Talk:Pluto

Archives
Archive 1: 2003–2005 Archive 2: 2005–Aug 2006 Archive 3: Aug 2006 (IAU decision and aftermath)

Archived

I'm not sure that archiving everything was necessary, but this talk page was far too large and new comments were being added all over the place. If anyone feels some of the topics should have stayed here, feel free to haul them out of Archive 3. --ajn (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Details

Perhaps I'm blind to finding differences between two identical pictures, but could anyone please draw arrows showing Pluto's movement between the two photographic plates? Thanks. GVidal 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not you going blind. :-) I had similar difficulties, too. My best guess is that the second picture may have been cropped. I know I've seen the original photographs, which had an arrow in both of them. That's why I think the second picture we use here is cropped. I'll see if perhaps I can locate a better copy of the original photographs that we can use. Dsf 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've found what appears to be the original photos with clear arrows that I saw years ago. I found several sources for them. What's the problem? The photographs may be held by copyright (as part of a larger body of work) by the various textbook authors/publishers and possibly the Lowell Observatory. So, legally, I would guess that an official request made by someone from the Wikipedia Project might hold water if they were to ask copyright owners for permission to use the improved photographs here.

Alternatively, we can try asking the Lowell Observatory if a) they're willing to authorize its inclusion here, and b) willing to send someone a copy of the photos (or offer a download link). Had it been NASA, no problem there with redistribution of NASA photographs without prior permission. But the Lowell Observatory is a privately-funded institution, so...

For reference, here are the Pluto discovery photographs: http://cseligman.com/text/planets/plutodisc.jpg and http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Explore_figs_5/Chapter1/fig1_26.jpg Dsf 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwarf Planet Status

Probably shouldn't be going with the dwarf planet status just yet as the controversy hasn't yet died down, despite what the IAU wants to think. For one, there is the definition that a planet has cleared it's stellar neighborhood of debris. If that is so, then there is not a single planet in this solar system as all still get struck by stellar debris on a regular basis. For another, [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/sc_nm/space_pluto_dc

According to the IAU, "orbital clearing" means domination in an object's neighborhood. For example, Jupiter has thousands of asteroids that share its orbit (Trojan asteroids), but it is several orders of magnitude more massive than them. The asteroids don't much move Jupiter, but the Trojans and in fact the whole main asteroid belt feel the gravity of Jupiter. The wording was selected to make it more understandable to a layman, a poor choice in my opinion. However, I don't think the IAU will soon change its definition even if there's a "mutiny". However, if nobody adopts the definition, it becomes a dead letter. Only time will tell, and until that we should stick on the IAU definition, because it's the only official one.--JyriL ^talk 21:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many comments on the Wiki to the effect that "no planet has cleared its orbit" and I find it silly in the extreme. Jyril makes the point that matters most in "clearing:" orders of magnitude. The asteroid belt in total is 1/1000 Earths. Ceres, by far the largest known asteroid, is around 1/6000th of Earth mass. Multiply Ceres by 2 million and you have Jupiter. Saying that Jupiter hasn't cleared its orbit because of Trojans is like saying I'm not the only person in an empty room because of mosquitos buzzing around the window screen. I actually think, despite it being the most debatable point, that the IAU was spot-on in their wording. If Alan Stern wants a quixotic quest to denounce the definition, good for him. The definition will stick. And, in its small way, Wikipedia (or at least Wiki-like sources) will make it stick. It's a dwarf planet until the IAU says otherwise :). Marskell 22:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason Jupiter's Trojans are theres is BECAUSE of Jupiters Gravity, They Occupy the lagrangian points and are also thus locked 1:1 resonance with jupiter. On clearing the neighbourhood it can be seen there is a several orders of magintude difference between how well the planets have "cleared" and how well the minor planets have "cleared", none of the minor planets even make up more than a 1/3 of the mass in their entire orbit, and the one that does make up 1/3 is Ceres not Pluto or Xena -- Nbound 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Touche. Ceres is the only one that comes close, and even it doesn't come close. Marskell 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can Charon still be considered a moon now that Plutos status is no longer that of a planet??? Wmgries 9:27 PM, September 3, 2006

Something doesnt have to be a planet to have moons, there are many asteroids which even have moons... the main problem with the charon = moon or double planet (with pluto) is the whole barycentre thing. The IAU will probably make Charon a dwarf planet candidate if it beleives in needs to be reclassifed -- Nbound 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro

I am very much opposed to the definition debate becoming the intro, or at least the first part of it (the lead of the LEDE). It's not a good thing IMO that we can have a thousand edits in two weeks and no one sees fit to mention composition. After a couple of edits, the lead now details: orbital distance, a comparative to the Moon on mass, composition, orbital details, comparison to satellites. This is a sound way to introduce an astronomical body I hope.

After that, the designation debate is discussed. Of course, it should be here and be given due weight, but it shouldn't be the only thing matters. Pluto is going to be a fifth the mass of the moon regardless of how we classify it. Info of that sort should be the first info we introduce. Marskell 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Protest over Pluto Demotion

I started the topic before, and I still think it needs to be included in the finished article. There is still anger over the demotion of Pluto to dwarf. There is a massive petition under way to the IAU and protests. For example: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep02/0,4670,PlutoProtest,00.html I think this should be reflected. The "Save" Pluto Movement is still strong.

Michel69.156.68.239 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Fox news reports "about" 50 people held a good-natured protest at the university where Tombaugh founded the astronomy department. This is trivia, and the word "demotion" is indicative of the problem - people are anthropomorphising lumps of rock. Petitions are about making people feel good, they aren't going to change the decisions of professional bodies. --ajn (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Accept the people in the article are themselves professionals. And it's less about a professional body and more about who can and can not discover a planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.146.215 (talk • contribs)

"Who can and can not discover a planet"? What on earth has the IAU decision got to do with that? --ajn (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Information like that should only be added if its "re-promoted", theres no point writing info on something that will be dead in a few months. -- Nbound 23:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

this is very important: [1] Planetary scientists (the people who really study planets) and some other astronomers will continue to use the word planet. Not really a surprise, as these people are interested in the object itself and not really its orbit, unless it is useful for studying seasons. I really think this article is POV, not because of the dwarf thing but because it is really unbalanced, it always has been even when it was classified as a planet, now it is even worse. I know there is a very strong anti-Pluto bias in this wikipedia and a POV tag will be simply removed, and the issues not solved. Besides science is not voted. The issue is that they don't want so many planets, because the discoverers will be less important, see the 2003 UB313 article, it seems the Brown's personal page with useless discussion about Lila, etc... --Pedro 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced that documenting a protest (regardless of its merits) has a place in an encyclopedia unless it touches off subsequent significant events. Right now, protests against Pluto's reclassification has not caused a significant subsequent historical event to happen as a result. Will the fact that this was protested still have meaning in a century from now, when people reads over our work? When you look in old and modern encyclopedias, do you see a mention of protests over reclassification of Ceres from planetary status?

Protests do seem to be worth documenting if they cause or are part of a larger subsequent historical event, such as the Boston Tea Party being a precursor to the American Revolution. Keep in mind that it does not matter what I personally think of the decision to reclassify Pluto; just need to make sure things lives up to WP's editing standards. One has to be careful in honoring WP:NPOV, as well. Dsf 23:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And if anything every comes of the protests then document it... but if nothing does theres no point. And Pedro i doubt astronomers care abotu how important they are from discovering planets, the fact is there is a clear difference between these smaller "planet-like" objects, and the "true" planets. The debate has been raging for over a decade and it is good they have finally reached a non-arbitary consensus. -- Nbound 23:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe there were no protests oven Ceres reclassification in the 19th century, at least with a scientific ground as they could not see Ceres disk, in telescopes it was star-like not planet-like. But recently there were scientists that said that Ceres was really a planet, although Ceres has changed its status to a better one (leaving space rocks behind, I wasn't expecting that so soon... ), and rocks are now classified as rocks not as minor planets, Pluto is really a issue. The problem is not being a dwarf, but a dwarf planet not being a planet. I'm 100% sure that this article does not have a NPOV. But I won't put the POV tag, because that will be useless. But people should think twice or review the article. The first IAU definition cleared things; the last one blurred (they just wanted a definition because they saw that in different countries people would start calling planet to more/less objects, and sooner or later we would have countries recognizing 12 planets, other 8, other 3, others 30), besides voters did not want too many planets, but their desires do not change nature. But that's my opinion. I'm not asking my opinion to be added to the article, but an important section of scientists that study planets are against this definition, that is not merely a petition, remember we are talking about science not politics.--Pedro 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think this resolution will stop study of the dwarf planets, its a reclassification, not a demotion to a lesser status, besides Pluto and Ceres will both have probes visiting within the next decade, and even the dwarf planet candidate Vesta will have a probe visit. And the ones to the bodies in the asteroid belt were decided before the IAU passed this resolution for Ceres to be reclassified -- Nbound 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The professional protest over the planet definition. There are several hundred astronomers who refuse to use the new definition. ^_^ http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060831_planet_definition.html ...and also, http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new definition in the next 3 years that not only keeps Pluto as a ice dwarf planet, but includes Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Ceres as "dwarf terrestrial planet" Earth has more in common with Ceres than it does Jupiter. But if Sedna is alone, yet round, we're going to have fun! All this to say that this article is being edited well. Cheers! Hopquick 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because a few hundred astronomers refuse to use the new definition, doesn't mean that study of dwarf planets will stop. First, it's only a few hundred astronomers. There are more than a few hundred students studying astronomy at the local University. A few hundred astronomers are replaceable. But even those few hundred shouldn't just stop studying something just because other people don't think they should be named the same thing. If they stop studying because of the IAU decision, then IMNSHO, they aren't Scientists. All this discussion reminds me of the discussions over Relational databases. The scientists had a great definition for "relational database", and the rest of the world started following this new definition by Larry Ellison et. al. But that hasn't stopped the study of so-called "Truly relational datbases", in fact, because of their dedication to the cause, it has actually increased it. But, if you think that the article is not NPOV, then be WP:BOLD, fix it. Personally, I think that the article doesn't need more referencing of the controversy, but I wouldn't revert a change that expounds on it more. McKay 15:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It probably belongs in definition of a planet, with a link on this page to the protest subheader of that.Hopquick 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my point. If we can't agree here. Imagine what it's like their out there beyond the "wiki". Ask most people and they think the IAU is crazy. Personally I think the new Pluto article should mention disagreement, regardless of how you feel, it's a fact that people disagree. It’s a controversial decision, and any encyclopaedia would mention it. You can see the divisons here. I know this is not an exhaustive list...

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Is_Pluto_a_Planet_Astronomers_Vote_JHU_Takes_Straw_Poll_999.html http://www.ontariosciencecentre.ca/scizone/brainz/hamilton/pluto_vote.asp http://scienceline.org/polls/ http://www.pollpub.com/do-you-believe-pluto-should-be-a-planet.aspx http://www2.ljworld.com/polls/2006/aug/pluto/ http://www.dpolls.com/PollPage.aspx?PollID=9659 http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/science/article/0,1713,BDC_2432_4389495,00.html http://www.focusmag.co.uk/voteList.asp?item_ID=20031

Michel 69.156.70.56 11:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I don't understand at all why is there so many noise in US about the Pluto status? Science is "the state of the art" of the human comprehension of nature. And of course it can changes. Newton theory was the state of the art until Einstein. Pluto was considered as a planet. It is not now. The god of the hells remains in his kingdom.

The fightback begins...

This is what this article says:

1. 300 astronomers have signed a "petition" (not actually a petition, as it is not petitioning anyone to do anything). The petition says that they disagree with the IAU decision, and will not use the new definition of "planet". It doesn't say anything about Pluto. Everyone has signed as an individual, not as a representative of any other organisation.
2. The petition organisers are "hoping to" organise a conference next year to come up with another definition of "planet". Not necessarily to reinclude Pluto, but to define the term by what they feel is a better method. The article says that although the astronomers quoted want to expand the number of objects considered planets, others disagree with them (obviously, or there'd be no point in having a discussion).
3. The IAU (the official body) cannot change the decision until 2009 when it has its next general assembly. The "petition" admits this.

How do we get from that to "parts of NASA" actively working to have the decision overturned? Wishful thinking. --ajn (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct Andrew. The IAU is the governing body here. It is internationally recognized by astronomers and nations as the official authority responsible for naming stars. Sure, 300 people think that the definition is wrong. The comment "equal to the number of IAU voters" is also wrong. The people who made the decision are the authorities. If 300 English professors get together and sign a petition saying that the letter 'y' should be considered a number, and not a letter, they would be wrong. Maybe it's notable, and should be included in wikipedia. (if the event gets significan't press coverage) But they are still wrong. In this case, the petition doesn't even mention Pluto in their petition. They don't even claim to object with the classification of pluto as a dwarf planet. What they do claim, is that the definition is not sufficient and that they won't use it. So, all such complaints should be logged in Definition of "planet", or 2006 redefinition of planet. Any further comments here are rightfully going to be removed. McKay 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. 300 people are objecting to the redefinition. 247 voted for the redefinition. Basic math does apply here. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also regarding the bit about NASA. Please peruse NASA's New Horizon's website. They repeatedly refer to Pluto as a planet and the ninth planet on the site. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NASA does not determine what is what. -- Nbound 23:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No but they do have a say in what is what. As do more then the 247 members of a 9400 member organization. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Nasa Horizon page Pluto is not a planet according to NASA. Sure, there may be old pages that call pluto a planet, but old pages don't mean that that's what they belive. I've got some old documents that claim that I'm 16 years old. Just because I haven't burned them, or crossed out the number 16, and replaced it with the correct number, doesn't mean that I think I'm still 16. Also, let me explain to you how the IAU works, because it appears as if you don't understand. The IAU is the International Astronomers Union. Certain countries become members, as well as certain individuals. These countries are members via their national astronomical organization. [lettre=U For the United States, this is the] National http://www.nas.edu/ Academies]. They consist of National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. When it is said that "The IAU also serves as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies and any surface features on them." That means that the United States as a government (and the UK, Japan, Russia, Germany, Australia, Canada, China, France, Indonesia, Brazil and a plethora of others) call them the authority on this matter. 300 independent astronomers means nothing. 300 unified astronomers means nothing. When JohnnyBGood says "the 247 members of a 9400 member organization", that is a serious underrepresentation. Those 9400 members represent billions of people on the earth (just the countries I listed above represent over 3.3 billion people). Just like if your congressmen vote for (or against) something. It can become law, and because you live in a society that believes in representation. you should adhere to their decisions. Sure, "When in the course of human events..." you can protest if you feel necessary. But until those protests come through. You're going to have to deal with it. No, NASA does not have a say in what is what. They have relegated that privilage to the IAU. What does NASA DO? "In one sense, it's very simple: NASA explores. NASA discovers. NASA seeks to understand. To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for more than 45 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?" Not "What we will call what we find." NASA does not name and classify objects in space. McKay 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• McKay, stop fantasising, please remember, you and others: THIS IS NOT POLITICS! every scientist has something to say on this. And that is an important group of astronomers and planetary scientists, even if they were not so many, they would still be important. I received the info on NH and it is very clear that for them the new categorization of Pluto didn't occur. They said nothing about it, even if, they sent info when the IAU GA occurred and that Pluto would remain a planet under the original draft. Remain your discutions within science. It is obvious that the IAU definition is very important, but it is not the bible. Did you saw a later map of the interior of the solar system, or like many you just saw a classic version of it? you would be shocked with the "inner solar system scattered disk". --Pedro 10:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Pedro, you and others need to realize THIS IS NOT SCIENCE! In Science, you can't just vote on something. If a whole bunch of scientists, even all of them, got together, and agreed that the moon was made of cheese. They would be wrong. This is Language. In order for a group of people to communicate, it is important that they are all talking about the same thing. If I invent a new word, I can't expect that everyone will know what I mean. With regards to scientific nomenclature, certain things need very specific definitions for scientists to be able to communicate. When I use words like "Difference equation" in my research, I mean something very specific. When I use π in an equation, it is generally understood exactly what I mean, even though most people can't give me an exact value for it. Astronomy is in a little of a special case. Thousands of objects are discovered each year. We need a body to name and classify them. For this purpose the IAU was created. They are internationally recognized as the body for making decisions of astronomical nomenclature. When they say an object should be named Template:Lmp, and not Xena. They are correct, and everyone needs to agree with it. Everyone can't choose their own names for things or it would get out of hand. That's why we have the IAU. When they make a decision, it is important that everyone adheres to it. Sure scientists can say "we need more clarification here", but at the end of the day, we need to agree on what words mean. Otherwise I could say something like "Americans are stupid", but when I say "stupid", I mean "intelligent", because I disagree with Oxford's definition of "stupid" it just isn't clear enough for me.
  • I don't really think you read the article on the new horizons page. It states clearly, "When it launched in January 2006 it was with all the prestige of the first spacecraft to study Pluto, the last unvisited planet in the solar system. That changed seven months later, when astronomers decided that Pluto was not a planet. For the time being, New Horizons is at least the first mission to a dwarf planet -- the new class of objects into which scientists dumped Pluto." They state rather plainly that "New Horizons is [a] mission to a dwarf planet". NASA conforms to the definition. They may not like it, but they conform. McKay

Controversy moved?

Yes, I acknowledge that there is controversy, and that it is notable, and that it should be mentioned in wikipedia, but I don't think it belongs here. Definition of Planet or 2006 redefinition of planet. Any real qualms if I move that content there? In any case, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and be extremely strict on the rules. McKay 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:IAU planet debate

I have added Category:IAU planet debate for what I hope is obvious reasons, but personally I consider Pluto's "demotion" to be based on pseudoscience which I hope is rectified very soon. The Fading Light 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor planet number

Looks like Pluto is going to get a minor planet numbering, see http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/MPDes.html . Write "(D4340)" into the text field (with parenthesis, without quotation marks). The code is a packed number meaning Pluto's minor planet number will be 136563 134340. Note that the provisional designation is wrong (Pluto does not have one). The code of 2003 UB313 is (D6199).--JyriL ^talk 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. But it says that (D4340) Pluto is just 5628 T-3 aka asteroid 134339. But it also says that for (D4339). Can anyone explain that? Derek Balsam 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably a glitch in the software — Pluto doesn't have a preliminary designation, so the previous designation is duplicated.--JyriL ^talk 15:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been updated. Just type Pluto and you get (134340) Pluto.--JyriL ^talk 15:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So I see, thanks. I see also that its alternative designation is "X". Now that is funny. Derek Balsam 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wish that it would be DP1 Ceres since it was first...then DP2 being whichever was discovered next...it might be one of the 3 big asteroids. The number thing means that "they're just pretending it's a dwarf planet" -- Dwarf Planet = Asteroid :( 70.177.71.206 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)