This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should Pluto be classed a planet?

Reply 20

Arminius

OP

14

Cosmology is all important :smile:

Reply 21

wiggles

2

Pluto is my favourite planet. I don't know why. For that reason I won't vote in case someone gets pissy and questions my scientific merit for my choice. But still, I love Pluto, so I say it stays.

Reply 22

Mad Vlad

19

Get rid of it. It's not worthy as a planet:
Very little atmosphere
Smaller than objects without planetary status
Eccentric orbit

All in all a waste of time.

Oh and keeping it as a planet to make the mnemonic work is about as scientific as Big Brother. Christ, just learn the planets' names - it's not difficult.

Reply 23

bunthulhu

14

Zakatu

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.

I agree.

I'm going to vote 'no', because I just don't see how you could call it a planet. It's only 2/3rds the size of our own moon and its orbit is not on or close to the ecliptic like every other planet's is. Unlike the other planets, it has an eccentric elliptical orbit which at times brings it closer to the Sun than Neptune, and it does not fit into the order of the planets - i.e., that the inner planets are rocky and the outer planets are gas giants. Also, funnily enough, Pluto happens to be incredibly similar in characteristics and also distance from the Sun, as Kuiper Belt objects, of which there are hundreds of thousands at least. It makes an awful lot more sense to classify Pluto as a Kuiper Belt object than as a planet!

Just because it orbits the Sun does not in any way indicate it is a planet; or else comets and asteroids would be planets as well. It's atmosphere also does not make it a planet; some moons have their own atmospheres such as Titan around Saturn. Titan is bigger than Pluto anyway, and has a thicker atmosphere. Just because it has a moon doesn't make it a planet either - as others have said, Charon is big enough for the system to be considered binary. On top of this there are theories that the moons of Pluto were actually formed from some type of collision, and the moons were created from the debris. Just because something has a satellite does not make it a planet :smile:

The Sun has satellites - like us :biggrin:

But of course, that's a star!!

I think it'd be a bit silly to keep Pluto as a planet purely based on sentiment - if that was the scientific way of thinking we'd still be trying to do our calculations based on the Earth being flat and electricity flowing the other way round a circuit :p:

Reply 24

silverbolt

19

i say yes it is a planet mostly becasue of the orbital sun thing.
But if Pluto gets removed as a planet then what about the tenth planet (it doesnt have a proper name yet) seeing as that planet is bigger than the pluto

Reply 25

Auditt123

It looks like a planet so i say it should be a planet. What would it be if it wasn't a planet?

Auditt123

It looks like a planet so i say it should be a planet. What would it be if it wasn't a planet?

A Kuiper Belt object I think.

Reply 27

bunthulhu

14

Auditt123

It looks like a planet so i say it should be a planet. What would it be if it wasn't a planet?

Oh dear. Did you even read the thread? :>.<:

The answer to your question is 'Kuiper Belt object'.

And out of curiosity, what exactly causes something to 'look like a planet'? And is that a scientific way of defining an object or organism?

Reply 28

bunthulhu

14

Cadre_Of_Storms

i say yes it is a planet mostly becasue of the orbital sun thing.But if Pluto gets removed as a planet then what about the tenth planet (it doesnt have a proper name yet) seeing as that planet is bigger than the pluto

So you would re-define Asteroids, comets, Kuiper Belt objects and objects within the Oort Cloud, as planets? :p:

Reply 29

poltroon

Yes, because planet Earth is lonely enough as it is.

poltroon

Yes, because planet Earth is lonely enough as it is.

If you mean in terms of the number of known planets, there are dozens more planets known today than 10 years ago, losing one, even if it is close in distance to the Earth, one make much difference.

Reply 31

O-TheC

I say let is stay being classified as a planet, just for historical reasons.

Reply 32

Arminius

OP

14

I'm SO surprised at the number of people that simply just want the status quo. For historical reasons? What if people decided to keep the earth at the centre of the universe for "historical reasons"?

O-TheC

I say let is stay being classified as a planet, just for historical reasons.

For historical reasons the Earth is flat. Is that a good thing to keep?

For historical resons man and the Earth were greated about 4500 years ago. Is that a good thing to keep?

Reply 34

bunthulhu

14

O-TheC

I say let is stay being classified as a planet, just for historical reasons.

Argh, dear me. You realise that Space is not just there for fun, but there is a lot of science involved with it? Astronomy, Astrophysics, Space Science? Some magical people even make a career out of it :p:

Science is about facts, not nostalgia.

Reply 35

username24

The definition being proposed:
"any round object larger than 800 kilometers in
diameter that orbits the sun and has a mass roughly one-12,000th that
of Earth. Moons and asteroids will make the grade if they meet those
basic tests."

We get 12 planets (including Ceres, Pluto, Charon and 2003 UB313) and
a dozen 'planet candidates'.

Reply 36

Arminius

OP

14

Interesting.... it seems a bit arbitary - why use size? i guess the original don't have anything else in common apart from that?

Reply 37

bunthulhu

14

Zakatu

Interesting.... it seems a bit arbitary - why use size? i guess the original don't have anything else in common apart from that?

Well they fit in with the rock-gas pattern and also they lie on the ecliptic.

Reply 38

username24

Found a link here:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NYT_Astronomers_draft_resolution_for_12_0815.html

Welcome back planet Ceres! (last classified as a planet 150 years ago)

username24

Found a link here:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NYT_Astronomers_draft_resolution_for_12_0815.html

Welcome back planet Ceres! (last classified as a planet 150 years ago)

Cool, if this definition comes through we get another planet, closer than Jupiter that was last classed a planet in Victorian times....

...do any moons meet the crtieria? Are any amongst the '12 candiate panets'?

Should Pluto be classed a planet?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you