IAU Demotes Pluto to 'Dwarf Planet' Status 426
davidwr writes "It's official. Pluto's been demoted. It's now one of several 'dwarf planets.' I guess we can drop the 'Period' from 'Mary's violet eyes make John stay up nights.'" (Of course, no one says you have to privately agree with the International Astronomical Union.) Several readers have contributed links to the BBC's coverage of the downgrade, as well as the usefully illustrated story at MSNBC.
Re:Now every geek's question is... (Score:1, Informative)
Just again realized what a crazy otaku I really am...
Re:Astrologers panic! (Score:3, Informative)
Then again, when you're dealing with flimflam you can pretty much say whatever you want.
The fact that NPR had this segment only served to legitimize this nonsense and continued to give hope to the gullible that astrology is valid.
Mary? (Score:2, Informative)
Andrew
Re:A new one (Score:0, Informative)
Re:my take on it: (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't call it a screw-up.
The draft proposal was:
Pluto would continue to be a planet, and Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313 would become planets. However, this criterium is reached by hundreds, even thousands of other celestial bodies in our solar system. Under that proposal, all could gain planet status.
The final text is:
This definition does not define the terms "nearly round", nor "neighbourhood". But having a definition, rather than just an enumeration, is in my opinion a big leap forward. Demoting Pluto is a small price to pay.
I quite like the additional criterion of dominance of a body in its neighbourhood. It's not as arbitrary as simply requiring a minimum mass or size.
On the other hand, I do not like the fact that a planet should orbit to Sun to be called a planet. On this point, I preferred the original proposal in orbit around a star. I don't see why our solar system should be any different, why planet-like celestial bodies orbitting other stars are not called planets.
Still arbitary (Score:1, Informative)
Re:So why does Neptune qualify? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anyone? Anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Is it possible for Pluto and Neptune to one day (like within the next couple billion years) collide?
Nope. Their orbits are in 3:2 orbital resonance [wikipedia.org]; basicly this means they constantly miss each other (a bit like your average commuter bus and train schedule :P). Also, due to the declination of the Pluto orbit it doesn't even touch the Neptune orbit. When seen straight from above, the orbits overlap, but if you go off-angle to just the right spot the Pluto orbit can be seen to be completely separated from Neptune.
Re:So why does Neptune qualify? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anyone? Anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
2) Pretty cool. Probably cooler than the Shoemaker-Levy impact on Jupiter (and that was very impressive).
3) No... Pluto is basically the size of China and Neptune is considerably bigger. Neptune will come out of it not significantly changed.
4) Colliding worlds might have been relatively common in the early system. You might be interested to know that the most popular current theory of the origin of the moon involves a trojan mars-sized planet striking an early earth with the debris collecting into the moon. This is called the Giant impact [wikipedia.org] hypothesis.
Re:my take on it: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Still arbitary (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So why does Neptune qualify? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So why does Neptune qualify? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?q=pluto+neptune+reso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne [wikipedia.org]
Re:my take on it: (Score:3, Informative)
> Sun to be called a planet. On this point, I preferred the original
> proposal in orbit around a star. I don't see why our solar system
> should be any different, why planet-like celestial bodies orbitting
> other stars are not called planets.
Because they're only defining what a Solar planet is, not the general meaning of the word "planet":
The IAU therefore resolves that planets
and other bodies in our Solar System be
defined into three distinct categories
in the following way...
So the new definition doesn't apply to extrasolar planets. Why didn't they broaden their scope? Maybe the whole point of the exercise was just to deal "once and for all" with the Pluto problem. It's not going to affect the current work of people looking for extrasolar planets.
Re:.. but given enough time... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually (if I did the math correctly) in about 3,529,037,195 years. That's still within the projected lifetime of the solar system, so yes