Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The Pluto problem

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» The Pluto problem

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Most of us feel a bit dissapointed that Pluto is 'not really a planet'. And there are bound to be all sorts of disputes as new planets are discovered, and no clear distinction as to what a 'planet' is.

I have considered that for something to be a planet, it must have an atmosphere. So Mercury would not be a planet, whereas some of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons would be planets. I'm not even sure wether Pluto has an atmosphere or not.

My reasoning is that the term should not be arbitrary, and celestial bodies with an atmosphere are 'viable' in the sense that they may be able to hold life. Any space colony would most likely need an atmosphere to survive on such a world, as it could process the atmosphere for essential elements like oxygen.

@Poseidon,

If Pluto was to remain a planet, then astronomers would have had to add Eris and Ceres to the list of planets. Rather than complicate the solar system with more planets, they did the right thing and defined them all as dwarf planets. The reason for doing so was to eliminate the arbitrary use of the term planet.

@Poseidon,

Quote:

Most of us feel a bit dissapointed that Pluto is 'not really a planet'.

Curious indeed! Why would you (and assume that others) have any 'feelings' at all regarding the reclassification of a relatively small rock (that extremely few have ever actually even seen) hurtling through space? Disappointed? What expectation wasn't fulfilled? What the damage? Have you gotten attached to the lessons of childhood education ("You! Copernicus! Name the nine planets for me!"), identify with them?
Hmmm, a bit tangential..
moving on;

Poseidon;51237 wrote:

My reasoning is that the term should not be arbitrary, and celestial bodies with an atmosphere are 'viable' in the sense that they may be able to hold life. Any space colony would most likely need an atmosphere to survive on such a world, as it could process the atmosphere for essential elements like oxygen.

Are methane atmospheres acceptable? Rarified? Chlorine, one molecule per billion cubic yards of 'local' space? Why discount the pun, or asterisks or commas, as possibly supporting life; obviously not as we know it, which is why we shouldn't create 'possibility free' zones in our exploration.
Have we not found 'life' everywhere we look? As our 'looking tools' improve, more 'life' is found! I am following your necessity for 'life-support' (atmosphere) for a definition of 'planet'. We have found life in solid rock, many miles below the surface of the Earth, atmosphere free!

Why, do you think, like 'spring bustin' out all over', everywhere we look we see 'life'?

@Poseidon,

Poseidon wrote:

Most of us feel a bit dissapointed that Pluto is 'not really a planet'. And there are bound to be all sorts of disputes as new planets are discovered, and no clear distinction as to what a 'planet' is.

Most people I know probably have no idea that Pluto is no longer a planet, but is instead a dwarf planet because planet was finally defined in 2006. Personally, I am disappointed when something does not go as well as expected like a musical performance or an exam. If I was to be disappointed by the classification of Pluto, I should reassess my life because my priorities would be out of whack. :brickwall:

@Theaetetus,

I can understand the disappointment it was part of our childhood education..once a planet always a planet... it had a certain romance about it "PLUTO" ah i knew it so well.

@xris,

xris;51285 wrote:

I can understand the disappointment it was part of our childhood education..once a planet always a planet... it had a certain romance about it "PLUTO" ah i knew it so well.

So, what we 'miss' is that support for our delicate sense (illusion) of 'continuity' (which is a common occurance if one continues to learn and grow throughout life).

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

So, what we 'miss' is that support for our delicate sense (illusion) of 'continuity' (which is a common occurance if one continues to learn and grow throughout life).

Im not delicate but i like familiarity with long established icons..Its like destroying a Greek gods image or saying unicorns dont exist, its not right..Pluto is a planet with strange magnificent monsters lurking beneath its surface ..

@xris,

xris wrote:

Pluto is a planet with strange magnificent monsters lurking beneath its surface ..

I hope you are joking... or making a Hades reference.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I hope you are joking... or making a Hades reference.

Ahh Hades ..Pluto , was i joking? if its funny yes if i sound serious no.Who knows what lurks in the underworlds? the gods know..Does Pluto sound anymore like a planet after my defence of its place in our mythology ?

@xris,

xris;51309 wrote:

Im not delicate but i like familiarity with long established icons..Its like destroying a Greek gods image or saying unicorns dont exist, its not right..Pluto is a planet with strange magnificent monsters lurking beneath its surface ..

I wasn't referring necessarily to you, personally... besides;
Santa Claus here tells me that you are spot on!
*__-

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» The Pluto problem

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The Pluto problem

Quick Links

My Account

able2know