Pleading for Pluto

[beil]

1) Pluto is the quintessential planet (wanderer in Greek) because he wanders more widely on its orbit then any of its peers , even crosses Neptune's way.
2) Pluto permanently occupies a key position in the Bode sequence### @ # 388. Venus 7, Earth 10, Mars 16 Asteroids~28 Jupiter 52, Saturn 100, Uranus 196, Pluto 388:
falling in perfectly ( with 99.5% accurate) in the doubling the orbit distances as we reach into the outer solar system. +3,+6,+12,+24,+48, + 96 spacings

### at the beginning and the end of the Bode sequence there is no doubling but equal spacings of .3 AU between Mercury Venus and Earth, and 9.6 AU, between Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. ( Like telomers at the end of chromosomes.)
so, if you wonder, worry about the title, Pluto the wanderer /planet ---- don't, because he holds securely the reserved place in that distant named pantheon.
Are we not glad Pluto is small, a dwarf, not throwing a possible big weight around over such a reach?

 

[Pinball1970]

1) Pluto is the quintessential planet (wanderer in Greek) because he wanders more widely on its orbit then any of its peers , even crosses Neptune's way.
2) Pluto permanently occupies a key position in the Bode sequence### @ # 388. Venus 7, Earth 10, Mars 16 Asteroids~28 Jupiter 52, Saturn 100, Uranus 196, Pluto 388:
falling in perfectly ( with 99.5% accurate) in the doubling the orbit distances as we reach into the outer solar system. +3,+6,+12,+24,+48, + 96 spacings

### at the beginning and the end of the Bode sequence there is no doubling but equal spacings of .3 AU between Mercury Venus and Earth, and 9.6 AU, between Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. ( Like telomers at the end of chromosomes.)
so, if you wonder, worry about the title, Pluto the wanderer /planet ---- don't, because he holds securely the reserved place in that distant named pantheon.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you asking a question?

 

[beil]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you asking a question?

thanks.-- no, just potting forth facts, waiting for fallout, follow ups

 

[Pinball1970]

thanks.-- no, just potting forth facts, waiting for fallout, follow ups

If you are referring to it's demotion, a vote was taken based on criteria and it failed to meet the requirements.

 

[beil]

If you are referring to it's demotion, a vote was taken based on criteria and it failed to meet the requirements.

No, I do not in any way revisit or critique that process. To my ken, none of the facts I presented here were considered in Pluto's demotion from the planet register. but, Like many of the other local polls in my 95+ years lifetime, they make me wonder, : "What were they thinking?" or " rigged , with limited choices??"

All planets in our solar system are stacked in a systematic way, The orbit spacing doubling with each step out, as detailed in the OP
Pluto is (so far) the top of the stack, with these unique characteristics:

1) It is within 99% of its predicted position @ 39.5 AU versus 38.8 as per Bode! --Only Earth and Jupiter, the most important ones, share that characteristic. now, think about that: over half of all the planetary mass, and the only planet with life, - and little Pluto share the distinction of fitting perfectly into their assigned slots. (10, 52, 388.)
2) Pluto does so despite being the most wayward wander of them all.
3) Pluto fits both the doubling of orbit spacings and the "equal distances at end" feature of the Bode sequence. ( Saturn to Uranus to Pluto) and
( Uranus to Neptune to Pluto) so, to repeat my proposition: let it be resolved, that

based on orbit data, Pluto is among the most planety of planets.

 

[C C]

[...] Are we not glad Pluto is small, a dwarf, not throwing a possible big weight around over such a reach?

Oh, it's the 20-year anniversary since it was demoted? I was wondering about the coincidence of this and all the Pluto headlines popping up this week (kind of a holiday now?). How time flies when you've been relegated from the skybox to stadium toilet duty.
_

 

[No Ghost In This Shell]

What were they thinking?" or " rigged , with limited choices??

There are specific criteria that must be met for a body to be considered a “planet”, and Pluto does not meet them - and neither do any of the numerous other trans-Neptunian objects out in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. That’s just how it is, unless those very criteria get amended again.
And btw - orbital spacing isn’t part of those criteria.

 

[beil]

There are specific criteria that must be met for a body to be considered a “planet”, and Pluto does not meet them - and neither do any of the numerous other trans-Neptunian objects out in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. That’s just how it is, unless those very criteria get amended again.
And btw - orbital spacing isn’t part of those criteria.

That is one of the reasons behind this thread, namely that The criteria for the vote were possibly drawn up by a local interest group. that were unaware - of the elephant in the room- , which is, that Pluto on it's orbit --- ranks with Jupiter and Earth.
Orbit spacings establish the Wanderer's paths. so,
It might not bode well for your concept of reality if you ignore Bode's consequential sequence.

 

[Pinball1970]

That is one of the reasons behind this thread, namely that The criteria for the vote were possibly drawn up by a local interest group. that were unaware - of the elephant in the room- , which is, that Pluto on it's orbit --- ranks with Jupiter and Earth.
Orbit spacings establish the Wanderer's paths. so,
It might not bode well for your concept of reality if you ignore Bode's consequential sequence.

The scientific community decided what the criteria was but it is still just a definition.
I thought it was now a planetoid but it is a called as a dwarf planet, and has "minor planet number."

Nothing about the object itself has changed, just how it is named according to specific technical criteria, by astronomers, the people who know about this stuff.

 

[beil]

The scientific community decided what the criteria was but it is still just a definition.
I thought it was now a planetoid but it is a called as a dwarf planet, and has "minor planet number."

Nothing about the object itself has changed, just how it is named according to specific technical criteria, by astronomers, the people who know about this stuff.

exactly, and what I am pleased to pleading here, is the suppressed fact that
The precise orbit of this small body is it's most striking feature. Bode's numbers predicted the location of these outer, yet undiscovered bodies, and Pluto turned out to fill the bill with 99.5% accuracy.
Pluto, at 39.5 AU, predicted to be @ 38.8 , --- the unsung hero.

 

[beil]

Oh, it's the 20-year anniversary since it was demoted? I was wondering about the coincidence of this and all the Pluto headlines popping up this week (kind of a holiday now?). How time flies when you've been relegated from the skybox to stadium toilet duty.
_

Yeah, there might be a reason for the demotion. The skybox position would expose to light even bigger surprises.
I Did the numbers again today. and:

Pluto's perihelion is 29.66 ~ 30 AU, aphelion is 49.48 ~ 50 AU semi axis 39.31 ~ 40 AU, all pretty close to 99% on target. so:

Pluto in his orbit aced these 3 orbit parameters {30, 40 and 50 times) the Sun to Earth distance. ( 1 AU )
Is the universe old enough to have that happen by pure chance? Perhaps Pluto has friends in high places that know a few things about Nature's laws, physics and math.

 

[James R]

Bode's "law" seems to be a coincidence. And it isn't particularly accurate anyway.

 

[beil]

Bode's "law" seems to be a coincidence. And it isn't particularly accurate anyway.

Right, That is why I prefer refer to a Bode-type "sequence" a geometric progression that fails below Venus and above Uranus, but has equal distances at the lower and upper ends instead.
As you see in post 11, there are even more surprising details, coincidences there.
Accuracy? the most deviant is Mars, with 16 in theory, 15.4 AU as measured. still well within the 1.66 aphelion.
Importantly, Earth and Jupiter are right on. ( more then 2/3 of all planetary mass, and 100% of live matter.)

 

[James R]

Bode's law fails badly for the planet Neptune, being off by about 25% from the "prediction".

Does that mean that Neptune should no longer be considered a planet?

 

[No Ghost In This Shell]

The criteria for the vote were possibly drawn up by a local interest group

No. It was decided upon by the IAU, after a lengthy process of consultation, discussion and debate. There was also considerable disagreement, and the final vote was far from unanimous - but it was a majority decision. The central point was that the contribution a body makes to the overall architecture of a planetary system is just as important as its intrinsic properties.

 

[beil]

Bode's law fails badly for the planet Neptune, being off by about 25% from the "prediction".

Does that mean that Neptune should no longer be considered a planet?

well no, , because, as pointed out in earlier threads, Bode's old formula is flawed, but, as amended , There is a lower limit for planetary distances, ,3 AU, and an upper limit 9.6 AU. Example,
Neptune falls 9.6 AU between both from Uranus up and and Pluto down, for a total 19.2. - ergo: Saturn 100, Uranus 196, Neptune 292 Pluto 388. thank you!
Neptune has its status , so has Pluto. via their place in the amended Bode sequence.

 

[beil]

No. It was decided upon by the IAU, after a lengthy process of consultation, discussion and debate. There was also considerable disagreement, and the final vote was far from unanimous - but it was a majority decision. The central point was that the contribution a body makes to the overall architecture of a planetary system is just as important as its intrinsic properties.

sorry, calling the august body "a local interest group" was disrespectful, but Pluto validates the Bode formula, while bigger, neighbouring Neptune contradicts it. It seems tempting to highlight Neptune and send Pluto into obscurity via demotion. thus diminishing Bode in the process. imho

 

[James R]

There's no physical justification for Bode's "law". It's just a mathematical curiosity, as far as I am aware.

Modifications to the original rule to try to make it "fit" better strike me as ad hoc rationalisations - a desire to cling onto something that was never very valuable in the first place.

 

[beil]

There's no physical justification for Bode's "law". It's just a mathematical curiosity, as far as I am aware.

Modifications to the original rule to try to make it "fit" better strike me as ad hoc rationalisations - a desire to cling onto something that was never very valuable in the first place.

James, that is a fitting term, making the ratios of the 'Bode' sequence fit. --of course,

It is the essence of the scientific process, -: to formulate a theory, and then make predictions of situations that result from that concept, -and if possible, then to modify the Theory so as to also account for these new findings .
The 'Bode'# geometric progression is accurate within 5% for all but Neptune, which fails the test, but fits exactly between 2 correct and accurate positions. ( see Uranus @ #196 and Pluto @388) so, the
Accepted scientific procedure demands that the Theory or new 'law' be amended to include terms that also cover the new results. -therefore,
Putting a lower limit of .3 AU and upper limit of 9.6 AU on orbital spacings now defines all planet positions correctly.
# giving also credit to all the other unnamed contributors

as to "physical justifications" ;There are theories out there that use the harmony of the numbers in 'Bode law' as a backdrop for standing wave and resonances of the sun - proposals.

 

[beil]

No. It was decided upon by the IAU, after a lengthy process of consultation, discussion and debate. There was also considerable disagreement, and the final vote was far from unanimous - but it was a majority decision. The central point was that the contribution a body makes to the overall architecture of a planetary system is just as important as its intrinsic properties.

please note that the OP, title does not question the good decision of the IAU. Of course Pluto does not influence, or help create "the architecture" of the Solar system the way Jupiter does, (what with it/him preventing a big body to form at the Asteroid predicted position of #28.) but
Pluto confirms the existence of an underlaying architectural design. because of the precise outer sphere it defines. To wit:

Confirming the doubling of orbit spacings., being the 6th of them!!!
Having its perihelion @30 AU, Medium @ 40 Au and Aphelion # 50 AU, (precision!) and
orbiting @ 4 times the Saturn distance, with The Ringed one, Uranus and Neptune making up that total quartet. so: No,
Pluto did not influence this Shell design, but
Confirmed by its presence the existence of an architecture that is not dependent on any one single planet's prowess. Therefore

Let us call Pluto a Passive Planet A Wrangled Wanderer