What they should do is refer to Pluto as "Yuggoth" as the Mi-Go of the Cthulhu Universe do and call the bodies of it's size as "Plutons"

__________________
The proceeding post was brought to you by NASA, the National Association of the Sellers of Alcohol.

I have yet to visit the Hayden planetarium, but I do know that there are only 8 planets. I also know that there was controversy surrounding the construction of them, since the only the 8 were included. I believe it was Mr. Soter who only wanted the 8 instead of the 9 and was therefore, dubbed a pluto hater. I stand by his position though, that there are only 8 planets. Guess he was right.

__________________
Ay, amor
Dime como debo hacer
Para arrancarme este deseo
Que no me deja ni comer
Y que me da cuando te veo

Are you kidding? Pluto/Charon is a double dwarf planet with two other satellites (at least). Getting a good look at how these bodies interact may give us additional (empirical) insight on how planetary systems might work around binary stars.

That's in addition to it being the closest of the KBOs. It's worth taking a good long look at Pluto/Charon.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Pluto has 3 moons.

Last night I had a dream that they found two more (what's this fixation with Pluto's moons? I already had a dream just before Nyx and Hydra were confirmed in which they turned up not to be real!)

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

Pluto's one of the coolest (no pun intended) objects in the Solar System, definitely worth visiting. Were it a dwarf planet or not.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

-

You could, but why?

Yes, the protoplanetary disk from which planets formed was, well, a disk. Rotating clouds of gas tend to collapse into disks. Individual molecules orbit in random orbits. Molecules coming from above the plane collide with molecules coming from below and canceling the horizontal velocity component.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

This was the right decision. It was a mistake calling Pluto a planet to begin with. So, Pluto gets demoted to dwalf planet status. Ceres gets promoted to dwalf planet. I sure do hope that Dawn is not cancelled at the last moment. It will be nice getting back information on both of these bodies. I think that Ceres and Pluto will both be very interesting. Ceres especially could have some surprises for us, as most people expect to find only a mundane rock.

I'll just close my involvement here with this.

What we've been given is not a definition of planet. The pure, undenied motivation here was to demote Pluto. The problem with the definition is that it cannot be used on any system of orbital bodies OTHER than the one around the Sun. It is a purpose built artifact to justify a desired eight planet arrangement in the Solar System, it does not, in any way shape or form, help with the future categorization and cataloguing of substellar orbital bodies EXCEPT in this star system.

Its a manufactured explanation for a result that was decided before the debate even began. My congratulations to the IAU for successfully executing a bowel movement on science in broad daylight and garnering applause for it.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

When Dawn is mentioned, why everyone start talking about Ceres!? Vesta is far more interesting.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

As they said at the IAU meeting, there is no point to create a definition for an extrasolar planet--there's no doubt many surprises waiting for us, and any definition would soon have to be changed.

And yes, the primary motive for the definition was clarification of Pluto's status, a problematic issues that has plagued astronomy for decades. It is now corrected. I don't see any problem in that. Yes, the definition should have been better, but let's be glad we have one.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

I agree, let's clear all the planets and other objects out of the solar system and rebuild so that it matches our definitions.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

So, wording of the document itself aside, do you think Pluto should be considered a planet?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Yes. It meets sufficient physical criteria to qualify as a planet.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

So is it true that the pluto-haters are making t-shirts that say "If you don't like the new definition of a planet you can kiss my big fat hairy astronomer"?

I'm waiting for a US congressman to submit a bill to restore Pluto to planethood. This might be one political intrusion into science I could get behind.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Nah, lets keep the lawyers and failed lawyers out of it. Too much litigation has to do with amusing the judge, rather than anything to do with true factual discovery.

Whatever the definition is or ends up being, its got to be something that can be applied anywhere, anywhen to any object that meets the criterion.

Slamming on Pluto because its a KBO and not a rocky terrestrial is like slamming iron and carbon fusing stars because they're clearly not like the vast majority of hydrogen/helium stars. Saying Ceres isn't a planet would be like saying a red dwarf isn't a star, even though its structurally identical to a yellow dwarf or white subgiant, because its too small.

Ridiculous. Its like relativity only applies when its convenient.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

NOOO!!! pluto should have remained a planet. it is should remain just for the common society and general ethics. ill miss u pluot

Just wait until an Earth-sized object is found in the outer reaches. Wait nevermind, that'd be a dwarf planet.

This definition won't last. It's better than 9 planets, but there are some flaws that will stick out like a sore thumb as we gain insight on other stellar systems (and our own).

__________________
This space is for rent.

Good point... Does this mean that the IAU has effectively ruled that the rest of the universe doesn't exist?

I guess racism extends to inanimate objects too.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

I think we should change the definition every 5 years just to annoy the astrologers. And rename all the constellations too!

Now here's a man with a nasty streak even I'm awed by.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

If we do that then we should wait to adopt the resolution until 2007. That will allow the change in definition to occur in 2012 and freak them out about the end of the mayan calendar. Oh, the symmetry... in 2012 the universe will end because we'll define it out of existence.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

the only problem is the defination says "the sun" not a star that is only part that should change. Could care less either way aboout pluto it is still there no matter what we define it as let just stop xena business.

like to add I wonder how many people had their "astrological charts" redrwn and redrwn again within the last week.

It occurs to me that changing the definition of something as knowledge increases is a good thing. Think of what the definition of the universe was back when astronomers were villified for suggesting a change to the status quo (not much different than today in some respects): Earth was the center of the universe and everything in space was the exact same distance away attached to a giant sphere, beyond which lay Heaven and the gods. Where would we be if the scientific community refused to update their definition?

That being said, I agree that todays definition needs some work. I do believe they were correct in reclassifying Pluto as a dwarf planet, but the limitations Doodler has pointed out need to be addressed as well.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

Strictly speaking 5a doesn't try to provide a definition of extra-solar planets. It starts off:
(my bold) which I read as addressing only the definition for bodies within the Solar System. Perhaps this means that many years hence there will be a debate as to the classification of bodies orbiting other stars?

I would hereby like to announce the creationof the "International Dwarf Planet Registry", where for a small consideration I will allow you to name one of the many (soon to be found) dwarf planets, and I will write it's name in a small book that I will keep in my basement.

Yeah, the definition is explicitly meant for Solar system planets only. So free floaters and extrasolar planets remain without formal definition. That's because we know so little about them--there is no doubt many surprises waiting for us which would make the definition soon obsolete.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

Against those who say this definition is completely wrong-headed, I support it.

Its not perfect, no doubt about that - but how could we expect to have a perfect definiton given how little we know about the Universe? About other star systems, about the extra-solar planets that orbit other stars. Especially considering how little we know about the Outer Solar System, out past Neptune.

Excluding extra-solar planets from this definition makes sense - how could we sensible talk about their composition when we can only observe a very limited number of objects within any given star system other than our own?

This definition makes sense in regards to our solar system as well - for one thing, the new category is a great catch-all for all objects discovered of a reasonable size out beyond Neptune. Instead of every one of these discoveries meaning we have a new planet - and then after further observations we don't, these new objects will initially be recognised as dwarf planets.

If the object is found through observation to in fact dominate its area, then it can be upgraded to full planetary status - or whatever, at a later date.

Regarding dwarf planets, I'm happy with this new category as it will be a category I'll keep an eye on, a category I'll try and memorise. As for regards between the difference between a dwarf planet and just an ordinary small body, I would vote for an inclusive line in the sand at that point.

The more dwarf planets the merrier!

As well, given we have scientific missions in place to Ceres, Vesta, Pluto & Charon - surely that means we will have soon explored almost all of the current dwarf planets - so shouldn't we strive to explore UB313 and any other dwarf planets out there in the Kuiper Belt as soon as possible?

__________________
BugMeNot A portal to bypass free-site registration.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer - renowned 19th Century German philosopher.

One of the problems with the term "dwarf planet" is that it contains the word "planet". Even if they are not trying to suggest it is a subclass inside of the class of planet, the implication is there.

The fact that they don't have a separate name for such objects proves the semantic fact that they do not have a separate concept for it. It's a logical syllogism: if "classical planets" are gravitationally round objects that clear out their space; and if "dwarf planets" are gravitationally round objects that have not cleared out their space; then "basic planets" are simply gravitationally round objects.

That's why the IAU wanted communications experts... to avoid the current charlie-fox. The term "astronomy" refers to naming stars, not planets. But I'm okay with that.... Now if we can only teach them how to use them in a sentence.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau