SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-changed-the-rules,-we-can-change-them-back-again dept.
After nearly a decade in the wilderness of celestial classification, Pluto is on the rise again. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted to adopt a new definition of what makes a body a planet, and to specifically demote Pluto to the status of dwarf planet. Now, with new data and images streaming in from New Horizons showing that Pluto is not only a little larger than previously thought, but also home to some remarkable geological features (including what may be some of the solar system's youngest mountain peaks, reaching to 11,000 ft/3,353 m high), many are saying it's time to restore the ninth planet to its previous station.
Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the most prominent advocates for Pluto are scientists working on the New Horizons mission, which reached the closest point of its long-awaited Pluto fly-by on July 14.
"We are free to call it a planet right now," Philip Metzger, a planetary scientist on the New Horizons mission, told DW.com. "Science is not decided by votes ... the planetary science community has never stopped calling bodies like Pluto 'planets'."
Really, isn't it time to re-classify Pluto as a dog?
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19 2015, @09:58AM
you're just arguing about terminology. what the iau did was decide to create a class of objects such that there could only be a handful in a solar system, and they are generally created at the same time as the star, from a protoplanetary disk, in a certain way. they decided to name them "planets". if you like, you can certainly use the word "planets" with another definition, and just see who's papers get cited more, or used by the public.
as far as I'm concerned, in star trek there are several instances where they're not really sure which is a solar system and which is a galaxy, so you're in good company.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Sunday July 19 2015, @05:24PM
I guess I just can't get onboard with the idea that it was scientifically logical to make a bunch of bizarre artificial restrictions on what used to be a remarkably simple concept. How hard is it to say that Planet XYZ123 is an accretion-disk planet versus a secondary-phase planet or something like that in order to distinguish between the different types? Not hard. What scientific difference does it make how many objects end up on the list of things called planets? The more the merrier, I say. You're also not grasping that part of their new restrictions (clearing the orbit) would cause some objects to first not qualify as planets and then later on to become planets WITHOUT THE OBJECT INTRINSICALLY CHANGING IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY. That's not science, that's mumbo-jumbo. If I tried to tell you that you aren't allowed to call a car a car until there are a certain number of bug splats on the windshield, you would rightly give me a very funny look and proceed to ignore me.
Nothing you've said validates the idea that it was either necessary or scientifically clarifying for the IAU to change the definition of planet to what it is right now. It has just caused a mass of confusion and ill-will, even among the astronomical community itself.
Star Trek and a lot of early sci-fi tended to confuse "galaxy" with "cosmos" and "universe" a lot, due to early misunderstandings about just how big the observable universe is and how big our galaxy is. I don't really recall them confusing solar systems with galaxies much. If that was your backhanded way of trying to call me an ignoramus, well, "LOL".
I guess I really struck a nerve with my original post. First troll, now flamebait. And without even trying. I think we should get rid of those mods and just stick with Offtopic and Disagree.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ