PLUTO IZ A PLANET

[The Astronomer]

I’m fine with dwarf planet, but the new iau “technical” definition of planet is piss poor...

Since the Earth has countless astroids in its orbit is it not a planet?

A more accurate definition would be 'gravitationally dominating its orbit', I believe. It's also what that 'clear the orbit' actually means.

 

[Danny Batten]

damnnnn, that's harsh

You’d understand if you were in my position

 

[The Astronomer]

Right now there seems to be two opinion camps: the astronomers who study how planets move and stuff, and the astronomers who study the planets themselves, AKA the planetary scientists/planetologists. The former says the new IAU definition is good, and the latter surely enough not. If you need the third camp, enters the astrophysicists, who say we should classify celestial bodies by considering their origin,s development, and composition, and blah blah blah.

You should be able to guess where I am in these three camps.

 

[Roger Jolly]

A more accurate definition would be 'gravitationally dominating its orbit', I believe. It's also what that 'clear the orbit' actually means.

Gravitationally dominate is slightly less vague than clearing, maybe they should try something more precise like “settled resonant system”

 

[Jez 10]

Hey
Use direct quoting or citation...
So that we know the source

 

[Pink]

Gravitationally dominate is slightly less vague than clearing, maybe they should try something more precise like “settled resonant system”

What does that mean?
And does it apply to Ceres?

 

[Roger Jolly]

What does that mean?
And does it apply to Ceres?

Resonant?...the rhythmic ratios of orbits between the planets and moons I mean, as opposed to randomish orbits of comets and astroids

Not to say everything in a resonant orbit should be a planet, but it ought to be a key factor as it basically defines a settled system

 

[The Astronomer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

Gravitationally dominate is slightly less vague than clearing, maybe they should try something more precise like “settled resonant system”

The Solar System is in no way a settled resonant system. Over a long time, it's unstable.

Hey
Use direct quoting or citation...
So that we know the source

Find a citation that goes to IAU or trustable sources.

 

[OkisiTitana]

Меркурий-dwarf planet

 

[Pink]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

The Solar System is in no way a settled resonant system. Over a long time, it's unstable.

Find a citation that goes to IAU or trustable sources.

Just one example, Saturn's rings are a relatively short-term phenomenon.

 

[Roger Jolly]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

The Solar System is in no way a settled resonant system. Over a long time, it's unstable.

Find a citation that goes to IAU or trustable sources.

Well in the long term everything is terribly unstable, but in regular geological time the planets are fairly well set compared to the “early” solar system

 

[Roger Jolly]

Maybe Neptune shouldn’t be a planet cuz it hasn’t cleared Pluto out of it’s neighborhood

...sorta sounds racist...

 

[The Astronomer]

Maybe Neptune shouldn’t be a planet cuz it hasn’t cleared Pluto out of it’s neighborhood

...sorta sounds racist...

'gravitationally dominating its orbit'
^
Not sure if you understand it or not.

 

[Roger Jolly]

'gravitationally dominating its orbit'
^
Not sure if you understand it or not.

Can’t understand nonsense

 

[TtTOtW]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

The Solar System is in no way a settled resonant system. Over a long time, it's unstable.

Find a citation that goes to IAU or trustable sources.

I don't trust the IAU. They're like the SJWs of the astro-scientist community.

 

[TtTOtW]

Can’t understand nonsense

Hahaha... Yeah...

 

[The Astronomer]

Can’t understand nonsense

Hahaha... Yeah...

Can't say I disagree with you.
Though, the term 'dwarf planet' or something like that seems kinda useful, one just needs to rework on it quite a bit...

 

[The Astronomer]

Imo celestial bodies are classified into major categories based on their mass.
- Stars: these objects are massive enough to achieve hydrogen fusion, or used to.
- Brown dwarfs: massive enough to achieve some kind of fusion, but not hydrogen fusion.
- Planets: not massive enough to achieve any sort of fusion on its own, but is massive enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium.
- Planetoids: not massive enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, but features some geological activity.
- Asteroids: not massive enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, and no geological activity.

Then, you separate each of them into various subcategories:
- Stars
--- Normal stars
----- Hypergiants
----- Supergiants
----- Bright giants
----- Giants
----- Subgiants
----- Main sequence stars (dwarfs)
----- Subdwarfs
--- Degenerate stars
----- White dwarfs
----- Neutron stars
------- Pulsars
----- Black holes
----- other types of dense stars
- Brown dwarfs
- Planets
--- Major planets
----- Gas planets [subcategories based on dominant component]
------- Gas giants [subcategories based on mass]
--------- Super Jupiters
--------- Jupiters
--------- Saturnians
--------- Gas dwarfs
------- Ice giants (mostly volatiles, with substantial hydrogen/helium envelope))
------- Rock giants (mostly rocky, with substantial hydrogen/helium envelope)
----- Ice planets / ocean planets (mostly volatiles, with no substantial hydrogen/helium envelope)
------- (shit ton of subcategories)
----- Rocky planets
------- (shit ton of subcategories here as well)
--- Satellite planets
----- (the same as major planets)
- Planetoids
--- (too lazy to write it down)
- Asteroids
--- (the current classification seems fine)

There is also another system for gas planets, ice planets, and Venusians which is based on the planet's temperature, but that one gets complex fast. Sudarsky classification doesn't cover them all.

 

[BANDWITH]

I don't trust the IAU. They're like the SJWs of the astro-scientist community.

Exactly.
In a book I read, titled “How I killed Pluto and Why it Had it Coming”, indirectly said that they were quite lazy.

 

[Cogman Inc.]

Proof: Pluto is Mercury sized and it is a planet. Pluto even has an atmosphere! Guys, help me prove to them that Pluto is a PLANET!!!

Nope. Pluto needs to clear its orbit of any other debris and accumulate into one body, which it has not. Having an atmosphere is not in the criterion for a body being a planet, or else people would be questioning whether Mercury is a planet. https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/pluto.html

 

[Lt. Snakestrike]

Nope. Pluto needs to clear its orbit of any other debris and accumulate into one body, which it has not. Having an atmosphere is not in the criterion for a body being a planet, or else people would be questioning whether Mercury is a planet. https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/pluto.html

Correction, it should be the dominating force of its orbit. Doesnt need the be completely cleared.

 

[TtTOtW]

The rules were rewritten to prove Pluto is not a planet. So I call bullshit on their new little set of rules.

 

[Pink]

The rules were rewritten to prove Pluto is not a planet. So I call bullshit on their new little set of rules.

Edge cases are tough.

 

[Pink]

Including Pluto, I count 6 dwarf planets that would also be planets if we make Pluto a planet.

 

[Cogman Inc.]

Correction, it should be the dominating force of its orbit. Doesnt need the be completely cleared.

If it's dominating the force in its orbit, that would mean that it most likely already has, or will very quickly clear its orbit. But I'll concede that it doesn't have to *entirely* clear it, just mostly.