Interesting - Earth Has a Second Moon?

[Seliah (Childe of Fyre)]

NASA Just Confirmed That Earth Has A New "Mini-Moon"

Okay, so I don't know if this would technically qualify as a moon.... but it sure behaves kind of like a moon!

I just thought this was really neat, and had to share.

And now I will go get my kevlar on for all the "what is a moon/what is not a moon" arguments before they start.

 

[Miss B]

Do you really think discussing a possible new moon is going to draw the pros and cons we get with 3D apps, and why we prefer one over the other? Hopefully not.

 

[Seliah (Childe of Fyre)]

Do you really think discussing a possible new moon is going to draw the pros and cons we get with 3D apps, and why we prefer one over the other? Hopefully not.

LOL - No, no I don't. That last line was in reference to a more science-based "discussion." There has always been a somewhat heated debate over what constitutes a "moon" - that's what I was jokingly referring to at the end of the post. (Clearly, I did a poor job of it. ^_^)

I just thought it was an interesting find is all.

 

[Lorraine]

I do loves my science But they shouldn't have downgraded Pluto. Once a planet, always a planet

 

[Satira Capriccio]

I rather agree Pluto should not have been downgraded. The part that got Pluto downgraded is that a planet has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit while a dwarf planet hasn't.

But even that clause turned out to be rather arbitrary because several other planets have also not cleared their neighborhood. Earth hasn't (something like 20,000 asteroids are in our orbit). Jupiter hasn't (100,000 Trojan asteroids no less). Mars hasn't. Neptune hasn't (Pluto is in Neptune's "neighborhood").

Perhaps if Earth were in the middle of something like the Kuiper Belt (or had an orbit the size of Pluto's), we'd have a bit more trash in our neighborhood too. Not that we haven't been filling our neighborhood with trash ... what with all the junk we keep leaving in space. Trash the land, trash the sea, trash space ... is there anywhere humans don't fill with trash?

So ... at the point where humans have filled the space in Earth's orbit with enough trash that Earth barely outmasses its trash ... will Earth be downgraded?

The discovery of Eris ... which NASA announced as the 10th planet of our solar system ... is the cause of Pluto being downgraded. The reluctance of some IAU members to add Eris (which has more mass than Pluto) as our 10th planet resulted in the new definition to exclude Eris and all those trillions of other planets that are being and will be discovered in our solar system.

Nothing new in redefining what is a planet. It's been done any number of times throughout history. After all, planets used to be only those heavenly bodies that could be seen by the ancient's naked eyes. In another 50 years or so when Earth is in danger of being downgraded because of all the trash in our orbit, the IAU (or its descendant organizations) will have to redefine planets yet again.

It would have been ever so much simpler (and cleaner) if the IAU had simply defined a planet as a nearly round celestial body in orbit around the Sun which can naturally support Human life.

There. Done. Our solar system has one planet. All the rest is just junk in space. Now it doesn't matter how much trash we spew into our orbit. Earth will always be a planet ... until we push ourselves into extinction. Then it won't matter whether Earth or anything else in our solar system is or isn't a planet.

 

[eclark1894]

I rather agree Pluto should not have been downgraded. The part that got Pluto downgraded is that a planet has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit while a dwarf planet hasn't.

But even that clause turned out to be rather arbitrary because several other planets have also not cleared their neighborhood. Earth hasn't (something like 20,000 asteroids are in our orbit). Jupiter hasn't (100,000 Trojan asteroids no less). Mars hasn't. Neptune hasn't (Pluto is in Neptune's "neighborhood").

Perhaps if Earth were in the middle of something like the Kuiper Belt (or had an orbit the size of Pluto's), we'd have a bit more trash in our neighborhood too. Not that we haven't been filling our neighborhood with trash ... what with all the junk we keep leaving in space. Trash the land, trash the sea, trash space ... is there anywhere humans don't fill with trash?

Uh, to be fair ALL animals and even some plants leave trash. Humans are just the only ones who care.

 

[Miss B]

LOL - No, no I don't. That last line was in reference to a more science-based "discussion." There has always been a somewhat heated debate over what constitutes a "moon" - that's what I was jokingly referring to at the end of the post. (Clearly, I did a poor job of it. ^_^)

I just thought it was an interesting find is all.

No problem, and obviously my "sarcasm" didn't quite make it in my initial reply.

That said, yes it is an interesting find, and I'm also of the opinion Pluto should never have been downgraded. I never quite understood that at all.

 

[eclark1894]

No problem, and obviously my "sarcasm" didn't quite make it in my initial reply.

That said, yes it is an interesting find, and I'm also of the opinion Pluto should never have been downgraded. I never quite understood that at all.

I don't think it should have been downgraded either. After all, Mercury, now the smallest planet is just a little over twice the size of Pluto. And let's face it. the only reason it's neighborhood is clear is because it's sitting next to the biggest vacuum cleaner in the entire solar system... the frickin' SUN!

 

[Seliah (Childe of Fyre)]

And let's face it. the only reason it's neighborhood is clear is because it's sitting next to the biggest vacuum cleaner in the entire solar system... the frickin' SUN!

So true! I don't think there's any planet that has a completely clean neighborhood - except for Mercury!

 

[Miss B]

And let's face it. the only reason it's neighborhood is clear is because it's sitting next to the biggest vacuum cleaner in the entire solar system... the frickin' SUN!

Exactly!! How could anything survive any closer to the Sun than Mercury. Pluto is the farthest from the Sun, so it makes sense it's "neighborhood" would be the most cluttered, or dirtiest. ~shakes head~

 

[Satira Capriccio]

That's what I found so annoying. It doesn't take into consideration at all the amount of space that constitutes a neighborhood.

I rather like what NASA's New Horizons Alan Stern had to say about it in a TED about Pluto's planetary status:

It's a planet. Science doesn't work by voting. Did people vote on the theory of relativity? No! It's either right or it's wrong. Do we vote on whether genetics is a good theory or not? Of course not. Either data supports the observations or they don't. Voting doesn't work in science.

Pluto is as far across as Manhattan to Miami, but its atmosphere is bigger than the Earth's. It has 5 moons, it has atmosphere, weather. If it walks like a duck, it's a duck. We're showing the world this beautiful planet. And it's a double planet, which is even more awesome.

NASA's visit to Pluto has scientists debating the definition of a planet again

Out of 10,000 members, 237 voted in favor of downgrading Pluto and 157 voted to keep Pluto a planet. The rest of the IAU members were not present for the vote. How's that for minority rule?

Note: Another article states the IAU final vote was 206 to 199.

I have complete faith that Pluto will be redeemed and reinstated as a planet. I wouldn't be surprised either if Ceres (located between Mars and Jupiter) was also reinstated as a planet.

 

[Miss B]

I like Alan Stern's quote, as it makes sense. Too many people assume science is black and white with no variation/shades of grey in between. Science is NOT exact, it never can be, so how a group of people (a very small group considering the size of the IAU membership) vote on whether Pluto is a planet? Our solar system changes, however minutely, on a daily basis, otherwise we would never be discovering new planets that come into viewing range. They've been there since the beginning, but we now have the equipment to see them, thanks again to science.

[/end of rant]

 

[Seliah (Childe of Fyre)]

Pluto also has an actual atmosphere. To me, that right there is quite a bit more than just a floating chunk of space debris or space rock.

I think we won't ever stop seeing these definitions changed and updated... the very nature of science itself... as more is learned, outdated information is updated to reflect that... it sort of precludes the idea that "nothing ever changes."

I do feel Pluto is a planet and always has been. I also would not be the least bit surprised to find that there are other planets further out from Pluto that we just haven't had the technology to see yet, too.

And yes, as Miss B points out... the entire system is a dynamic thing. It changes on a regular basis... moment to moment, day to day... things move around out there, after all! LOL

 

[eclark1894]

Pluto also has an actual atmosphere. To me, that right there is quite a bit more than just a floating chunk of space debris or space rock.

I think we won't ever stop seeing these definitions changed and updated... the very nature of science itself... as more is learned, outdated information is updated to reflect that... it sort of precludes the idea that "nothing ever changes."

I will say this, there are several moons in the solar system that have atmospheres like Titan and Europa, but even the IUA doesn't say that an atmosphere is a criterion for planethood. That said, I firmly believe that the only real reason Pluto lost it's "planet" status was that the term "dwarf" planet was offered as a consolation prize for those who wanted to keep Pluto a planet. Otherwise, they would have had to classify it as a large asteroid.

 

[Seliah (Childe of Fyre)]

You make a good point, Earl.

I think - or at least I thought! (LOL) - that part of the definition of what was a planet and what was not, involved whether or not the object orbited around a local star or not. Maybe I'm wrong? Wouldn't be a first time!

Now I have to go look up the definitions of a planet vs. that of an asteroid.

 

[eclark1894]

We have a whole asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, that orbits the sun, so that's not really it. But the planet does have to orbit that star. That's why Io, Titan and Europa are classified as moons and not planets.

 

[Gadget Girl]

First off, thanks for sharing the Nasa link. I was actually at a picnic last night and someone mentioned this and I hadn't heard about it, and was really curious. Now I can read more.

As for the Pluto thing. As a linguist I can tell you that it's purely a semantics argument. It's a natural human tendency to create language categories, that may or may not have anything to do with whether things are actually related or not. It's funny to me that as biologists/zoologists etc are trying to explain that species isn't entirely a hard and fast thing because and that you can't define exactly what is and isn't part of the same species, astronomers are trying to make hard and fast rules for what is or isn't a planet.

Actually I think it was mostly a political thing. If you think about it, there are only a handful of people credit with discovering a planet in out solar system. It was a small elite club. And then this happened:

The discovery of Eris ... which NASA announced as the 10th planet of our solar system ... is the cause of Pluto being downgraded. The reluctance of some IAU members to add Eris (which has more mass than Pluto) as our 10th planet resulted in the new definition to exclude Eris and all those trillions of other planets that are being and will be discovered in our solar system.

Honestly I think some of it also has to do with the fact that even astronomers deep down still want to hold on to the notion that that we and Earth are somehow special. If Earth is one of only either 8 or 9 planets in our solar system, that's okay, but it can't be one of hundreds of planets. That just wouldn't be special enough.

And Pluto does have moons, so it's not just out there on it's own like an asteroid.

 

[eclark1894]

First off, thanks for sharing the Nasa link. I was actually at a picnic last night and someone mentioned this and I hadn't heard about it, and was really curious. Now I can read more.

As for the Pluto thing. As a linguist I can tell you that it's purely a semantics argument. It's a natural human tendency to create language categories, that may or may not have anything to do with whether things are actually related or not. It's funny to me that as biologists/zoologists etc are trying to explain that species isn't entirely a hard and fast thing because and that you can't define exactly what is and isn't part of the same species, astronomers are trying to make hard and fast rules for what is or isn't a planet.

Actually I think it was mostly a political thing. If you think about it, there are only a handful of people credit with discovering a planet in out solar system. It was a small elite club. And then this happened:



Honestly I think some of it also has to do with the fact that even astronomers deep down still want to hold on to the notion that that we and Earth are somehow special. If Earth is one of only either 8 or 9 planets in our solar system, that's okay, but it can't be one of hundreds of planets. That just wouldn't be special enough.

And Pluto does have moons, so it's not just out there on it's own like an asteroid.

FYI, some asteroids DO have moons...
Can asteroids have moons? | Cool Cosmos

 

[Satira Capriccio]

New Horizons scientists have determined Pluto is roughly 1,473 miles wide – which makes it bigger than Eris by about 30 miles. Eris is still more massive though. So ... this whole thing about having to redefine a planet wasn't necessary, since it was the concern that Eris was bigger and would have to be added as a planet.

Oh lookie ... New Horizons' Best Close-Up of Pluto's Surface (May 27, 2016)

Atmosphere isn't a criteria.

It's a planet if ...

• It is in orbit around the Sun.
• It has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape).
• It has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

This definition of whether it's a planet or not only applies to our Solar System.

Apparently, a number of scientists believe that "cleared the neighborhood" is rather arbitrary ... and that it hasn't been sufficiently defined.

I wonder when we're going to downgrade most of the states in the US? Since 50 states seem rather extreme for students to have to memorize. For that matter ... we should probably downgrade most presidents so that students only have a handful that they need to memorize. Amazing that a SCIENTIST would actually state we can't keep adding planets to our list because it would be too difficult for students to have to memorize them. He even commented he wouldn't want to have to memorize even 20 planets.

Wonder if he can name all 50 states and the capitals, as well as all the presidents?

 

[robert952]

Well, to add my 2 kb or maybe 2 mb worth (and because my long time interest in things astronomical since high school when I lectured at a now dismantled planetarium in Charlotte, NC)...

Re:the new moon? Hmm.. looking at the graphic and the basic definition of a moon, not sure it qualifies. Appears the orbit (elliptical) has the sun at one of it's foci ( following Kepler's laws of planetary motion). Therefore it's not not a moon of the Earth. Moons by definition orbit a planet. But, if someone want's to raise 'Earth's ego' by adding a moon, fine... doesn't change the price of a dozen eggs. (Now, i could be misinterpreting the graphic... so, take it with grain of salt. It is a confusing graphic with that long orbit drawn and that 'spirograph' mess around Earth. Not sure what they are actually showing there.)

I like to remind people of our planetary place in the universe. I refer you to the ''Pale Blue Dot' (text) and image (which recently turned 25 years of age). Talk about humbling...

Re: Pluto. I have always thought Pluto had some strange characteristics (mainly its orbit inclination and its approach to Neptune's orbit) which gives it a special status as a planetary body. So, it's down grade was a bit much to accept. But to play semantics, the inner planets are called terrestrial planets (terrestrial being an adjective) and the outer planets (until we get to Pluto) are the Jovian planets (Jovian = adjective). Therefore, Pluto is still a planet with the adjective of dwarf. So take that IAU...

BTW... If because of the relationship of Charon and Pluto orbiting a central point, then the two together creates a binary planet (in the same way we have a some binary stars orbiting a central point). Therefore Pluto/Charon become a unique structure and again gain a stronger planetary status. And we can just give Pluto top billing.

And to end with an OT link (because it is dealing with words and definitions) about halfway through is a word that is OT... ("Plutoed" - listen for it). Bottom line: definitions change... always have.... always will. So, Pluto may become a planet in some change of fate and definition. TED Link. (17 minute video - grab a cup of your favorite. Enjoy.)