Poll: Pluto, is it still a planet?
- Thread starter DanielPowell33
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
I've actually realised what my problem with this is. When I was in 1st Year, I made up a nemonic to remember the planets, "Madonna Vanishes Everytime Michael Jackson Sings Unusual New Popsongs," and now it just doesn't work. GOSH DARN IT!
Someone much smarter than me told me it's not a Planet... I'm gonna trust them.
Because honestly, if we believe everything that we were told a long time ago then we would still believe the planet is flat, is the center of the universe, and everything orbits us on glass spheres...
We've advanced so much in Astronomy that they finally realized that Pluto doesn't have the characteristics of a "Planet". There are objects in our galaxy that are like Pluto but aren't "Planets" so Pluto shouldn't be a planet either.
Because honestly, if we believe everything that we were told a long time ago then we would still believe the planet is flat, is the center of the universe, and everything orbits us on glass spheres...
We've advanced so much in Astronomy that they finally realized that Pluto doesn't have the characteristics of a "Planet". There are objects in our galaxy that are like Pluto but aren't "Planets" so Pluto shouldn't be a planet either.
It's not that it changed, it's that we'd never actually had a real definition of the word before. Scientists got together and finally decided it needed to be defined. Pluto didn't make the cut, that's all there is to it.Rex Dark said:
As much as I don't really care, it is pretty stupid that it isn't now. Isn't it still techincally a planet since it's a dwarf planet?
It's classified as a dwarf planet. If we classify it as a planet there a many, many other objects in our solar system that would also have to be classified as planets. You've got to draw the line somewhere.
They're bumping it back up to planet status now, because they finally decided on the definition of a planet. Because what exactly defines a planet? something that has mass and a gravitational pull? that would be any object, anywhere. A planet is defined at something that has sufficient mass as to be roughly spherical in shape.
So basically, pluto, the moon, and those other "dwarf planets" around Sol are gonna be defined now as planets. =]
So basically, pluto, the moon, and those other "dwarf planets" around Sol are gonna be defined now as planets. =]
It has the spirit of the planet and the body of kuiper belt object. Are you defined by what's in you or what you look like? I say planet
And yes, I talked to Pluto just last week, it really does have the spirit of a planet.
And yes, I talked to Pluto just last week, it really does have the spirit of a planet.
I think that even though Pluto isn't big enough or doesn't dominate its gravitational field doesn't mean that should take away its planet-dum.
I completely agree maybe we should execute them with a replica of said planet just to add to their deaths a bit.fix-the-spade said: