Talk:Pluto/Archive 9

Consolidated.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

207.255.49.32 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Pluto need to be updated cause it was never downgraded to a dwarf planet....it is a full planet

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zejn0120 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zejn0120 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't get this article

Is it saying that Pluto's orbit will eventually destabilise? Serendi^podous 21:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The original paper suggests that Pluto's current orbit is stable, but close to a strongly chaotic region. They speculate that Pluto could have had a chaotic orbital history even geologically recently, but that more investigation is needed to either confirm or exclude that possibility. Double sharp (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

In the lead please change "Compared to Earth's moon, Pluto has only one sixth its mass and one third its volume" to "Pluto has only one sixth the mass of Earth's moon, and one third its volume." Less clunky and therefore clearer. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:AC06:451F:5433:3CD8 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Serendi^podous 12:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

bloat trimming

The following lines in the "name and symbol" section are way too detailed and belong in notes, but I can't figure out how to move them to notes without disrupting the markup.

For example, ⟨♇⟩ occurs in a table of the planets identified by their symbols in a 2004 article written before the 2006 IAU definition, but not in a graph of planets, dwarf planets and moons from 2016, where only the eight IAU planets are identified by their symbols. (Planetary symbols in general are uncommon in astronomy, and are discouraged by the IAU.)

and

The bident symbol has seen some astronomical use as well since the IAU decision on dwarf planets, for example in a public-education poster on dwarf planets published by the NASA/JPL Dawn mission in 2015, in which each of the five dwarf planets announced by the IAU receives a symbol. There are in addition several other symbols for Pluto found in astrological sources, including three accepted by Unicode: , U+2BD4 ⯔ PLUTO FORM THREE; , U+2BD5 ⯕ PLUTO FORM FOUR, used in Uranian astrology; and /, U+2BD6 ⯖ PLUTO FORM FIVE, found in various orientations, showing Pluto's orbit cutting across that of Neptune. Serendi^podous 23:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I moved that text to the notes, but I'm not sure that we should only mention the anglophone symbols in the text. AFAICT, variants 3 and 5 are common in parts of Europe. There is the potential issue that those variants are only used in astrology, but I don't think that should disqualify them. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, we don't mention the Unicode values for the symbols in e.g. Jupiter, so I'll move that to the notes too. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

£5 reward

Speaking of bloat, I don't think it's notable that Madan gave his granddaughter £5 as a reward. It would be different if it were the observatory, the discoverer or one of the astronomical societies, but not if it's just a family member. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Tombaugh's account of the name

Regarding Burney being "the" proposer of the name Pluto, this is the account in Tombaugh's 1980 book, pp. 134 and 136 [p. 135 is an illustration]. I believe these three paragraphs are the only ones that discuss the name:

Putnam kept pressuring Slipher to select a name for the new planet before someone else did. This privilege really belonged to the Lowell Observatory. There were outside political pressures on naming the planet. Indeed, I received a letter from a young couple in another state, asking that the new planet be named after their newborn child. At first, Mrs. Lowell proposed the name of "Zeus." Then later, she wanted the planet named "Lowell." Still later she wanted it to be "Constance," her own given name. No one favored that name. It was a touchy situation.

In the meantime, over a thousand letters poured in, including those from several other astronomers, suggesting names for the new planet. Three names about equally headed the lists: Minerva, Pluto, and Cronus. It is customary to name planets after mythological deities. If Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, had not already been given to one of the asteroids, the name of the new planet would have been Minerva. Had not Cronus been proposed by a certain detested egocentric astronomer, that name might have been considered. Pluto, the Greek god of the Lower World, seemed the best one to pick. Outside of the Lowell staff, the name Pluto was first suggested by Miss Venetia Burney, age eleven, of Oxford, England. It was cabled by Professor H. H. Turner.

Remembering that Uranus went through three name changes, we wanted to select a name that would stick. Accordingly, the name Pluto was proposed to the American Astronomical Society and the Royal Astronomical Society of England. Both of these bodies approved the name unanimously. By taking the first two letters, the planetary symbol became "♇," for Percival Lowell. Years later, as a result of the naming of Pluto, the well-known fissionable element was named "Plutonium."

I once came across another source, can't find it now, that the promotion of Burney as the namer of Pluto was primarily because it was a delightful story that made good copy. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing in that text that says Burney didn't propose the name, and in fact it corroborates her story, because it mentions other astronomers, and the name would have been sent in by Falconer Madan or one of his American colleagues. If you ever find that source, I think it would be a fantastic inclusion, but without it I don't feel confortable saying she didn't do it. Serendi^podous 00:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course she proposed the name. I never said she didn't. The problem is the romanticized account that makes it look like it was her suggestion that won everyone over. According to Tombaugh, Pluto was the favorite of the top 3 in the thousand or so suggestions they received. Burney's nomination was just the first for Pluto that they received, but there were presumably dozens, perhaps hundreds of others who also nominated Pluto, but whose letters arrived later. That other source I saw also didn't deny that Burney had proposed the name, just said that the reason for Lowell Obs. and the newspapers to promote her story was that it was romantic and made for good copy. As for the interviews with Burney herself, I'm not suggesting anything inappropriate, just that she was only a witness to that morning in Oxford when she heard the news and made the suggestion; no reason to think she knew anything of the selection process at Lowell.

BTW, also added Christy's acct. of the name Charon to that article. Good to hear it in his words, as it differs in detail from what I'd understood of it. — kwami (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't know the full story wasn't in the article, but then I haven't edited Charon much. Serendi^podous 10:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The current state of the article wasn't bad. I hadn't read it in years (I just now copy-edited it a little), and my impression was from years ago. Still, it might be handy to have Christy's account on the discussion page for future editors. — kwami (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that the sentence "Outside the Lowell staff, name "Pluto" had first been proposed..." implies that the Lowell staff concieved the name Pluto before or precisely when Burney did, and there's no evidence of that. Serendi^podous 10:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We report what sources say, and that's what the source says. We'd need much better sources to determine the timeline. Most sources are based on either contemporary newspaper accounts, or on interviews with Burney, neither of which are going to tell us much: the press announcements were minimal, and Burney wasn't there. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ferris (2012) Seeing in the Dark says "a French astronomer had suggested the name 'Pluto' for Planet X in 1919," though that's not directly relevant as we don't know whether any of the nominations of 'Pluto' were based on it. — kwami (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, another account: Kevin Schindler & William Grundy (2018) Pluto and Lowell Observatory, p. 73–79:

Hundreds of letters and telegrams quickly overwhelmed observatory staff. This correspondence, much of it preserved today in Lowell's Putnam Collection Center, offers valuable insight into global issues and prevailing thoughts of the day while revealing the personalities of many of the individuals submitting ideas.

One of those who suggested a name was Venetia Burney [what follows is the typical acct of her suggestion] ... H.H. Turner, who then telegrammed it to Lowell Observatory.

This note would be one of hundreds received by the observatory but stands alone in importance, as indicated in the last paragraph of the May 1, 1930 Lowell Observatory Circular. V.M. Slipher wrote, "It seems time now that this body should be given a name of its own. Many names have been suggested and among them Minerva and Pluto have been very popular. But, as Minerva has long been used for one of the asteroids it is really not available for this object. However, Pluto seems very appropriate and we are proposing to the American Astronomical Society and to the Royal Astronomical Society, that this name be given it. As far as we know Pluto was first suggested by Miss Venetia Burney, aged 11, of Oxford, England."

[follows several paras detailing a "planet-naming craze" and naming contests held by US newspapers etc.]

The precise number of incoming letters and telegrams to Lowell is lost to history. According to a June 23, 1930 letter from the Lowell secretary to Dene, the "observatory received literally 100s of letters and telegrams offering suggestions. Out of this number, some one hundred and fifty suggested the name 'Pluto' be given the planet." With the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the naming, one can imagine that staff simply threw away much of this correspondence.

[Letters/telegrams came from 37 of the 48 states + Alaska, also] Canada, Germany, Korea, England and Mexico. A total of 171 different names were proposed, with 13 listed at least five times:

[these are Pluto, 25 nominations; Minerva, 17; Pax, 14; Juno, 13; Vulcan, 11; Hercules, 8; Apollo, 6; Erebus, 6; Eureka, 6; Peace, 6; Percival, 5; Osiris, 5; Athena, 5]

[this appears to be the numbers in the surviving correspondence, as we have 25 nominations for Pluto rather than 150. — kwami (talk)]

[...]

While many of these suggestions undoubtedly made for good reading, the Lowell staff ultimately chose Pluto. Putnam explained in a press statement the decision to go with a Roman god, in accordance with the other planets. He said, "There have been many suggestions which have been weighed and sifted and suitable ones were narrowed down to three—Minerva, Cronus and Pluto." Minerva was the staff's first choice but was already used for an asteroid, so they decided on Pluto, "the god of the regions of darkness where X holds sway." Putnam pointed out that Pluto's two mythological brothers, Jupiter and Neptune, were already represented in the solar system. "Now one is found for him [Pluto] and he at last comes into his inheritance in the outermost regions of the Sun's domain." In addition, the first two letters of the name—P and L—are Percival Lowell's initials. They serve as the basis for Pluto's official scientific symbol, forever linking Lowell to the planet.

(The parenthetical [Pluto] is in the original text.) The announcement of the discovery was March 13. Turner's telegram was 3 days later:

oxford mar 16
wlt-
    lowell observatory
                flagstaff ariz.
naming new planet please consider pluto, suggested by small girl, vebtia nurney [sic], for dark gloomy planet.
                                turner.

— kwami (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

So what the source are saying is that the Lowell staff did not propose Pluto. They got 25 suggestions for it, but preferred Minerva, which they could not use because it was already the name of an asteroid. So the line "Outside the Lowell staff..." is wrong. Serendi^podous 09:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not "wrong". We have no source saying what the staff may or may not have proposed, only that Burney was the first "outside of the staff." Nonetheless, I've already removed that wording from the article and replaced it with the number of nominations they received for Pluto (which was 150, not 25), saying that Burney's was the first of those. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Resonance ratios

When precession is accounted for, the orbital periods of Styx, Nix, and Hydra are in an exact 18:22:33 ratio.

What does the qualifier clause mean? — I notice that the reciprocal ratio (period vs frequency) can be expressed in smaller numbers, 11:9:6; worth mention? —Tamfang (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction of Roman => Greek origin of the name Pluto

I made Revision as of 02:34, 26 December 2021, correcting Pluto's etymology (the Greek god of the underworld) from "Roman" to "Greek". That revision was reverted. I see now that the page is locked. I'd like to ask that my edit be reinstated.

Thanks! ~Ted/Oliepedia Oliepedia (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT, it's both Greek and Roman. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

From Hades: The Etruscan god Aita and the Roman gods Dis Pater and Orcus were eventually taken as equivalent to Hades and merged into Pluto, a Latinisation of Plouton (Ancient Greek: Πλούτων, romanized: Ploútōn), itself a euphemistic title often given to Hades. I believe Plouton means 'rich', referring to the wealth of mines.

Maybe "Roman" is preferred here because all the classical planets have Roman names (rather than Hermes, Aphrodite, Ares, Zeus, Cronos). —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If "Pluto" was an epithet of Hades, but only became the usual name of the god in Rome, then one might argue that the god "Pluto" was Roman. Not sure that's what happened historically, though. More relevant IMO is what people thought at the time, and as you note, there was a tradition (broken by Uranus) of using Roman names. In the thread below, I quote,

Putnam explained in a press statement the decision to go with a Roman god, in accordance with the other planets. [...] they decided on Pluto, "the god of the regions of darkness where X holds sway." Putnam pointed out that Pluto's two mythological brothers, Jupiter and Neptune, were already represented in the solar system.

but also, from Tombaugh's account,

Pluto, the Greek god of the Lower World, seemed the best one to pick.

So we have a contemporary account that the name was Roman, and half a century later Tombaugh recognized that it was Greek. But Putnam explains that it was the Roman connection that was relevant. So I think it's fair to call it Roman, but we should certainly mention the Greek connection because otherwise people will repeatedly object that it's 'really' Greek. — kwami (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023

I suggest adding a reference to the contribution of Elizabeth L. Willians to the discovery of Pluto. She did the necessary calculations for Lowell to predict the location, and in fact her calculations and predictions based on them led to Lowell capturing an image of Pluto in 1915, which went unnoticed. Eventually, finding Pluto by Clyde Tombaugh indeed relied on the work she did. Multiple references exist in Elizabeth's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Langdon_Williams and also in other sources, such as https://www.space.com/human-computer-elizabeth-williams-pluto-discovery.html (see more sources within).

Please change: Lowell and his observatory conducted his search until his death in 1916, but to no avail. Unknown to Lowell, his surveys had captured two faint images of Pluto on March 19 and April 7, 1915, but they were not recognized for what they were.

to: Lowell and his observatory conducted his search, based on the mathematical calculations made by Elizabeth L. Williams, until his death in 1916, but to no avail. Unknown to Lowell, his surveys had captured two faint images of Pluto on March 19 and April 7, 1915, but they were not recognized for what they were.

77.127.190.148 (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Done, with a link. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

More of a suggestion than a request, but I think the "Quasi-satillite" subsection should be moved from the "Orbit" header to the "Satellites" header. I know why it's currently under Orbit, but I think it'd make sense under Satellites as well. 47.20.182.16 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

agree, it makes more sense. moved. Artem.G (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

When Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune

I know that Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune between 1979 and 1999, but this also happened between 1735 and 1749 and between 1483 and 1503. But what is interesting about this is that this phenomenon also happened in the year 1AD, according to my mental orbital calculations. Is that true? Ar Colorado (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Could be, but I don't see why that would be any more interesting than 1999. 1 AD and 1999 are fairly arbitrary dates. — kwami (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you subtract 8 orbital periods from the perihelion date of 1989, you get 5.5 AD. That's a consequence of Pluto's orbital period being very close to a quarter millennium, but I don't know if it was closer than Neptune for 20 years in that orbit as it was in this orbit -- and that's assuming the orbit has been stable that long, which isn't yet known. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly known now, given that the orbits of highly eccentric asteroids can be calculated very precisely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.111.118 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Add "Trans-Neptunian object" link

to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object Sisu-agape (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It's already in the lede. Click on "bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune". Double sharp (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)