KBO. Although it is worth mentioning Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary defines planet as:

One of the celestial bodies revolving around the sun and shining only by reflected light.

This defintion would imply planet, but would create much more work for astonomers if taken literally. I think the definition needs re-working.

Planet.

just for nostalga(sp?). [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Why would that follow? If we find another larger, then there might be a case--but what if it were bigger than the Earth? Would that be a planet?
There's a reason for that. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Polls are not scientific at all, of course. It's all about classification schemes here--and since the more or less official groups are still calling Pluto a planet, I'm surprised that anyone would say it wasn't a planet. And it's much larger than any other known KBO. There has to be a cutoff somewhere, right?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kilopi on 2003-02-26 00:05 ]</font>

I was about to question your reasoning here, but that might lead to debate.. and that's not what this thread is for.. so I am going to start a civil thread... so that consensus is left unspoiled...

I will respond to Zap's post in the other thread "Kuiper Belt Orphan?"

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
[added link]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveOlden on 2003-02-26 05:36 ]</font>

Planet.

Just because.

__________________
I am a doctor, but I don't play one on TV.

I vote Planet!! Schmanet!! Janet!!

(Someone who has spent a few too many evenings at the Rocky Horror Picture Show.)

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

And waaayyy to much time at the pub. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Planet. Once you are in the club . . .

KBO

IMHO, tradition is a pretty weak argument. If we had classified some animal (say, the Platypus) as a mammal, and then discovered down the road that it was in no way a mammal but either the member of some other order or unique in nature, we wouldn't keep calling it a mammal simply because that's what we'd always done. Pluto was classified as a planet because that's what Tombaugh was looking for and other than asteroids and comets, planet was the only other tag to give it. Now is the time to reclassify Pluto as a Kuiper Belt Object, because that is clearly what it is!

__________________
"Is that a laser pointer? Well...that's fantastic! I mean...wow..that's just...GREAT!"
-Donald Rumsfeld before a Nov. 2001 speech
(His enthusiasm was muted, however, when he learned he could not guide a bomb with it.)

Planet.

Main reason - tradition.

Unlike platipus or any other animal being/not being a mammal, the dividing line between planets and minor planets (collective word for asteroids, comets, KBO's, etc.) is completely arbitrary. My personal favorite is to have Pluto define the minimum size of a planet. If a KBO bigger than Pluto is ever found, it too will be a planet. Any object smaller than Pluto found to circle another star (admittedly, that's a long way off!) by definition will NOT be a planet.

Too bad IAU is not likely to adopt this!

pluto is a planet in my opion because i have never seen a object other than a Planet in my 563 years of planet research to have moons. that would include KBO's and other astroidy things and stuff.

__________________
if you don't like this message you can kiss my rear end

Guess you don't have an asteroid belt in your solar system. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] There are several asteroids known to have moons of their own now. So Pluto having a moon is not enough for calling it a planet.

__________________
-Zap
If you didn't like the opinions expressed in this post, get over it!

kilopi.


“Why would that follow? If we find another larger, then there might be a case--but what if it were bigger than the Earth? Would that be a planet?”


I’ll rephrase. We’ve already discovered a number of KBOs which rival Charon in mass and radius. I view it as very probable that we will soon (5-10 years) discover KBOs which rival Pluto’s mass and size. Also, I don’t rule out the possibility of even larger objects. What I should have asked is; will these discoveries compel us to revise our designation system or will we run up the tally of planets higher and higher? I think that we may be forced to attach qualifiers onto existing designations for clarity. There is precedence; super-joviens and hot Jupiters. In a similar manner, I would recommend "giant KBO" or "super KBO".

KBO

IIRC, weren't Ceres and the other large asteroids originally thought of as planets, until so many other asteroids were found? If so, then we'll probably do the same with Pluto once more KBO's are found.

Besides, if you want to keep the nine planets part, couldn't the Earth and Moon be described as a double planet system? You would need to change the rhyme, 'My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas' to something like 'My Very Educated Mother Mary, Just Served Us Nuts'. (Hey, that rhyme splits the gas giants off with a comma. Cool.)

Kizarvexis

__________________
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James D. Nicoll

Planet

But I would prefer to call it a KBO with honorary Planetary status. I think if we (re)define it as a KBO, but then give it some sort of emeritus status, maybe that would satisfy both camps.

I'll go with planet. It is hard to build "great tiers of terraced towers built of black stone" on a KBO. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I have one based on Robert Anton Wilson's Schroedinger's Cat trilogy:

Mother Very Easily Made A Jelly Sandwich Using No [Peanuts,] Eggs, Ketchup, Bacon, Or Cheese.

Here "A" is for Asteroids, I've bracketed Peanuts/Pluto in case you want to omit it, "Eggs, Ketchup, Bacon" is for Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, and "Or Cheese" is for Oort Cloud.

The following paragraph contains a spoiler.

In the original book it was "Mother Very Easily Made A Jelly Sandwich Using No Peanuts, Glue, or Mayonnaise." We are told that an astronomer had discovered two planets beyond Pluto and that the names chosen were controversial. Wilson teases us with the mnemonic several times before finally revealing the names: Goofy and Mickey!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

One might think so, but I think that was more or less the proposal by Marsden that caused the ruckus in the first place, even before the museum left it out.

Planet

The asteroids and the KBO's are minor planets. The real question here is to determine the cutoff point for the size of a planet.

Now, how old will everyone be when we finally get some answers? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...it_030227.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: A.DIM on 2003-03-01 19:32 ]</font>

KBO!

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

The International Astronomical Union (IAU), the last time I checked, considered Pluto as a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), a Transneptunian Object (TNO), and a Solar planet. Pluto does not orbit in the same plane as the other Solar planets, so the KBO and TNO will probably win out in the long run. When it comes to scientific designations, I, myself, am not sentimental. Therefore, KBO (and TNO) are my choices (even though TNO was not one of the proposed selections). Of course, most likely, all KBOs are TNOs. n'est ce pas?

On the other hand, for a short time in its orbit, Pluto is definitely NOT a Transneptunian Object (TNO), because its orbit then lies within Neptune's orbit. Pluto just recently went back to an orbit beyond Neptune, so it is back to a Transneptunian orbit for a long, long while.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

_________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2003-03-01 19:54 ]</font>

I posted a link on the "Planet X" forum showing the IAU's official standpoint; it dates to '99.

This article dates to '01:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ip_010130.html

I can't find anything else "officially" stating otherwise.

<font size=-1>[ fixin these dang quotes!]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: A.DIM on 2003-03-01 20:01 ]</font>

Kucharek: Now, that is one smart "little son".

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

I have followed this for a long, long time. At first Brian Marsden (of the International Astronomical Union - IAU) was designating Pluto as the largest Transneptunian Object (TNO). There was a large international uproar (mostly U.S., and mostly from amateur astronomers and from the general public, I believe) about this, so the IAU came back with the idea that there would be a dual status for Pluto both as a Transneptunian Object and as a Planet. Most recently, I noticed that they were back to KBO (and TNO). The site was changed when I attempted to access it a few minutes ago, so I have not the foggiest idea about their present designation of Pluto.

All of this is from memory, but I am absolutely certain about the change (reverting) in designation (because of the uproar, I suppose).

When I get the chance, I shall search for this topic at the IAU site.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

I just checked the site. The URL is:

http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/PlutoPR.html

It has been awhile since I checked.

It states:

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ljbrs on 2003-03-01 21:26 ]</font>

So, does that mean you're going to change your vote? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I'd still go with my earlier suggestion of Kuiper Planet. To me its a transitional object on par with Brown Dwarves being transitional between true gas giant planets and stars.

This website claims this:

When and how was this so matter-of-factly determined?

__________________
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Quote from AK.

“When and how was this so matter-of-factly determined?”

Soon after Triton’s discovery over a century ago. Triton’s dynamic characteristics made clear the fact that Triton is not like the majority of the other moons in our Solar System.

Anomalies such as; retrograde orbit. Inclination of a whopping 157 degrees relative to Neptune’s equator (which is skewed about 29 degrees from the ecliptic). The lack of a regular system of moons like the rest of the outer planets.


From here; http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)


Triton’s heliocentric origin (as opposed to co-development with Neptune) is treated as matter of fact unless and until strong evidence compels researchers to do otherwise. Occam’s razor and elegant simplicity.


Of the three major models concerning Triton’s origin, the capture model is considered the strongest and most likely. In-situ development or an encounter with an object which left it in such an orbit is viewed as less likely.