Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 255 posts

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#51

Post by hn_submit »

Avshalom wrote: post #27
hn_submit wrote: post #9

I'm in the same camp. I believe the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet was arbitrary and inconsistent. I mean, it's been known as a planet for almost 80 years and suddenly we demote it? I believe someone was trying to make a name for themselves here and ignoring the history of Pluto and its discovery.

I'm on team Pluto here but no, the problem was that Mike Brown found like a dozen 'planets' and no one wanted to deal with that. It was closer to preventing someone from making a name for themselves.

We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that.

Why bother coming up with a pseudo-scientific requirements list for planets when these don't work for a large number of cases.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#52

Post by andrewflnr »

tanseydavid wrote: post #25
hn_submit wrote: post #9

I'm in the same camp. I believe the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet was arbitrary and inconsistent. I mean, it's been known as a planet for almost 80 years and suddenly we demote it? I believe someone was trying to make a name for themselves here and ignoring the history of Pluto and its discovery.

My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine...uhhhm... !?

Nachos. She served us nachos.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#53

Post by odyssey7 »

The problem is that the word “planet” refers both to cultural symbols — mythology, gods, archetypes, and the heavens — and to objects of scientific study. Those are different domains, and one of them is cultural heritage, and the other is irritating when it tries to infringe on the first one.

There’s no need for a god complex. Stop picking and choosing which planets are real. Scientists can create their own, more precise words for things. Planets are sacred. Things that clear their orbits are not.

You can’t subdue the public into giving up their gods out of difference to science — you’re just losing people.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#54

Post by ecliptik »

It's dumb, but whenever I see something representing the planets, I always count them. Occasionally you come across places that still include Pluto.

Most recent example I found was the Swatch MoonSwatch Collection [1], which includes the Sun, Moon, eight planets and Pluto[2].

1. https://www.swatch.com/en-us/bioceramic-moonswatch-collectio...

2. https://www.swatch.com/en-us/mission-to-pluto-so33m101/SO33M...

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#55

Post by ketzu »

Planktonne wrote: post #30

The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IAU definition) should be used in non-astronomical contexts. Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. An IAU classification shouldn't be used to try and retroactively change that, because the IAU does not have control over history and culture.…

I wonder how happy each group would be by this solution. Planet as a scientific and non-scientific usage.

Conclusively, science class would not teach Pluto as a planet (it should after all stick to the science) and English class will discuss the cultural impact of planet Pluto! Maybe write poems about the importance and impact of 9 word mnemonics? Sounds fun.

My headcanon is that people would hate it so so much! I can't wait to see that as a distant observer.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#56

Post by zdragnar »

Planktonne wrote: post #30

The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IAU definition) should be used in non-astronomical contexts. Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. An IAU classification shouldn't be used to try and retroactively change that, because the IAU does not have control over history and culture.…

Peanuts, cashews, almonds, walnuts, pecans, Brazil nuts and pistachios are culinary nuts but NOT botanical nuts.

Botanical berries: Bananas, tomatoes, grapes, cucumbers, eggplants, avocados and peppers, but NOT strawberries, raspberries, blackberries or mulberries.

Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#57

Post by wolrah »

hn_submit wrote: post #33
nemomarx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to keep Pluto as a planet but say larger objects than it that also orbit the sun aren't planets, is the question I guess?

It's basically a question of definition: we define Pluto as a planet and the others as Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO) As human beings we're allowed to make these kind of decisions. We define ourselves to be outside of the animal kingdom when we're clearly part of it and a type of animal ourselves.

The question would be what are the specific rules that lead to that, and how you'd apply those rules outside of our own solar system. Any rule that just calls those distant objects KBOs is specific to our own solar system which is a silly rule to be making in a world where we already knew about hundreds of exoplanets.

The question at hand is "how do we define a planet" from a universal standpoint, because it hadn't really been defined beyond an "I know it when I see it" level and that was becoming a problem.

Objective rules that do not assume you're talking about our solar system are key here, and the serious proposals basically come down to 8 planets or dozens and growing, and from a practical standpoint the former was the obvious choice IMO since all it really affects is what gets focused on in general education environments.

If you just want to make an arbitrary decision that these things are planets because you want them to be as opposed to because they meet certain criteria, that's not useful to anyone.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#58

Post by bryanlarsen »

hn_submit wrote: post #51
Avshalom wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm on team Pluto here but no, the problem was that Mike Brown found like a dozen 'planets' and no one wanted to deal with that. It was closer to preventing someone from making a name for themselves.

We could simply define Pluto as the edge of our Solar System and everything beyond its orbit a Kuiper Belt Object. There's nothing wrong with that. Why bother coming up with a pseudo-scientific requirements list for planets when these don't work for a large number of cases.

That would include Ceres, Quaoar and Orcus as planets.

It's really hard to come up with a definition of a planet that includes Pluto but doesn't include Orcus. Orcus is very close to a mirror of Pluto that is 120 degrees out of phase. Even in name: Orcus is the Roman name for the Greek god Pluto.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#59

Post by odyssey7 »

Planktonne wrote: post #30

The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IAU definition) should be used in non-astronomical contexts. Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. An IAU classification shouldn't be used to try and retroactively change that, because the IAU does not have control over history and culture.…

You’ve explained something very well that I hope certain groups of people will try to internalize.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#60

Post by vova_hn2 »

adolph wrote: post #8

It seems as though Pluto's primary problem is "clearing the neighbourhood." Given Pluto's orbit travels closer and further from the sun than Neptune, does Neptune also have the neighborhood clearing problem since it has not cleared Pluto? In celestial mechanics, "clearing the neighbourhood" (or dynamical dominance) around a celestial body's orbit describes the body becoming gravitationally dominant such that there ar…

> other bodies of comparable size

In addition to what other commenters said about orbital resonance: Neptune has approximately 20 times bigger radius and is about 10_000 (ten thousand) times heavier. This is comparable to difference in mass between a human and a hummingbird. Could we really call them "comparable size"? I'm not sure, this is not a particularly precise term, but I would say - no.

Post reply on HN