Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous What people know of the Batman franchise | Looks of Restaurant Food Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous What people know of the Batman franchise | Looks of Restaurant Food Next »
Awesome graph.
Don’t get me started on Pluto… it is why I have no faith in science anymore.
What about the word pluto now being used as a verb.
As in, he got ‘plutoed’ from that job.
(move graph line back to Badass)
I don’t think your impressions are justified, basically you’re asking “science” to hold onto beliefs despite a large body of evidence to the contrary.
As far as anyone can tell, Pluto is basically just a large ball of ice. Pluto didn’t even have its own orbit, it crosses Neptune’s orbit. The orbit isn’t even in the same plane as the planets. While I don’t think they did it in the best way, there is no rational reason to pretend that Pluto is a planet.
I expect this to settle out soon enough. We don’t hear of people complaining that Ceres isn’t a planet, and at one time, it used to be considered one.
Actually, it was the question of Ceres and other planetoids that led to Pluto being declared not a planet.
Astronomers decided that, despite the fact that Pluto did have a defined orbit (you mock it, but in reality it’s orbit is reasonably planet-like in nature compared to most other things orbiting the sun), it has moons, and it is still far too large to be considered an asteroid.
The solution was instead of promoting anywhere from 2 to 20+ other objects to planet status, they could just label the new group “planetoids” and drop Pluto down a level.
ya not cool to make pluto guys
mock* ma spellin is terible
No, it’s orbit isn’t “planet-like” in sense you mean. It is in a 2:3 resonance with Neptune, just like a slew of other objects in its same orbital space. In other words, its orbit is far more “asteroid-like” (as in, punked around and dominated by some other, larger object). It resides quite well in the Kuiper Belt and is thus a Kuiper Belt Object.
On another point: how is being reclassified from “planet” to “KBO” a “demotion”?!
Pluto is both a KBO and a planet and should therefore be dually classified. Most KBOs are not large enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium and become geologically differentiated. These are characteristics of planets, not asteroids. What Pluto is compositionally and its size makes it different from most KBOs. Blurring that distinction overlooks these major characteristics.
The other objects in a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune are much tinier, and none of them are spherical. Resonance orbits have been found in exoplanet systems where two giant planets orbit in 2:3 resonance with one another. These are gas giants larger than Jupiter. And resonance orbits don’t make something an asteroid. There are asteroids in very circular orbits between the Mars and Jupiter. Asteroids can have circular orbits just like planets can have elliptical orbits. This goes back to the fact that we cannot define an object solely by where it is. We also have to take into account what it is. Otherwise, we would end up with gas giants bigger than Jupiter in other star systems being called asteroids! The so-called “demotion” was wrong because it overlooks the issue of what an object is, classifying it only by where it is.
I warned you not to get me started. : )
O.K., I won’t ask “science” to hold on to obsolete ‘beliefs’ but I will ask “science” not to ‘jump the gun’ and put things in textbooks such as this, as fact.
*face palms*
*blinks* Pluto does NOT meet criteria to qualify as a PLANET, and DOES to qualify as a PLANETOID. And really? I don’t think they, ah, ‘jumped the gun’
*Joins ‘d’ in facepalming, now*
How is 17 years “jumping the gun”?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
Actually, Ceres is a planet if you use the criteria of being in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning it is large enough for its own gravity to pull it into a round shape. When this happens, these objects become geologically differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, just like the Earth and unlike any asteroid, most of which are rubble piles. In the 19th century, telescopes were not powerful enough to resolve Ceres into a disk, which is why it was given the name “asteroid,” which means “star-like,” as in point of light. Now, we know that it is spherical, and this makes it substantially different from most objects in the main asteroid belt. When Dawn gets to Ceres in 2015, these differences will become easily apparent.
Also, Pluto is not just a ball of ice. It is actually estimated to be 70 percent rock. Earth is far more like Pluto than like Jupiter. And as said before, if you study the 400+ exoplanets found so far, in many systems, you will see several giant planets all orbiting in different planes. That does not make them not planets.
English please.
What, was that in French or something?
oh pluto
we will miss yuuuuuuu
Poor dog…
Mickey must be angry!
I was waiting for someone to mention the dog.
Pluto is actually considered to be a “plutoid” now. That’s right, there’s an entire class of objects named after Pluto.
This makes me not so upset about Pluto not being a planet.
Yea,it’s too cool to not have it’s own class of objects.
It’s a non-conformist! lol
cool. this is insightfull and irrelevant
Sorry pluto, but I’m afraid due to sheer recklessness, you are now no longer allowed to be a planet.
Why the hell is Pluto having a moon half of it’s own size more badass than Plutonium being used in the bomb? The graph should peak at 1970, and begin it’s descent at 1978.
Ok, “Having a moon half as big as itself” is not more badass then “Plutonium being used in the bomb”, but:
“Having a moon half as big as itself” AND “Plutonium being used in the bomb” together (remember, those things are cumulative) is still better then “Plutonium being used in the bomb” alone.
The line should have stayed at “Neutral” right up until 2006, when it would jump up to “Badass”. I mean, who cared about Pluto before it got downgraded?
It got reclassified, not downgraded.
Pluto was greeted with worldwide hysteria when Tombaugh discovered it. I think we can agree that this is just a joke (shocking!, I know).
Can’t be long before Laurel Whatshername shows up to whine about how Pluto is too a planet.
Pluto is so a planet!! In fact it’s the best planet eva!!!
I wondered about that. I can’t vouch for Wikipedia’s correctness, but the article on Plutonium says “McMillan named the new element after Pluto,” and that he “had recently named the first transuranium element after the planet Neptune and suggested that element 94, being the next element in the series, be named for what was then considered the next planet, Pluto.”
“In 1905, Percival Lowell, an American astronomer, found that the force of gravity of some unknown object seemed to be affecting the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. In 1915, he predicted the location of a new planet and began searching for it from his observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. He used a telescope to photograph the area of the sky where he thought the planet would be found. He died in 1916 without finding it. In 1929, Clyde W. Tombaugh, an assistant at the Lowell Observatory, used predictions made by Lowell and other astronomers and photographed the sky with a more powerful, wide-angle telescope. In 1930, Tombaugh found Pluto’s image on three photographs. The planet was named after the Roman god of the dead. The name also honors Percival Lowell, whose initials are the first two letters of Pluto. ”
Why trust Wikipedia when you can go to NASA!
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/pluto_worldbook.html
There was no question about whether the planet was named after the god. But just because X is named after Y, and Y was named after Z doesn’t mean that X was named after Z.
Technically, it does. Look up the Transitive Property (If a = b and b = c, then a = c.)
I was watching the science channel a while ago and they said that Pluto was named by some little girl for a reason I don’t remember, but I’d trust Nasa’s info more.
How topical!
Isn’t Pluto a planet in the Futurama episode with the penguins? There we go, we know we’re going to classify it as a planet again at some point in the future, might as well just do it now.
pluto is a dug!
Who cares if it’s a planet? What I wanna know is when are we gonna bomb it, moon-style?
Pluto and Ceres are both planets. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity–a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. Ironically, the IAU “demotion” increased Pluto’s popularity as a beloved underdog rather than decreasing it.
bestest. planet. eva!
I agree with 99% of what you said, minus one thing:
“A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.”
Where the chunk of rock is matters drastically. In order to be a planet it has to have a an orbit with eccentricity less than some given value, around a star. A chunk of rock the size of Earth or Pluto, orbiting on an extremely eccentric orbit (such as a comets) or being so distant from any star that it is not part of a system can not really be called a planet.
Comets are very small chunks of ice and some rock nowhere near the mass needed to pull themselves into a round shape. This, not their orbits, is what makes them comets. We have actually found many exoplanets in highly eccentric orbits around their stars–way more eccentric than Pluto’s orbit–and these are giants the size of Jupiter or larger. One giant planet has been found to have a comet-like orbit. No one is arguing they are not planets because they have these eccentric orbits.
IAU’s definition sucks—according to it, Jupiter isn’t a planet. However, Stern et al.’s insistence that the definition of planet be strictly based on stand-alone physical characteristics doesn’t make much sense either.
Classification schemes ought to help one understand the objects being classified. Calling Pluto, Eris, Ceres “planets” ignores the fact that they are in shared orbital spaces. Classifying them as KBO’s and asteroids because of their orbital natures leads us to understanding the layout and formation processes of the solar system.
Oh, and how is a reclassification a “demotion”? Is Pluto’s salary any less now…?
srsly, the top mark of the graph should have been when Disney Studios named an animated character Pluto, in the same year Pluto was discovered: 1930.
This entire thread is one gigantic facepalm.
Pluto is still a planet in my heart. I don’t care WHAT science says!!!
Amen.
I was just about to say that.
Amen to that, dude!!
Say Whaaaaaaaaat?! Tha’s mess’d up…
Yeah, and panda’s are still raccoons no matter what those biologists say!
So should we re-re-classify Ceres, Pallas, Juno,… as planets too? To what purpose? How does classifying Pluto a planet help ANYONE in understanding the nature, layout, formation of, the solar system?
Classifying it as a KBO helps in all three. Thus, just as with Ceres, Pluto gets reclassified.
Ceres, definitely yes. Pallas and Vesta are borderline cases, as they appear to have been spherical only to later have been impacted by an asteroid that lobbed off a part of them. Studies of Pallas and Vesta have shown they possess qualities of “planetary embryos,” and unlike most asteroids, were in various stages of becoming planets before something–probably the impacts–halted the process. So Pallas and Vesta should probably have their own categories–maybe something like “sub-dwarf planets.” Juno is basically an asteroid.
In 2011, Dawn will get to Vesta, and we will learn a lot about it, including information that will show it may be differentiated geologically and be more planet-like than formerly believed.
Classifying Pluto and Ceres as planets helps distinguish these objects from asteroids, which is important. As for the layout and formation of the solar system, even some of the largest planets are believed to have formed in places different from their current locations. Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune likely formed closer to the Sun and were pushed further out by the impact of Jupiter. An important issue to study is how and why objects like Pluto grew large enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium and what stopped the intermediate objects, like Pallas and Vesta, from getting this far.
YO PLUTO I’M REALLY HAPPY FOR YA’LL IMMA LET YO FINISH BUT NEPTUNE HAS ONE OF THE GREATEST ORBITS OF ALL TIME!
BWAHAHA! I live in Illinois, Pluto is still a planet here!
Dont worry pluto, i’m not a planet either. Man, i grew up and was taught that pluto was a planet, i still do consider it one, and i’m gonna teach my kids that pluto is a planet too
So what you people are (mostly) saying is that Pluto must be a planet, because in space there are only 5 types of objects: planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and stars. Good luck with that.
Thanks guys… I’m glad you like my graph! Frontpage stardom! (Thinking about quitting my job and going on tour).
A few comments about your comments…
-Thanks Yakumo Fuji for defending the cumulative effect building to badass status
-I didn’t expect such a heady debate, but it’s better than threadcrapping!
-Thanks to all you two initial folks for defending my assertion that Plutonium was named after the planet. Even if it’s not true (I believe it is, though) it still has a net positive effect on the badass quotient (BQ)
-L., Pluto is still a planet in my heart as well.
WOW actually comments related to the graph! I enjoyed reading them as astronomy is my great hobby.
And – yes – Pluto is still a planet in my heart.
Pluto, discovered in 1930 and named after Πλουτων [ploutōn], the Greek god of the underworld.
This thing is a history fail. “The Bomb” wasn’t used until 1945. The Manhattan Project didn’t even begin until 1942. Its precursor, the Uranium Committee made some progress with fissile material in the period from 1939-1942, but that was with Uranium-235, not plutonium.
It’s okay, Pluto. I’m not a planet, either.
Uhm… Plutoniumbomb already in 1940? ORLY?
Jupiter’s not a planet, either. It has asteroids orbiting in the same orbit.
So it didn’t clear its orbit.
Yeah, Jupiter is a planet, and so is Pluto.
The asteroids in Jupiter’s orbit are Trojan asteroids that are held in Lagrangian points by the balanced gravity of Jupiter and the Sun.
Pluto has an orbit that is controlled by Neptune (in a 2:3 resonance)
So from a dynamical stand-point, Jupiter and Neptune are dominant objects. Pluto does not dominate Neptune.
Dynamical dominance was never a requirement for an object to be a planet until a tiny group of IAU members decided so in 2006.
We have found exoplanet systems with two giant planets orbiting in a 2:3 resonance with one another. By the IAU’s definition, neither would be considered planets. Does this make sense?
Why not just keep the term dwarf planet as a subclass of planets that are spherical and orbit a star but do not gravitationally dominate their orbits?
To be fair, dynamical dominance we never *expressed* as a requirement since it was never really needed—although one could argue that it was the thought behind the reclassification of Ceres et al. from planet to asteroid.
And the IAU’s stupid definition is not one of dominance, per se but rather explicitly one of orbital clearing. That’s why it’s silly.
The reclassification of Ceres was based on an error. Astronomers of the day (19th century) could not resolve Ceres into a disk and therefore did not know it was spherical. The fact that it is in hydrostatic equilibrium means it is a small planet after all.
^ So?
By IAU definitions, planets need to dominate their region. Both Triton (a moon larger than Pluto that orbits Neptune) and Pluto do not dominate their regions and thus are not IAU planets.
Sadly, that’s not the IAU definition—it must have “cleared” its orbital space. This is what makes the IAU definition stupid as it does de-planet Jupiter.
The IAU definitions are very much a matter of contention, with many professional astronomers having publicly rejected them. Therefore, the IAU positions represent only one side in an ongoing debate. Triton is not considered a planet because it orbits another planet, not because it doesn’t dominate its orbit. Spherical moons of planets are at times referred to as secondary planets. Pluto orbits the sun directly and is in hydrostatic equilibrium. IAU definitions are not gospel truth.
Pluto doesn’t orbit the Sun “directly”, it, and Charon, co-orbit a common barycenter between them—and that center is not inside Pluto.
Pluto and Charon co-orbit one another and orbit the Sun. That makes them a binary planet system.
The idea behind the IAU definition is to clear the orbit or control the orbit (of similarly sized objects). In this case there are 6 scientifically spherical objects (based on Spitzer diameter estimates) in a 2:3 resonance with Neptune. Objects in the 2:3 resonance are known as Plutinos. These 6 spherical objects in the 2:3 resonance are: Pluto, 90482 Orcus, 28978 Ixion, (84922) 2003 VS2, 38628 Huya, and (208996) 2003 AZ84.
Any definition can be nitpicked. It would also be weird to call Pluto a planet based on geophysical characteristics and then exclude Triton, Titan, Europa, etc.
I still prefer to classify planets as either special (the 8 major dynamical bodies), or as a very inclusive group including spherical secondary planets. In the latter case we would already have about 70+ planets in the Solar System. We would have 8 dominant, ~18 secondaries, and 40-60 likely dwarfs.
– Kevin Heider
The IAU wants a planet to dominate its orbit (around the Sun). Neither Triton or Pluto do so since both are very submissive to Neptune. With exo-planets that are in resonance with one another, it would be a shared dominance. Pluto is in resonance withe Neptune, but has no noticeable control over Neptune.
– Kevin Heider
There is no objective reason why “what the IAU wants,” or rather, what four percent of the IAU stated they want in a highly problematic vote, to take precedence when so many professional astronomers, including dynamicists, have serious problems with that definition. It makes more sense to assign the term dwarf planet as a subclass of planet for the smaller ones that are spherical but do not gravitationally dominate their orbits. Otherwise, we are completely ignoring their geophysical characteristics in assigning a definition. Earth in Pluto’s orbit would not dominate or clear that orbit either.
“i pity the fool that says pluto isnt a planet”
wait thats too long…
hny-happy new year
I am absolutely HORRIFIED that Pluto, the planet I grew up with, is now considered an asteroid.
… Pluto never stopped bieng badass to me.
Even astronomers who support the demotion of Pluto do not consider it an asteroid. The IAU vote created a nebulous intermediate category called “dwarf planets,” which, unlike asteroids, are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. The mistake the IAU made was in saying dwarf planets are not planets at all. That doesn’t mean the IAU designated them as asteroids; instead, they created a new category in between asteroids and planets.
LAME