Pluto the Dwarf Planet. Why Dwarf? Why Not?

[Nicholas Kang]

Why Pluto is a dwarf planet? It was being demoted to dwarf planet status during the IAU conference.

 

First, what is planet?

 

A planet must fulfill these characteristics:

 

1. It has enough mass to form itself into a spherical shape.

2. It is a celestial body that orbits around a sun.

3. It clears away all smaller objects in its immediate neighbourhood.

 

Pluto fulfills the first 2 but not the last requirement, thus it is a dwarf planet.

 

My question is why they are still objection towards this decision?

 

Are they any reasons that can be proved to show that this decision is wrong?

[Ophiolite]

Why are there objections:

 

1. Nostalgia. Most of us grew up with nine planets; we resist change. Also, poor old Pluto was always something of a misfit, spending its time on the edges of the family, trying to sneak in occasionally nearer the sun. It attracted a lot of affection for the underdog.

 

2. The third requirement is vague and can only be quantified in a subjective manner.

 

3. We've spent all that money on New Horizons and now it won't even investigate a planet!!

 

4. The voting was with a quorum of delegates, but a lot less than a majority of those entitled to vote. (Google Gerrymandering.)

[Nicholas Kang]

As a science researcher, we shouldn`t go by feelings. This is the basic principle in Science and when you are encountering conflicts or problems needed to be solved in Science. You can`t resist change in Science. We did spend money on New Horizons. But that doesn`t mean just because it is not a planet, then we should stop exploring it. It is our duty, as a member of the scientific research community, to reveal the secret of the nature. Because of our curiosity. we are willing to spend money to explore space, to invent rockets, space shuttle and start unmanned exploration missions.

 

If you say New Horizons is just a waste of money because it is not investigating a planet, then how would you explain the fact that probes exploring natural satellites, the Sun and the Main Belt. Just because they are not planets? If so, then Mr. Armstrong shouldn`t land on the moon in 1969.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Ophiolite]

Nicholas, you asked me why there were objections to downgrading the status of Pluto. I gave you the main reasons I could think of offhand. I have no idea why

a) you think that I object to calling Pluto a dwarf planet, or

b) you think that these reasons are views that I hold.

 

If you had asked me why creationists believe what they believe I could have provided a suite of reasons: it would not have meant that any of them reflected my views.

 

Actually I do find the third requirement for a planet is technically inadequate and therefore not good science and not good taxonomy. Consequently I view all classifications under the present system to be flawed. However, since classification systems are ultimately artificial I don't really care what we call Pluto.

[Nicholas Kang]

Sorry, I misunderstood your meanings. Now, I will edit the post. So, basically, all the points that I had pointed towards you shall now be pointed towards those who object this decision made by IAU. I apologize regretfully. Sorry, Mr. Ophiolite.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Delta1212]

Why are there objections:

 

1. Nostalgia. Most of us grew up with nine planets; we resist change. Also, poor old Pluto was always something of a misfit, spending its time on the edges of the family, trying to sneak in occasionally nearer the sun. It attracted a lot of affection for the underdog.

 

2. The third requirement is vague and can only be quantified in a subjective manner.

 

3. We've spent all that money on New Horizons and now it won't even investigate a planet!!

 

4. The voting was with a quorum of delegates, but a lot less than a majority of those entitled to vote. (Google Gerrymandering.)

Also, sort of a 2b and something that wouldn't really matter at all except probably for 1, but the acknowledgement that the lines we use to classify things are essentially arbitrary and you can develop a classification system that would group or exclude pretty much any object that you want for any given category. Combine that with resistance to change without some compelling reason and throw in that there doesn't seem to be a particularly major one for this reclassification and I can see the annoyance.

 

That said, Pluto is still exactly the same object it always was and I don't think it makes all that much difference what we call it, myself.

[Nicholas Kang]

So, Mr Delta 1212, in short, do you agree with the name Dwarf Planet of Planet or You don`t bother it at all?

[Ophiolite]

Sorry, I misunderstood your meanings. Now, I will edit the post. So, basically, all the points that I had pointed towards you shall now be pointed towards those who object this decision made by IAU. I apologize regretfully. Sorry, Mr. Ophiolite.

Nicholas there is no need to apologise. It is a very polite action on your part and I thank you for it, but it is unnecessary. It is easy to misinterpret what has been written. All of us do it from time to time. No harm was done.

 

By the way, I think Delta1212 already gave you his opinion when he said "I don't think it makes all that much difference what we call it."

[Nicholas Kang]

My English is bad and I am stupid. You mean he don`t bother what what we call it? I think so. But this is impossible. You see, I did read an encyclopedia about space. The author did state that astronomers love to classify things. So, if we classify things, that would include Pluto. Then, the problem will arises. Which category should Pluto be fitted into? Dwarf Planet of Planet? It is not the time to just say I don`t care, never mind. Because there are still millions or/and above of KBO or Kuiper-Belt Objects similar to Pluto awaited to be classified. So, are you just going to wait and say Never mind, who cares? No, no, no. The problem is still there if you just sit and do nothing. The same as guys usually thought of drinking beer and the problem would be solved after you wake up tomorrow. No, the problem is still there, no matter how many bottles of beer or wine you have drunk, the problem is still there.

 

And we are going to solve it.

[imatfaal]

Nicholas - what we call a planet is immaterial. Science is based on mathematical models - and these models are language independent. I can work out the orbital characteristics of a body with certain parameters - it could be planet, a dwarf planet, or bertrand russell's teapot the maths remains the same.

 

Taxonomy and classification are very useful and a typically human endeavour - but we must remember that most of this division is purely arbitrary and performed to make ready reckoning easier rather than seeking some deep natural truth. There really is no problem

[Nicholas Kang]

??? No problem???. If no problem, you mean we don`t have to argue

[imatfaal]

Nicholas - ce que nous appelons une planète est sans importance. La science est basée sur des modèles mathématiques - et ces modèles sont indépendants de la langue. Je peux travailler sur les caractéristiques orbitales d'un corps avec certains paramètres - il pourrait être planète, une planète naine, ou la théière de Bertrand Russell les mathématiques reste le même.

Taxonomie et la classification sont très utiles et une entreprise typiquement humain - mais nous devons nous rappeler que la plupart de cette division est purement arbitraire et réalisée pour faire calcul prêt plus facile plutôt que de chercher une certaine vérité naturelle profonde. Il n'y a vraiment pas de problème

[Nicholas Kang]

I still don`t get what you mean???? I am stupid, imatfaal. I am stupid.

I guess you mean is we don`t have to argue. If so, why bother this issue in the IAU conference a few years ago?

[imatfaal]

??? No problem???. If no problem, you mean we don`t have to argue

 

What we call a planet is a matter of language and taxonomy - and it doesn't matter; the outcomes will be the same. My argument remains the same in both English and French - the argument and the expression of it are not the same. The mathematical model and the linguistic description are not the same.

[Nicholas Kang]

You mean the problem is originated from the mathematical model? Not linguistic description.

[imatfaal]

I still don`t get what you mean???? I am stupid, imatfaal. I am stupid.

I guess you mean is we don`t have to argue. If so, why bother this issue in the IAU conference a few years ago?

 

You are clearly not stupid - I know that, you know that, so stop saying it

 

Frankly, I think the stupid thing was the waste of professional and amateur astronomers time at the Conference debating such a nonsense as whether pluto was a planet or not.

[Nicholas Kang]

Great and Bingo! So, thanks, imatfaal. You taught me a lesson. I did learn something new today. Finally, what is wrong with the mathematical model?

Sorry for irritating you if I keep on asking the same question, imatfaal. I apologize regretfully.

Or you mean the mathematical model is just an analogy? Maybe yes?

Sorry

[imatfaal]

You mean the problem is originated from the mathematical model? Not linguistic description.

 

The maths takes no account of the name give an object - you use Kepler and Newton to work out the speed distance of orbits; everything is numbers, units and maths. The problem arises from the pre-occupation of naming, dividing and classifying objects.

 

Science is (should be) completely objective - this means that you can package up your hypotheses, methodologies, and predictions and send them off to another scientist in another country (one day another world hopefully) and they will still work. Given the equations and the data - if the theory is correct there is no way anyone can argue.

 

Taxonomy and classification rely on arbitrary decisions - they are quintessentially subjective; there is no way to test whether my description of a planet is better than Ophiolite's description of a planet (although as I think he is a practising geologist his description is more likely to be accepted).

 

Do you see why we think it is unimportant?

[Nicholas Kang]

Thanks, imatfaal. Thanks and sorry, Now I now why, I know, this time I really know, no kidding. Thanks and sorry. You are right, nothing is wrong with Pluto. Pluto is always there, it is always Pluto, no matter it is a planet or it is a dwarf planet. I hope this reply won`t hurt you anymore, Mr. imatfaal. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

[Cosmobrain]

3. We've spent all that money on New Horizons and now it won't even investigate a planet!!

 

 

I find this sad and hilarious at the same time

[Ophiolite]

Then you should reflect on the fact that I only added it because I dislike lists with only two items on it.

 

And why did someone give you negative rep for that post? Strange and inappropriate.

 

 

 

@Nicholas - please stop apologising. It is unnecessary and ultimately annoying. (And whatever you do, do not apologise for all the apologies.)

[Nicholas Kang]

Don`t ask me this question. if I were you, I will just say: The moderator is going to post a moderator note and moderator warning because I like high reputation. I am scared of moderators like imatfaal. i am being warned once. I don`t like history repeat. It is scary. Look at my signature, and you will know why.

If possible, ignoring the moderator`s note, and with deep thinking skills, you can simply vote that post up. It is not wrong to do that. Because you know that that post shouldn`t be down but up or normal. So, it is your decision. I don`t mean to force you or make you do that. Sorry if I irritate a moderator`s note and if possible no moderator`s warning. Dear moderator, Mr. Ophiolite will follow his decision. I have no intention to force him to do so. Thanks.

[Ophiolite]

Nicholas there have been no moderator notes in this thread. Imatfaal, a moderator, has made posts, but these have been as a member, not in his role as a moderator.

 

I do not know who voted down Cosmobrain's post - I do not care who voted down the post. I simply commented on the fact that I thought it did not deserve a negative rep.

 

You have no reason to be "scared of the moderators". The moderators are almost always very fair in their actions. I do not know why you received a warning before, but you should not take it as some really bad thing. A warning is exactly that - advice that something you have done is against the rules of the forum. It is not the end of the world.

[Nicholas Kang]

Ok, I understand what you mean. Thanks.

[Airbrush]

"...The term dwarf planet was adopted in 2006 as part of a three-way categorization of bodies orbiting the Sun,^[1] brought about by an increase in discoveries of trans-Neptunian objects (objects that are farther away from the Sun than Neptune) that rivaled Pluto in size, and finally precipitated by the discovery of an even more massive object, Eris.^[4]

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planets}