Is Pluto a planet?

Nuke · October 16, 2020

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

A metaplanet.

They always add "meta-" when it's not clear how to name.

meta has always been a troll's prefix.

K^2 · October 16, 2020

If that's too cliché, we can flip the script. Dwarf planets are just planets, and IAU definition planets are orthoplanets.

sevenperforce · October 16, 2020

20 hours ago, NFUN said:

So you're saying that "dwarf planet" is a bad term and not "dwarf planet has 'planet' in the name and therefore they're planets"

Yep, I see now that we were not so far apart as I thought.

18 hours ago, K^2 said:

Yeah, but what's the actual utility here? Mercury-sized object out in the Kuiper Belt would be just another snowball. A big snowball, but the thing is, one might actually exist, likely, even, based on some models, and we haven't found it yet, and we aren't really losing any sleep over that. For all intends and purposes it'd be just another KBO. Describing such an object out in the KB as a planet would be silly.

We could base our distinction on whether TNOs are classical or resonant. I think the best reason for ruling out Pluto, Orcus, Otrera, Clete, and Ixion as planets is that their orbits are controlled by the influence of Neptune. But that leaves us struggling over cubewanos like Makemake as well as scattered objects like Eris and Sedna.

18 hours ago, K^2 said:

In contrast, had the Mercury been as small as the Moon, or even as small as Pluto, it'd still be a significant contribution to inner system.

Well, I'm not actually so sure about that. Mercury is physically smaller than Ganymede and Titan, but more massive than both combined. Apart from Earth, it is the densest planet in our solar system. Mercury almost certainly lost significant portions of its mass as the result of its location so close to the Sun, either via a planetesimal impact or due to extreme conditions during the formation of the solar system. If Pluto, Eris, or Makemake had formed at just 0.3 AU from the sun, they would be very different worlds than they are.

If we want to describe objects by their intrinsic qualities, we can do so with fairly high specificity (that is, without overlap) based mostly on formation, history, and size:

Small solar system bodies:
- Planetesimals. Monolithic, undifferentiated primary solar system objects formed by gravitational accretion of cosmic dust. Examples include Arrokoth, Themisto, Ananke, Caliban, 3552 Don Quixote, and the like. These are unlikely to be larger than a few dozen kilometers.
- Rubble piles. Secondary solar system objects which coalesced from shattered fragments of either planetesimals or protoplanets. Many comets and most asteroids are rubble piles, including Itokawa, Antiope, Malthide, Bennu, Churyumov–Gerasimenko and Ryugu, as well as small planetary moons like Phobos, Deimos, Janus, and Saturn's ring shepherd moonlets. Rubble piles can be very small, but can grow very large when formed from the breakup of protoplanets, such as with Proteus and Hyperion.
Protoplanets. Objects which grew larger than 100-200 km early in the solar system's history had sufficient internal gravity and radioisotope content to cause melting, resulting in at least partial internal differentiation but without sufficient self-gravitation to become ellipsoidal. These include the largest asteroids and many of the solar system's moons. Examples are Vesta, Pallas, Eunomia, Interamnia, Hebe, Phoebe, and Psyche.
Worlds:
- Planemos. Protoplanets larger than around 400 km have sufficient gravitation to have fully differentiated interiors and reach hydrostatic equilibrium. They are ellipsoidal in shape and can experience internal geodynamic events like diapirs and volcanism. The smallest are the size of Miranda and Mimas and the largest are the size of Pluto.
- Dwarf worlds. At around 1.5e22 kg, planemos become large enough to retain gaseous molecular atmospheres, although the heat of the inner solar system will strip away the atmosphere from dwarf worlds located there. Most of these are moons, and they range in size from Eris and Triton to Titan and Ganymede. This includes our moon.
- Terrestrial worlds. At around 2.7% the mass of Earth, worlds become large enough to retain liquid water on their surfaces, provided they are in the habitable zone. Mercury, Mars, Earth, Venus, and a few known exoplanets.
Gas giants. At around 5-6 Earth masses, gravitation becomes great enough to retain hydrogen, and so the body no longer has a solid surface. These can go up to about 13 Jupiter masses before their internal gravitation becomes great enough to fuse deuterium and become a brown dwarf or protostar. Uranus, Neptune, Saturn, Jupiter, and most known exoplanets.

If we want to describe objects by their role or position in a solar system, we have a completely different set of descriptors:

Major Planets. Large, spherical bodies in low-eccentricity orbits near the system's invariable plane which dominate the orbits of small bodies within the system. These generally represent much, more than one half of the total mass of all objects which cross their orbit. These are the "big eight".
Minor Planets:
- Bound Planets. Smaller bodies which are in resonant orbits with major planets, such as Pluto and the various trojans.
- Quasi-Planets. Bodies which lie near the invariable plane in low-eccentricity orbits, do not cross the orbit of major planets, and do not compose more than half of the total mass of all objects which cross their orbit. Ceres, Makemake, and garden-variety asteroids.
- Irregular Planets. Bodies which have distant, high-eccentricity orbits or which have orbits inclined at more than 45 degrees from the invariable plane: Eris, Sedna, and so forth.
Moons. Bodies which follow closed orbits around other bodies.
Comets. Bodies which cross the orbits of at least one major planet with a periapsis nearer the sun than the nearest major planet.
Centaurs. Bodies which are not comets or bound planets but which cross the orbits of multiple major planets.

If you want to combine nomenclature from both descriptor sets, great. Just make sure it's consistent.

18 hours ago, K^2 said:

On the other hand, we can tell if the object orbits the star directly or if it's going around a parent object, basically, so long as we can observe it at all. So we'll immediately know if we're dealing with a moon or binary planet, and that distinction tells us something about evolution of that star system, which is what we're really after here.

I think we can probably do that math (and get excited about it) without needing to have a special name for it, though...right?

15 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Law school is indeed awesome.

Practicing law, however... Not so much.

I've been working in law firms for half my life so at this point I'm kinda stuck with it. Still love it.

Edited October 16, 2020 by sevenperforce

JoeSchmuckatelli · October 16, 2020

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Comets. Bodies which cross the orbits of at least one major planet with a periapsis nearer the sun than the nearest major planet

...

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

I've been working in law firms for half my life so at this point I'm kinda stuck with it. Still love it.

I'd have put something about the long orbital path into the KB / Oort regions. Do all comets fall inside the orbit of Mercury?

...

You are one of the lucky ones, then. What area of practice did you land in?

sevenperforce · October 16, 2020

40 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'd have put something about the long orbital path into the KB / Oort regions.

Short-period comets don't even necessarily have an orbital path into the Kuiper belt, let alone the Oort cloud. Jupiter-family comets have an aphelion below the orbit of Saturn, and Encke-type comets don't even reach the orbit of Jupiter at aphelion.

Quote

Do all comets fall inside the orbit of Mercury?

I was under the impression that that coma of a comet typically only becomes visible when it is well within the orbit of Mercury, but it looks like I had assumed wrongly...there are short-period comets with detectable coma which never even dip below the orbit of Mars.

It looks like there are even a class of "active asteroids" which are main-belt asteroids that outgas periodically, giving them cometary properties. I suppose that "comet" is less about position and more about intrinsic qualities...I'd be happy to lump comets and centaurs together with "irregular planets" in the nomenclature above.

The revised nomenclature is actually simpler:

Major Planets. Large, spherical bodies in low-eccentricity orbits near the system's invariable plane which comprise more than one half of the total mass of all objects which cross their orbit. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.
Moons. Bodies which orbit at all times within the Hill Sphere of a larger body.
Minor Planets. Objects which are neither major planets nor moons.
- Bound Planets. Bodies which are in resonant orbits with major planets, such as Pluto, Gonggong, 2002 TC₃₀₂, and the various trojans.
- Irregular Planets. Bodies which are not bound planets and either cross the orbit of a major planet, have high eccentricity, or have a highly inclined orbit. Eris, Sedna, centaurs, and most comets.
- Quasi-Planets. Bodies which are neither bound planets nor irregular planets. Ceres, Makemake, most asteroids, and some comets.

Quote

You are one of the lucky ones, then. What area of practice did you land in?

I've been doing plaintiff litigation mostly. Once I graduate I'll see what my options are.

Edited October 16, 2020 by sevenperforce

sevenperforce · October 16, 2020

20 hours ago, K^2 said:

Describing Earth-Moon system as terrestrial binary planet puts it into the correct perspective.

It just occurred to me that one of the complaints about using the barycentric definition is that it will change over time.

But the tug-of-war definition changes over time too. It is not dependent on the mass ratio of the primary and the secondary, but it is dependent on the distance between the two.

When the moon formed, just outside the Roche limit around four Earth radii away, its tug-of-war score would have been 103.3, making it solidly a moon and definitely not a double planet.

The score for the most distant moon of Jupiter, Carpo, is just 2 if you use its semi-major axis. But it has a highly eccentric orbit, so if you use its Jovian apoapsis of 2.43e7 km, it scores 0.98. So Carpo, at just 3 km, is sometimes a moon of Jupiter but sometimes a binary planet with Jupiter.

That doesn't make sense.

s_gamer101 · October 18, 2020

As far as I know, some astronomers made a democratic decision if Pluto is a planet or not and the result was no. And that‘s supposed to be science.

kerbiloid · October 18, 2020

With no representative from the Pluto itself.

s_gamer101 · October 18, 2020

On the other hand, „planet“ is just a word that we humans have invented, and whenever we call something „planet“ or not doesn‘t really affect it.

But a clear definition that doesn‘t allow different interpretations that lead to different conclusions would be useful.

NFUN · October 18, 2020

53 minutes ago, s_gamer101 said:

On the other hand, „planet“ is just a word that we humans have invented, and whenever we call something „planet“ or not doesn‘t really affect it.

But a clear definition that doesn‘t allow different interpretations that lead to different conclusions would be useful.

If only we had one, instead of having a bunch of random ,,astronomers" meet in some room somewhere to throw darts at pictures of solar system bodies to arbitrarily decide which are planets or not. Good thing we got lucky and they didn't hit something like Phobos or the ISS. That would've made things even more confusing

sevenperforce · October 19, 2020

7 hours ago, s_gamer101 said:

On the other hand, „planet“ is just a word that we humans have invented, and whenever we call something „planet“ or not doesn‘t really affect it.

Words are descriptive, so we should describe things. Not try to prescribe concepts.

kerbiloid · October 19, 2020

A perfect planet in terms of the IAU definition.

1. Hydrostatically-shaped.
2. Clears its path.
3. Orbits whatever it wants.

Spoiler

(Yes, the closer one. Don't pay attention to the proto-asteroid cloud on the background.

alderaan-3-retina_45d076ff.jpeg?region=0

sevenperforce · October 20, 2020

On 10/16/2020 at 5:50 PM, sevenperforce said:

It just occurred to me that one of the complaints about using the barycentric definition is that it will change over time.

But the tug-of-war definition changes over time too. It is not dependent on the mass ratio of the primary and the secondary, but it is dependent on the distance between the two.

When the moon formed, just outside the Roche limit around four Earth radii away, its tug-of-war score would have been 103.3, making it solidly a moon and definitely not a double planet.

The score for the most distant moon of Jupiter, Carpo, is just 2 if you use its semi-major axis. But it has a highly eccentric orbit, so if you use its Jovian apoapsis of 2.43e7 km, it scores 0.98. So Carpo, at just 3 km, is sometimes a moon of Jupiter but sometimes a binary planet with Jupiter.

That doesn't make sense.

@K^2, your thoughts?

K^2 · October 21, 2020

23 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

@K^2, your thoughts?

The situations where tug-of-war is indeterminant are typically unstable. Carpo is on its way to get ejected from the system. Also, it doesn't meet any of the other qualifications for a planet, so it's sometimes an asteroid that happens to share orbit with Jupiter and sometimes its minor moon. For now. For our Moon, you are greatly overestimating initial state, as Roche limit is merely the inner boundary for the disk that formed, with a lot of debris, initially, in highly elliptic orbit, and the entire inner boundary of the disk moving up as the Moon began to coalesce. By the time Moon formed as a body, it was significantly further out, though, likely still with tug-of-war value well above 1. Regardless, with the total angular momentum we have in the Earth-Moon system, having the two of them close together is not stable. They will drift apart until they are only loosely bound gravitationally. Likewise, any captures that don't have sufficient angular momentum and descend in orbit will eventually get sucked in, so that's not a stable situation either.

And that's kind of the point. Tug-of-war value tells me something about the system. Even knowing that it's borderline or variable tells me things about the system. We don't get any of that with other definitions for what makes a moon. They are either difficult to measure without knowing precise orbital and physical characteristics of objects involved, are entirely arbitrary from perspective of relevance to system dynamics, or both.

And of course there will still be exceptions and weird cases. But we should still try to pick an option that works more often over the one that works less often. And yes, if we were talking just about Sol, saying that the Moon is one of the weird exceptions would have been fine. But that doesn't work when we start discussing exoplanets and potential exomoons. The Moon was important factor in formation of Earth and making it habitable. And a small moon deorbiting and devastating Venus might have been a factor in why it's not. So taking an arbitrary geometrical definition just to make us happy with the Moon being a moon here over taking a definition that aligns neatly with categories we might actually care about for everything out there seems kind of silly.

sevenperforce · October 21, 2020

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

For our Moon, you are greatly overestimating initial state, as Roche limit is merely the inner boundary for the disk that formed, with a lot of debris, initially, in highly elliptic orbit, and the entire inner boundary of the disk moving up as the Moon began to coalesce. By the time Moon formed as a body, it was significantly further out, though, likely still with tug-of-war value well above 1.

Well, the Roche limit of Earth is between 1.5 and 2.9 Earth radii, depending on whether you choose the rigid or the fluid computation. It is generally accepted that the Moon formed near the Roche limit but close to it, at around 4 Earth radii. So the tug-of-war value I calculated (103:1) was based on 4 Earth radii, not based on the Roche limit.

Also on the topic of the Asimov measure -- by his numbers, Charon is definitely a moon of Pluto, not a double planet system. This seems strange because the Pluto-Charon system seems much closer to being a double planet than the Earth-moon system.

Even worse, if you do the calculation in reverse, you find that Pluto is actually a moon of Charon by his definition.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Carpo is on its way to get ejected from the system. [...] Regardless, with the total angular momentum we have in the Earth-Moon system, having the two of them close together is not stable. They will drift apart until they are only loosely bound gravitationally. [...] And that's kind of the point. Tug-of-war value tells me something about the system. Even knowing that it's borderline or variable tells me things about the system.

I'm not saying that the tug-of-war value isn't a valid or useful measure. But I'm just not convinced it has the greatest utility, overall.

There are a bunch of factors to consider, honestly. You've even brought some of them up yourself. You'd almost want to make a "pros and cons" list.

Did the satellite form by capture or accretion?
Will the satellite escape in the short term? What about in the long term?
Is the satellite tidally locked?
Will the primary ever become tidally locked to the satellite?
What are the ratios of the masses?
Does the primary pull on the satellite more than the star?
Is the satellite's orbit ever convex?
Is the barycentre of the system ever outside the primary?
Is the satellite gravitationally rounded?
Would the satellite be able to clear/dominate its present orbit in the absence of the primary?
Is the angular momentum of the satellite's orbit greater than the angular momentum of the primary's rotation?

All of these factors can tell us important things about the system and about the relationship of the two bodies. Some of these factors change over time; others do not. Some could be applied to multi-stellar systems; others cannot.

The angular momentum measure is an interesting one, given the relationship between angular momentum and planetary disc formation. It's also a totally conserved value so it won't change as readily over time. The rotational angular momentum of Earth is 7.2e33 kg*m²/s while the orbital angular momentum of the Moon is 2.9e34 kg*m²/s. So the angular momentum of the Moon dominates the total angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system, making it less a moon and more a co-satellite. Likewise, the angular momentum of Pluto is 8.6e29 kg*m²/s, while the angular momentum of Charon is 5.4e30 kg*m²/s, which creates the same conclusion. In contrast, the combined orbital angular momentum of all the moons of Jupiter is less than 1% of the rotational angular momentum of Jupiter, so Jupiter dominates the angular momentum of its system.

Then again, Jupiter's orbital angular momentum is more than 60% of the total angular momentum of the entire solar system. So that measure is problematic if we want to apply it to stellar systems.

K^2 · October 21, 2020

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Even worse, if you do the calculation in reverse, you find that Pluto is actually a moon of Charon by his definition.

I don't understand how you get that. Pluto is more massive, so it pulls on Charon more than Charon pulls on Pluto, and influence of the Sun on either is identical. Even looking at the formula, the only value that's different is m_p and that's higher for Pluto.

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

There are a bunch of factors to consider, honestly.

Of course. But again, practicality. I claim that we should be making definitions that are most useful for studying and reporting on study of exoplanets. How many of these do you expect you'll be able to measure for an object in another star system? With a really large orbital interferometer we might some day be able to optically resolve some of the gas giants out there enough to measure their atmospheric wind speeds. For smaller planets and moons, though? You aren't going to know for sure if they are tidally locked or how they formed or any of that stuff. Tug-of-war value does help you make some educated guesses, though. If you see a planet with a solitary candidate for a moon with low tug-of-war value, it almost certainly didn't form from accretion disc. It's also very unlikely to be tidally slowing or be a capture. That's interesting.

I'll absolutely give you angular momentum. It's also a strong indicator that the object in question didn't form from a protoplanetary disc but was either ejected or captured. Unfortunately, it tells us very little about stability of the system, but then tug-of-war isn't a complete picture on that either.

I still think tug-of-war definition is a better one. Pluto-Charon system is more gravitationally bound than Earth-Moon system with respect to their neighborhood. The idea that it doesn't take much to have a moon for something floating out there among the asteroids doesn't seem contradictory to me. But angular momentum definition is still better than barycenter. It's measurable to about the same precision as tug-of-war value, doesn't vary over time without external interaction, and tells us useful information about the system. Not my favorite, but I would find that definition of the moons acceptable. If there was a strong push in IAU to adopt either one of these, I would back it up.

Arugela · October 21, 2020

On 10/12/2020 at 2:04 PM, NFUN said:

so minor planets are planets?

Yea, technically. I think people are missing that point.

How about we reclassify it as a Planetine to really confuse people. Then we could also add in banana shaped objects!

Quote

So what people don't like is that Pluto was "demoted" whatever that means. I didn't realize it was in the military.

So the problem is that "Planet" is a badge of honor. Again for some reason that I don't quite understand. We just need to think of a better name than "Dwarf Planet" then so it's not like Pluto's being demoted, but just getting reclassified so it is better described. You know, like the actual reason for this whole thing.

How about Omega Worlds? That sounds pretty cool and they're the last worlds out there so it fits.

The answer would then be multiple classification systems based on what is being emphasized(or one overriding one with all considerations). You then combine the names based on the emphasis. Then it's whatever the nature of the conversation is. Problem solved. Unless you lack sufficient descriptions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/planet

If this is correct it's meaning is it's viewed movment from earth.. There is your definition and the orientation of the earth. It has nothing to do with the other factors. Use planet in relationship to perceived orbit from earth. Find another term and system for defining it from the standpoint of mass and what not. Then call it a dwarf planet.

Then as long as it looks like it moves in a certain way as the original term you call it a planet and add on other terms as required based on the conversation. Easy peasy. An intelligent use of a term that can solve all arguments.

Example:

Pluto:

Planet: moves in a way viewd from earth: yes/no?

Mass: categorized by a mass system from a given stated perspective. If a second mass system is used use a different or both terms and or keep definitions clear.

Size: diameter or other systems term etc.

When talking simply say pluto is a low mass, planet?, of said diameter..

8o

See how easy and objective that is!! 8D

Systems are simply definitions said as you use them. The only thing you can do is confuse your own definition. A word can then be defined by it's original intent and used as such. Or in this case maybe the oldest one we have. If not we have a clear definition by that standpoint. And any change to such a definition can be stated by the person stating it. Basic logic and pre-existing rules of a conversation already cover the entire issue and define where the problem is. Person says something his definition is the definition when he said it. All confusion is a matter of miscommunication. If you want clear communication stick to known communicable things in the circumstance. Or put the extra work into saying the definition more clearly to others. The above is a simple example of how to do so. It's all about stating the definition of what you said when you said it. Just like with writing. Which is another area we mess this up constantly these days. You can't always assume the same definition across documents. Especially if you didn't write them. Real world is too complex.

Edited October 21, 2020 by Arugela

kerbiloid · October 22, 2020

A planette.

sevenperforce · October 22, 2020

17 hours ago, K^2 said:

I don't understand how you get that. Pluto is more massive, so it pulls on Charon more than Charon pulls on Pluto, and influence of the Sun on either is identical. Even looking at the formula, the only value that's different is m_p and that's higher for Pluto.

The tug of war value is the ratio of the forces acting on a body: F_p/F_S, where F_p is the force of the companion on the body and F_Sis the force of the star on the body.

Newton's law of gravitation says that F = G*m₁*m₂/d².

So in computing the tug-of-war value for a particular body, the mass of the body being acted upon drops out, and F_p/F_S = (M_p*d_S²)/(M_S*d_p²).

In considering the tug-of-war value for Charon, we run the calculation and find that F_p/F_S = ([mass of Pluto]*[39.5 AU]²)/([mass of Sol]*[19,640 km]²) = 596. So Charon is definitely a moon of Pluto and not a planet.

But if we run the tug-of-war value for Pluto, we find that F_p/F_S = ([mass of Charon]*[39.5 AU]²)/([mass of Sol]*[19,640 km]²) = 73.7. So Pluto is definitely a moon of Charon and not a planet.

(Note that this is not the same for other planet-moon combinations in our solar system. The tug-of-war value for Io with respect to Jupiter is 3244 while the tug-of-war value for Jupiter with respect to Io is 0.1526; the tug-of-war value for Phobos with respect to Mars is 189.8 while the tug-of-war value for Mars with respect to Phobos is a miniscule 0.0000032. However, the tug-of-war value for Neptune with respect to Triton is 1.72, so take that for what it is worth...after all, Triton is one of the few solar system bodies which is almost definitely a captured dwarf planet.)

17 hours ago, K^2 said:

But again, practicality. I claim that we should be making definitions that are most useful for studying and reporting on study of exoplanets. Tug-of-war value does help you make some educated guesses, though. If you see a planet with a solitary candidate for a moon with low tug-of-war value, it almost certainly didn't form from accretion disc.

I'm not saying we can't use the tug-of-war value, particularly when talking about exoplanets. The tug-of-war value seems like a great way to use a simple equation based on available data to make educated guesses about anomalous formation.

For exoplanets which exert more force on their moons than their star, but which are subject to less force from their moons than their star, we can conclude that the given exomoon likely formed from the same accretion disc. For exomoons where this is not the case, it's likely that something significant happened like capture or collision. After all, the only moons in our system where this is not the case -- Luna, Charon, Triton, and Carpo -- were either collisions or irregular captures. It's fairly easy to call attention to this; you can simply say, "Not only have we discovered an exoplanet with a moon, but the balance of gravitational force in this system makes it almost certain that its moon didn't come from its accretion disc!"

But this isn't a reason not to call it a moon. In fact, I think failing to call it a moon makes it more confusing, not less confusing.

I think we should choose definitions which make science more accessible to laypeople, not less accessible. Should they be consistent? Yes. Should they have value beyond our own solar system? Yes. But they should make people see space as something they can understand and learn more about. If our definitions make space and the solar system harder for lay people to figure out, I think we're barking up the wrong tree.

bestwork1989 · October 23, 2020

Hi

you are talking about Pluto is a planet or not . it is a type of warrant planet, as we know that warrant planet has the largest piece of rock between the group of privates .It has also between the group of sergeants. so yes is is a warrant planet.

AlamoVampire · October 23, 2020

Its a planet. Period, its a planet.

224110222020

224310222020

Edited October 23, 2020 by AlamoVampire

bestwork1989 · October 24, 2020

On 10/22/2020 at 10:02 PM, bestwork1989 said:

Hi

you are talking about Pluto is a planet or not . it is a type of warrant planet, as we know that warrant planet has the largest piece of rock between the group of privates .It has also between the group of sergeants. so yes is is a warrant planet.

The Super Red Supergiant Star - UY Scuti, 1708 ± 192 Solar Radii, the biggest known star in the Universe UY Scuti.
http://blogmedia.tech/uyscuti.html

Arugela · October 24, 2020

The base problem looks like it comes from the fact that originally, "planet," was based on observable patterns of movement in the earths sky. This could be retained as a definition and then use other words to amend it for different systems like mass or whatnot we have since adopted. It's a problem caused by, "scientists," who can't keep their definition straight and use sloppy means to name things. It's a simple problem and an issue with redefining terms with no new definition. Their fault. I state above how to fix it in detail.

Planet remains a word based on it's original orientation and a system of earth based observational patterns. IE it's pattern in the sky and not mass or newer features. Other terms are amended to then display mass or other needed words per the conversation. I believe this is how latin works. Just in english or whatnot. (Depending on the terms used.)

So, if it's still in the same observable pattern defining planets from earths viewpoint then it's still a planet. but it has other terms for mass or diamter you then add as desired.... Micro, mid diameter, planet.... Assuming those words have specific ranges of exact measurements.

All they did is stupidly reuse a word, "INCORRECTLY," that had nothing to do with the new measurement system the word was being reapplied to. This is as simple a problem as it gets. If they can not figure this it out, remove their degrees and kick them out of the field and let them refigure their lives out so we can have real scientists working in their place with beyond gradeschool levels of logic. I believe this is the law currently in some places but we have a bunch of people in places illegally saying that reasonability is based on public opinion and not the opposite as it naturally is... Especially if these, "scientist," waisted public money in the process. They should literally be held to legal consequences for this by current and previous law... If not the schools forking these degrees out to people not meeting the criteria for them.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Arugela

Contellation Aerospace · October 24, 2020

How long have you been in Kgantuya?IAU said that pluto isn't a planet in 2006......

the definition of a planet:

1.orbits the sun

2.It was round

3.it can clear its orbit(Pluto 's orbit is in Kuiper Belt)

So,Pluto isn't a planet

Arugela · October 24, 2020

6 minutes ago, Contellation Aerospace said:

How long have you been in Kgantuya?IAU said that pluto isn't a planet in 2006......

the definition of a planet:

1.orbits the sun

2.It was round

3.it can clear its orbit(Pluto 's orbit is in Kuiper Belt)

So,Pluto isn't a planet

That technically isn't the definition of a planet though. That is the real problem here. Just stated why that is.

See, when you use a word from another language in a new language, especially in formal use, it's best to not change it's definition and just do the right thing.(It sort of creates confusion.) Problem solved.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Arugela

Is Pluto a planet?

Is Pluto a planet? 66 members have voted

1. Is Pluto a Planet?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Is Pluto a planet?
66 members have voted