oh well, the taxpayer is screwed again.