debate on the solar system

[cilu]

Seems that a new debate on the solar system is starting today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060813/...sc/planet_spat

The conclusion could be demoting Pluto as a planet or adding new planets (such as Xena) to the list.

[Yves M]

Yeah well, I think it would be easier if Pluto were demoted to "big icy rock" in the Kuiper belt.

[Kheun]

Agree. If Pluto is consider a planet, other larger objects in the Kupier belt may may also be considered as planets.

[mrRee]

so, did they have found where's exactly the Planet Kripton, yet?...or did Superman have lied to me there's a planet called Krypton?....

and if Xena can be a planet, why Xeon can't be an asteroid?...

[cilu]

Yeah well, I think it would be easier if Pluto were demoted to "big icy rock" in the Kuiper belt.

I'm not sure how easy that will be. For sure there will be an inertia of people to accept that.

[aio]

Acceptance to that will not be as hard as accepting centuries ago that Earth is not the center of the universe or -- at least -- our solar system.

[paradoxresolved]

We still haven't accepted that. We still think the Universe cares whether we call Pluto a planet or an icy rock. It's just as meaningless in scale as whether or not a vehicle is a Ford or a Dodge. Either way, Pluto (for whatever we decide to call it) will be here long after we are.

[Kheun]

Whether to label Pluto as planet doesn't matter to most of us. In fact, it wouldn't affect our day-to-day life. However, IMHO, it does matter in academics. For one , textbooks have to be reprinted. Another, it helps clarifying on how we classify space objects so that they can be studied appropriately.

[paradoxresolved]

While I will admit that I often play the Devil's Advocate, I must say that any successful line of academic books (such as anything in its 5th, 6th, or 7th edition) will continue reprinting either way. In many ways, I think we bring confusion on ourselves by attaching labels and categories to everything. Anytime something falls in the fuzzy boundry between two categories, we get all worked up.

I'm more interested in patterns, specifically things that remain true regardless of title or category, such as the Laws of Physics. Whether or not Pluto is a planet, icy rock, or a dog, doesn't really matter much in the big picture. On the other hand, if they had observed that Pluto was behaving in a manner that contradicted gravity, then that would be news-worthy.

How much energy do we expend on semantics?

[kirants]

Wonder what impact this demoting will have on astrology

[MrBeans]

Wonder what impact this demoting will have on astrology

Yeah imagine all the kids in school who untill now have been told that there are nine planets suddenly having to consider one planet out , they would not even understand the reason why/how such a thing could happen

[cilu]

specifically things that remain true regardless of title or category, such as the Laws of Physics

Progress of science taught us that the laws of physics are subjeted to changes, as we discover new things and older models of the world/univers prove faulty. As Stephen Hawking said, we cannot prove that the laws of physics (or a theory in general) are correct, we can only create better models for explaining the observations and experiments we are doing and predict future results.

[exterminator]

One thing that I think would be interesting to know is why really are they demoting/promoting Pluto.

I mean, lets get this back to the age when the solar system and its constituent members were named. I mean then too there must have been a "definition" for a planet and quite appropriately that time Pluto would have had fit into it. If not then that would be a flaw that can be corrected now.

Is the definition/requirement for a planet changing? Or have new objects been seen that fit into that old scientific definition of a planet. In the former case, I would suggest introducing a new terminology rather than dirtying the concept of planet. In the latter, those new ones should be added into the planet list of solar system rather than picking on one that has been for so long.

If there are too many such objects that are found fitting the definition then of course a new terminology would be the way to go... giving more precise/quantitative definitions.

[Yves M]

The old "definition" was "something big which revolves around the sun" in a not too strange orbit. Pluto's orbit is quite different from other planets though, since it's more elliptical and it's not exactly in the same plane as the other planets. The thing now is that several other such "big rocks" have been identified in the same region of space as Pluto and some of them are bigger than Pluto. So the choice is to add 25+ "planets" or to demote Pluto to big icy rock.

[aio]

Wonder what impact this demoting will have on astrology

Astrology is reading stars - right? So, no impact I guess.