This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should Pluto be classed a planet?

Poll

Should Pluto be classed as a "Planet"?

Apparently scientists are meeting today to decide whether Pluto should have its planetary status removed.

I for one think it should. The definition of a planet is very subjective, technically anything orbiting the sun could be a planet. But there is a line where it is deemed "big enough" to be considered a planet, rather than just a meteorite or comet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4789531.stm

The biggest problem i can see is that plutos orbit is the only one eccentric to bring it closer to the sun than another planet (neptune). All the others keep their order in the solar system. Also pluto is the only one with such a high inclination. All the rest lie in a very narrow plane. For these reasoj i think it should be demoted.

BTW, don't vote if you don't have a reason either way.

Reply 1

pumpkin7

13

well, why not? it has been for a long time so just keep it that way...

Reply 2

arias

its the little quirks in science that make it so entertaining, i say yes!

Reply 3

Arminius

OP

14

I must say i'm surprised! So despite the logical inconsistancy (there are bigger objects than pluto not classed as planets) you still want Pluto to be a planet? if you do then does that mean you want those other objects to be planets.

or do you think pluto should be made an "exception" to the rule, because its become established.

Not very scientific. :p:

Reply 4

thomasp

7

Yes it should, because otherwise someone would have to invent a new mnemonic for remembering the order of the planets :biggrin:

Zakatu

Apparently scientists are meeting today to decide whether Pluto should have its planetary status removed.

I for one think it should. The definition of a planet is very subjective, technically anything orbiting the sun could be a planet. But there is a line where it is deemed "big enough" to be considered a planet, rather than just a meteorite or comet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4789531.stm

The biggest problem i can see is that plutos orbit is the only one eccentric to bring it closer to the sun than another planet (neptune). All the others keep their order in the solar system. Also pluto is the only one with such a high inclination. All the rest lie in a very narrow plane. For these reasoj i think it should be demoted.

BTW, don't vote if you don't have a reason either way.

I'm with you on this one. It should be 'demoted'.

It is just so at odds with everyhting else we describe as a planet. If has so much more in common with many other objects out there further than it. If Pluto is a planet, then we probably have 15/20/100 planets in the solar system once we fine then all. That number would be rediculous, especially when many are just large lumps of rock and nothing at all like what we would describe a panet.

So I hope the meeting results with a re-classification and puts us back to only having 8 planets.

Reply 6

Chase Me

8

Of course it should. It IS a planet. It orbits the sun. Size doesn't matter, it keeps an order, unlike meteorites. They've also found a planet further away than Pluto. Which is why they're having this discussion, they don't want to have too many, so they're picking on Pluto.

Chase Me

Of course it should. It IS a planet. It orbits the sun. Size doesn't matter, it keeps an order, unlike meteorites. They've also found a planet further away than Pluto. Which is why they're having this discussion, they don't want to have too many, so they're picking on Pluto.

What about the asteroid belt? The orbit the sun regularly. So do comets and they have an irregualarly inclined orbit like Pluto. There are thousdands of objects out and about near Pluto too, most smaller, some larger, all of which keep an order in how they travel. Should all of those be classed as planets?

A planet is not just an object which orbits a star, they should probably be classed as objects which orbit a star in approximately concentrict elliptical orbits in the smae plane as other objects classed as planets. They shuld probably also all formed in a similar way, hecne the concentricity and planar set up.

Pluto doesn't fit in with this definition and its composition of being a rocky and icy block in such a distant location cannot realy be explained by how we understand planets to be formed.

Reply 8

Arminius

OP

14

Whilst its subjective, i think you need to have read up on this issue before you can make a fair decision. "it orbits the sun!" doesn't really cut it. (sorry if i sound patronising)

To me, a planet has to have something in common with earth, mars, jupiter, etc. These planets all have roughly ciricular orbits and according to theory they formed at the same time from the same dust disc around the sun.

Plut on the other hand shares alot less. A key think for me is that it probably didn't form from the gas and dust disc like the other planets. Instead it is a Kuiper belt object that has come in alot closer than the rest.

I don't know much about the origin of the Kuiper belt, but it seems distinct from the rest of the known solar system. There are millions of objects orbiting the sun. But only 8 or so really big objects that seem to have formed in the same way...

Reply 9

frazer_1

"My Very Easy Method Just Speeds Up Naming Planets" would make no sense without it.....

Reply 10

Happy1

14

According to that BBC report someone posted above, Sedna is smaller than Pluto and its firther away. So if they get rid of Pluto's status as a planet... surely they have to get rid of Sedna's status too!? And f they do that, theyve just got rid of their biggest find in the last 50 years.

frazer_1

"My Very Easy Method Just Speeds Up Naming Planets" would make no sense without it.....

What ever the outcome of today, that should be useless anyway.

If Pluto is no longer a planet, you need to remove the last word. If Pluto is a planet, then there are several similar objects (such as Sedna) which all need words adding on as they too would have to be classed as planets. Though which order would you add them, as I'm sure heir order in orbit will vary from time to time like Pluto's already does.

Reply 12

quintsy

17

My (Mercury)
very (Venus)
easy (Earth)
method (Mars)
just (Jupiter)
speeds (Saturn)
up (Uranus)
naming (Neptune)
..

That completely ruins the mnemonic. :smile:

Reply 13

pumpkin7

13

won't somebody think of the children?

Reply 14

Jim-ie

14

I would class it as a planet.

I cant remember, but as far as I knew, pluto has an atmosphere? Its also considerably bigger than its moon I think, regardless of their weird orbid between each other.

But it does orbid the sun

Jim-ie

I would class it as a planet.

I cant remember, but as far as I knew, pluto has an atmosphere? Its also considerably bigger than its moon I think, regardless of their weird orbid between each other.

But it does orbid the sun

Pluto's moon is the largest in the solar system when compared to the size of Pluto itself. It's not that much bigger than Charon at all.

Plus both really orbit each other around a barycentre.

And what case does it having an atmosphere make to whether it's a planet or not? An atmosphere is just a thin gaseous region of a body above a solid core. It doesn;t define a planet. Plenty of objects in the solar system have atmospheres which clearly aren't planets. Also, Mercury, a planet, doesn't have a real atmosphere at all, just occasionally picking up particles and loosing them again really easily.

And again, what does orbiting the Sun have to do with anything? Everything in the Solar System orbits the Sum in some fashion. Clearly not everything is a planet.

Reply 16

Arminius

OP

14

Jim-ie

I would class it as a planet.

I cant remember, but as far as I knew, pluto has an atmosphere? Its also considerably bigger than its moon I think, regardless of their weird orbid between each other.

But it does orbid the sun

Well, the whole point is alot of things orbit the sun, like meteorites and comets. But they are kinda planetoids, because they are so small.

Pluto, btw is just a bit smaller than our moon. and its "moon" charon is not alot smaller in comparison. Some people would call it a binary system. Pluto does have an atmosphere but it is increddibly thin. Also most of the time it is frozen solid so, no not really. Its like a comet in the sense when it gets closer to the sun elements on the surface boil off. Except they don't leave the surface completely.

Here is a wikipedia article some of you might find interesting:

Definition of planet

It's a featured article and very well sourced, so you can feel confident in what you read there being the truth and unbiased. I delves well into the history of object classification and how things have changed over time when new objects or evidence has been found.

yes.

If I remember correctly we recently discovered a comet in the Kuiper belt that was bigger than Pluto. And considering pluto probably started off as an extrasolar object that was captured by the Sun (hence why the orbit is not in the plane of everything else), I wouldn't consider it a planet.

But either way I don't really care. This is just jar labelling; there are more important things to focus on in the field of cosmology.

And Pluto's atmosphere is less dense than what would be considered a good vacuum on Earth. It isn't much of an atmosphere.

[edit]here it is http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2006/16/text/ - 2003 UB313[/edit]

Should Pluto be classed a planet?

Should Pluto be classed as a "Planet"?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you