Honda CRX Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Is to...

I think its rather funny that 75 years after it was discovered, all of a sudden a group of astronomers decide its now a dwarf planet. Did the full-size planet noveltly finally where off after all these years?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
heres why i dont believe it is:

1. To small. It is smaller than our moon.
2. Odd orbit. Its orbit is not with the plain of the planets, meaning it wasnt created the same way they were. the 8 other plannets were created from an elipical dust cloud, pluto was not.
3. There are objects in the kuiper(spelling?) belt LARGER than pluto.

Just my 2 cents. I do feel bad for all those people who have been studing it all there years though...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,562 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
You shouldn't feel bad for people that are studying it, It is one of the largest objects in the Kuiper Belt, and was the first to be discovered. Just because we're not calling it a planet anymore doesn't change the fact that it's still out there.

75 years ago, the Kuiper Belt was unknown. Pluto was the first object discovered beyond Neptune, so it was easy to consider it a planet. Now we know there is a large field of objects out there, and Pluto's orbit is inconsistent with the 8 other planets. Science has advanced, and in order to continue considering Pluto a planet, requires that other objects such as Ceres (an asteroid) be planets also.

I think Planets should also have atmospheres, something that Pluto doesn't have. You might argue that Mercury and Mars don't have much in the way of an atmosphere, but they do have more than Ceres or Pluto or Charon or 2003UB313.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
lessonsinspeed said:
Is to...

I think its rather funny that 75 years after it was discovered, all of a sudden a group of astronomers decide its now a dwarf planet. Did the full-size planet noveltly finally where off after all these years?
While on the subject of astronomy and "changing definitions"...
I'm suspecting the earth is actually round!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,801 Posts
I say it is some sort of weird alien object... like a portal entry/exit that is made to look like a planet, and thats where all the alien space ships fly out of...

Its a toss-up though between that, and 'Space Disney' property... nicely named of course... Good ol' Walt was thinking ahead when he had them name it Pluto.

Or it could just be a big Jaw Breaker... just can't get it too close to the sun, or it'll explode :p

:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,594 Posts
Meh... I think the IAU's definition of a planet (or is it still a proposed definition? I haven't been following in the news) makes perfect sense. Anything that orbits a star and has enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape is a planet. I think differentiating between a planet and a dwarf planet isn't really necessary, but it I guess it makes sense if they also have sub-divisions for gas giants and such.
Using size as a characteristic of a planet requires an arbitrary cutoff point. At what size (mass, diameter, whatever) does a body cease to be a planet? The dwarf planet thing is a decent example... Why set the bar for entry at a 200 year orbit? Why 200 and not 150 or 207 or 300?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
I thought Pluto was a cartoon dog. What's this "planet" BS?

:rolleyes1:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,562 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
That's fine. If you don't have an opinion, you don't have to vote. Or, if you have a conflicting view, post it up.

I still don't see any valid arguments for voting yes though. The only rational explanation for saying it's a planet is because it's been considered the 9th planet for so long, but I don't understand why everyone is so attached to it. It's not like you've been there. :p We don't even have any good pictures of it.

The IAU's new proposed definition of planet makes our solar system's tally just 8. They couldn't come up with anything that makes Pluto a planet, unless it would also include dozens of other objects. Nobody is petitioning for Ceres to be a planet, and it's in basically the same situation as Pluto. Likewise, nobody thinks our solar system should be 25 or more planets...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,594 Posts
jfrolang said:
Likewise, nobody thinks our solar system should be 25 or more planets...
I do, assuming they fit the definition. What's wrong with planets? Why is 8 or 9 such an important number? [edit]Oh, right. It's Mark's favorite. My bad.[/edit] Labeling them something other than "Planet" isn't going to change their existance... They'll still be out there orbiting the sun like all the other planets. Sure, they're so far out that nobody is likely to visit them in the forseeable future, but that can be said of every star in the universe except for the sun. Does that make the sun somehow fundimentally different from the other stars?
We're talking about a scientific definition here, not popular usage. Science evolves to fit the current base of knowledge. If they decide there are 54 planets in the solar system, grade schools will just teach about the Core Planets and follow up with "Oh, and there (46? 44?) huge balls of ice floating around way out there that scientists also call planets. We don't know much about them because they're so far away." and leave it at that.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,562 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I'm not denying the existence of the dozens of round rocks out there, but I don't think they should carry the same name as the 8 large primary planets.

There are certainly a lot of round objects in the Kuiper Belt, and possibly beyond. Truthfully though, there is little support to consider them all planets. They exist in a field of a large number of icy bodies, and have unusual orbits. They were not formed from the same disc of dust that created the 8 large planets on the ecliptic plane.

Pluto was only a planet because it was the first body to be discovered beyond Neptune. If it were discovered today, there would be no debate about it, we know it's hardly alone out there.

Ceres, the largest asteroid, is round. It was discovered in 1801 and was considered a planet for a time. Science realized that it's in a field of asteroids, few of which are round, and it's rather small, and it was decided that it's not a planet. That's the same thing that's happening with Pluto today.

My point of view is that people still want to consider Pluto a planet, but don't want to include the rest of the round bodies out there. The number of those will inevitably increase continuously, as we get better at finding them.

You can't be selective in the application of the term planet, and that's what I have a problem with. If Pluto is a planet, then Ceres and all the other round bodies in the Kuiper Belt have to be too. If they aren't, Pluto isn't either.

So, to sum up:
1. Pluto is tiny, smaller than most of the moons in the solar system.
2. It's in a field of a huge number of icy rocks.
3. It was not formed from the same disc of dust that spawned the 8 planets.
4. It has an elliptical orbit not on the ecliptic plane.
5. It's the only one of its kind considered as a planet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Many people who read this forum might think I have an opinion on everything...well, you've just found my limit. No opinion ;)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,562 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
ryan_long_01 said:
Many people who read this forum might think I have an opinion on everything...well, you've just found my limit. No opinion ;)
I am surprised. Most logical people (like you) will form an opinion when presented with facts, even when they held no previous opinion due to lack of interest. Or maybe that's just something I do...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
Hey, scientists now say it's not a planet; it's a dwarf planet. And there might be many more dwarf planets added to the list in the coming years; other Kuiper belt objects. They didn't know in years past that Pluto was just another Kuiper belt object, hence it used to be classified with the other planets.

I think people are being a little sentimental about how we classify it. Pluto is just the same as it always was; we're just classifying it differently as we learn more about things. If we continue to call it a planet, we're going to have to call other Kuiper belt objects planets as well, and the poor school kids may end up having dozens of planet-names to memorize instead of 8! :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
i say its a planet, because im old and set in my ways... these scientists with there new fangled whatchamagigs... HOOEY I SAY! :rant:

later

Sneak
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top