imagine pluto and its moon as a binary system but with planets that ended up orbiting eachother therefore we have ten planets
Poll: Pluto, is it still a planet?
- Thread starter DanielPowell33
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I said yes, because I recently had an multiple choice exam asking random questions, one of which being 'How many planets are in the solar system?' (As a side note, it was for an IT course, so a cookie will go to anyone who can give me some form of relevance between IT and the planets) and the only logical answer to pick was 9.
It turned out the exam hadn't been updated for a billion years, so it was the right answer.
In all seriousness, just because someone decided it isn't a planet anymore, doesn't mean it isn't one. If I called myself a stuffed toy simply because I have the pokability of one, doesn't make me a stuffed toy.
It turned out the exam hadn't been updated for a billion years, so it was the right answer.
In all seriousness, just because someone decided it isn't a planet anymore, doesn't mean it isn't one. If I called myself a stuffed toy simply because I have the pokability of one, doesn't make me a stuffed toy.
How about we redefine a "planet" as "a celestial body on the following list"?
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Pluto
It's certainly simpler than having to decide what exactly "clearly an orbit" is...
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Pluto
It's certainly simpler than having to decide what exactly "clearly an orbit" is...
I liked Pluto dammit and I still consider it a planet regardless of it's official classification (which I believe is dwarf-planet) so while it's not really a planet anymore, I still think of it like that, it's hard to just forget it and relegate it to the category of space junk.
When the Plutonians find out about this we're all dead.
When the Plutonians find out about this we're all dead.
vivaldiscool said:
/thread
Pluto is just a more well known Kupier belt object. It has an irregular orbit, minuscule in size even when compared to our moon, and has thousands of other similar objects along with it in the Kupier belt. To call it a planet would mean we then need to recognize all the other thousands of Kupier belt objects, a task which I do not feel is a good use of anyones time.
Who really wants to memorize the names of 8000 pieces of space rock? I have enough trouble remembering the names of the planets as it is.
It was called a planet since when it was identified, it was a "large" body orbiting the Sun. Only later did more information become available, such as Pluto being a fairly insignificant rock orbiting with a great many other insignificant rocks, some larger and some smaller.magicmonkeybars said:
Until the IAU meeting, there wasn't a formal definition of what a planet is. Until recently, when observers started finding big objects in the vacinitiy of Pluto, and planets outside our own solar system, there wasn't a real need for a formal definition. The time was right to have a definition, so one was created and agreed on after considerable debate at the IAU. Pluto does not meet that definition, so it is not a planet.
This has been blown out of all proportion - classification in science changes all the time as more information becomes available. It also isn't the first time something that was called a planet has ceased to be called a planet - same thing happened to Vesta in the asteroid belt.
Okay, this ticks me off even more than the "I was taught it's a planet and I don't want it to change cause it makes me feel stupid" dumbassery.mspencer82 said:
Willingness to reexamine old conclusions and opinions in light of new evidence is a good thing! It's the very essence of the scientific method, it is what allows us to progress rather than get mired in dogma. Don't like it, Middle Ages are that way. Watch out for the guys in robes, getting burned at the stake stings like hell.
Pluto was only labeled a planet by default, because back in 1932 we didn't have anything else to call it, and the definition of planet didn't go beyond "big and goes around the Sun". But the more we learned about the Solar system, the more it became clear that Pluto was an aberration in just about every respect. Wildly different orbit, small rock out in gas giant land, frakking huge moon, the list goes on.
Then we find out there's a whole bunch of objects out there like it, and Pluto was just the first we found. It makes much more sense to just put the lot of them in a category of their own, they're far too different to lump in with the rest.
The definition may change again sometime in the future. If it does, it will be because we have learned more about planetary systems and the new one is just plain better.
It seems to be a minority of the US scientific community who want Pluto to be a plane because naturally discovering a planet is a big accompaniments which they want to keep... despite ignoring their own science.
heres the big question is plutos "moon" charon a moon or a planet? they are both about the same size
Pluto is not a planet - the only reason why people thought it was a planet was because of historical reasons:
You see, when Pluto was discovered, scientists had gotten into the habit of trying to predict planets. They predicted Neptune and Uranus, and lo and behold there they were. Actually, it was pure luck that their predictions co-incided with reality. They had no real reason to believe that these planets were there, but they got lucky.
So they started to predict the existence of a ninth planet. They had almost no reason to believe there would be a ninth planet, but by this time a lot of careers were riding on its prediction and they were desperately looking for any hint of it.
Then, luckily, someone spotted something a bit bright in the sky. It was very faint, but it was.... just.... barely.... visible. Not only that, it followed an orbit and maintained its size and shape. Instantly they lept up and down and said they had discovered the "ninth" planet.
This was in early days of proper astronomy, so they didn't know how wrong they were.
Truth is, there are plenty of larger objects that follow orbits around the sun, some of them closer to the sun than pluto. Pluto was only spotted first because it is very bright (being largely composed of ice).
If you're going to call pluto a planet, well, hold on to your hats because you're going to have to call a lot of other "objects" planets. You could end up with a solar system with as many as 14 "planets".
Now some would say, well, Pluto has a moon, so it must be a planet. Well, yes, there is another object orbiting pluto, called Charon. But Charon and Pluto actually orbit each other - they circle each other and it is not clear which is orbiting which. And besides, Mercury doesn't have a moon yet it is a planet.
For me, a planet is anything larger than the Earth's moon, that compresses itself into a spherical shape by its own gravity. Of course, other people would have their own definitions. But Pluto is clearly not a planet. The only reason why it was ever classified as such is due to some silly predictions, bad technology and primitive times.
You see, when Pluto was discovered, scientists had gotten into the habit of trying to predict planets. They predicted Neptune and Uranus, and lo and behold there they were. Actually, it was pure luck that their predictions co-incided with reality. They had no real reason to believe that these planets were there, but they got lucky.
So they started to predict the existence of a ninth planet. They had almost no reason to believe there would be a ninth planet, but by this time a lot of careers were riding on its prediction and they were desperately looking for any hint of it.
Then, luckily, someone spotted something a bit bright in the sky. It was very faint, but it was.... just.... barely.... visible. Not only that, it followed an orbit and maintained its size and shape. Instantly they lept up and down and said they had discovered the "ninth" planet.
This was in early days of proper astronomy, so they didn't know how wrong they were.
Truth is, there are plenty of larger objects that follow orbits around the sun, some of them closer to the sun than pluto. Pluto was only spotted first because it is very bright (being largely composed of ice).
If you're going to call pluto a planet, well, hold on to your hats because you're going to have to call a lot of other "objects" planets. You could end up with a solar system with as many as 14 "planets".
Now some would say, well, Pluto has a moon, so it must be a planet. Well, yes, there is another object orbiting pluto, called Charon. But Charon and Pluto actually orbit each other - they circle each other and it is not clear which is orbiting which. And besides, Mercury doesn't have a moon yet it is a planet.
For me, a planet is anything larger than the Earth's moon, that compresses itself into a spherical shape by its own gravity. Of course, other people would have their own definitions. But Pluto is clearly not a planet. The only reason why it was ever classified as such is due to some silly predictions, bad technology and primitive times.
The requirements for a celestial body to be a planet it must have enough gravity such that if it were destroyed by a meteor or something that it would be able to pull the itself back together. According to scientists, Pluto can not.
Of course, I don't think scientist have gone around blowing planets in half, so who knows.
Of course, I don't think scientist have gone around blowing planets in half, so who knows.