What's your personal vote on the Pluto issue? Why?

Question

Pluto's planethood is in question and the IAU will give the final word on its status next month. One thing is certain, we won't have the same number of planets in our solar system. If Pluto is demoted to the Kuiper belt, we'll have 8. If it maintains its status, bigger 2003 UB313 will likewise be considered a planet, making it 10. What are your views?

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06/22/plutos-planethood-will-be-decided-shortly/

I mean, if you were sitting in that decision-making meeting, what would you say?

The name is Xena, which probably conjures better images than Disney ;P

Indeed the definition of "planet" is in question, and there's going to be no election. May I have some literary liberty, or should I just say, "What's your definition of a planet?" I'm a scientist and an astronomy enthusiast, so this does affect me. Knowledge affects me, as I thought it would everyone; education is the process and not the name. Just would like to know what other open-minded people think :)

Answer 1

It's wonderful to live in a time of so much discovery. Even the basic conception of a solar system and 'planets' has changed in our own lifetime. What's so cool about the Pluto issue is that it shows us we ought to divide the objects that circle the Sun in a different way than we did before. There are rocky objects fairly close to the sun, in nearly circular orbits. There are gassy objects a bit further out, also with orbits that are nearly circular. And then there are icy objects still further out, with highly elliptical orbits, and not always in the same plane as the rocky or gassy objects. (There are other things, too, like asteroids, sattelites, comets and so on, but let's keep it simple for now and leave them out of it.) Whether you want to call ALL of these objects planets or not really doesn't matter too much. Pluto is more like the icy objects than the other sort. In a way, it was always a mistake to think of the 'nine' large objects orbiting the Sun as being rather like each other. The Solar System is a MUCH more interesting place than we ever imagined!!!!

Answer 2

So, basically, you're suggesting redefining Pluto for 'feel good' reasons? Yeah. Somehow I think that the IAU has better things to do, no matter how many people 'vote' for it or vote that the Milky Way is actually a cake donut rather than an elliptical galaxy. Nor would such a thing 'oblige' them to revote at all, any more than a democratic vote could do away with the General Theory of Relativity. No. It's not that Pluto's object is less junk-free than Earth's; it's that Pluto is part of a freaking debris belt. You've HEARD of the Asteroid Belt, right? Well Pluto resides in one MANY times more massive, expansive, and has a higher density of debris. There's nothing 'Earth-centric' about it. Earth is not used as a benchmark AT ALL in the definition.

Answer 3

Pluto doesn't fit current planetary theory, considering its location. The first four are rocks (one with life), the next four are gas giants, and then there's Pluto. However, Kuiper Belt objects are considered 'planetoids'... this begs the question, 'what is a planet, and do we need to adjust our perceptions?', after all, Pluto has a satellite (Charon).

As a sidebar, 2003 UB313, whilst believing that it should indeed be classed as a planet, should be called Proserpina, if not, then renamed Pluto. The whole point of naming Pluto was that at the time it marked the perceived outer boundary of our Solar system, plus it's a cold and lifeless planet (read up on Pluto of Roman mythology). Perhaps if Pluto was kept as a planet, then 2003 UB313 should be called Proserpina (Pluto's wife).

Xena and Gabrielle (2003 UB313's satellite) are just stupid names that don't fit in with the other planets' names. If they wanted to go all nerdy, then our current planets should all be converted to their Greek counterparts...

Answer 4

Yeah, this is a messy arguement. The problem, of course, is that the word "planet" has no scientific definition...it's about as vague as and useless as "rock". We need a classification system desperately since we're discovering more and more worlds now, and soon may be able to see them in sufficient detail TO classify them. Getting our act together with the objects in our own system seems like a great place to start, but we're not yet sure of just how unique (or non-unique) our system is--compositionally, process-wise, etc.

To complicate matters, the Smithsonian Astrophysics Institute proposed (this last year) that Sedna might be a captured terrestrial planet, stolen when another solar system passed very close to our own. Great. So, if this is correct we may not be able to use our system as a "standard model" for making a classification system since ours may have been dramatically altered by that event.

As to Pluto being a Kuiper object, or whatever, I think we can safely not worry about it since "planet" hasn't been truly defined. That needs to be step 1.

Just a thought.

Answer 5

I am torn between demoting Pluto to asteroid and keeping it a planet. It is really borderline. On balance I favor just officially defining Pluto as the dividing line. Anything as large or larger and as massive or more than Pluto, is by definition a planet. That would rule out all the newly discovered objects, but maybe not some others yet to be discovered.

Answer 6

Pluto may have an eccentric orbit, but it still orbits around the Sun and not a planet (at least currently). That would make it a planet, not a moon, since moons orbit around a planet. And it's not like a moon has to be smaller than a planet, I believe there are moons in Jupiter and Saturn's orbit than are bigger than Mercury, al least.

In short, if it orbits around a star, it's a planet. If it orbits around a planet, it's a moon. If it doesn't have an orbit, well then the scientists will figure out a new definition.

Answer 7

Well Science is suppose to be the Quest for the Truth. But some times it takes a long time to find it. If for some offhand chance they find it to be just a large asteroid. Then I suppose it should be made so. I sure don't understand why none of the Deep space Missions ever had a close fly by planned. I was 15 years old when the first one was sent. Now I'm 46 and we still have no clear idea what is there.

Answer 8

I feel sorry when I read the answers to your question because you do have a very sensible question but the answers were lame, except for a few. However, I'm not here to give a meaningful answer as well:p I just wanna give out my sentiment...that I hope Pluto would always be the 9th planet as how it was taught to us when we were in the first grade, and I don't want anymore planetary discoveries in the future either, it scares me that the solar system I knew is changing...yikes!

Answer 9

why do you care?

whatever happens on Pluto or the other planet will never affect your life.

AND , MOST IMPORTANTLY, Pluto won't care either! so what if we puny humans label Pluto whatever we like. PLUTO WILL REMAIN WHAT IT IS.

the only thing that WILL affect a branch of humanity is that kids will have to learn one more planet or one less planet. so they'll have to make up a new rhyme or something.

let Pluto just be. devote your time to really making a difference, not just putting superficial labels on bits of the universe.

Answer 10

If it is considered not a planet, why should we keep it as such? for memories´sake? I dont think so, let them decide on the nature of Pluto and that of UB313. As long as earth is out of the subject, we´ll be just fine.