Page 1 of 4
Pluto is totally NOT a planet.
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 7:04 pmby Ominous
Background: A council of astronomers have been meeting to redefine the term "planet." This would add some new recognized planets to the solar system, and possibly demote Pluto to asteroid or moon status. Pluto's moon, in fact, may be more planetary than Pluto itself.
So, here's the ultimate battle: What do you think? Should Pluto be a planet or not?
I say no. Take THAT, Hades.
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 7:10 pmby zipcat
I don't think it is, and though I love science, I find the debates over it more interesting than the truth.
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 7:12 pmby Zuka Zamamee
Its a freaking rock. Earth is a freaking rock. 5 out of the 9 planets (if you include Pluto) are freaking rocks. Who cares? Call it whatever you want.
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 7:16 pmby Gakhan
down zuka...thats a good boy. Go get chewie!!
its little, its cold, I will never see it.
No point to me.
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 7:17 pmby Ominous
However, Pluto is a little weakling and is not dominant in its own neighborhood. It couldn't pull a peanut!
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 9:59 pmby Joe
sure it's a planet. mainly because I said so, and I don't enjoy being not right.
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 10:17 pmby BullMinotaur
I say it is a planet even though it is the smallest one. Just like Arcturus is the biggest planet. I all ways thought the sun was the really really big but there are 3 planets bigger than the sun and makes the sun look really small. They are Arcturs, Pollux, and Sirius So Pluto is just a pebble.
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 10:17 pmby bow4lyf
Mmm.. im gonna make a poll on this!
Posted:
August 23rd, 2006, 11:55 pmby dedman
Not trying to split hairs, but I don't really mind calling pluto/charon(if you know those names from mythology, you will see the irony coming from a mile away...) a binary rather then a planet and a satellite. As I recall, that was the original debate in the first place, to determine the definition of a planet and possibly add another rock on the other side of pluto's orbit to the list.
Posted:
August 24th, 2006, 10:16 amby Jack
I say demote it to rock and add another planet if they want, but i cant be having no 10 planets sheesh i only have 9 fingers and if they add another one ill need to take off my shoe to count that high
Posted:
August 24th, 2006, 1:42 pmby Tordek
What's the newest definition of planet and why is Pluto considered to be outside of that defintion?
Posted:
August 24th, 2006, 2:12 pmby BullMinotaur
Ok they say it is not a planet. I did not snap that they were doing this in the news. I still say that it is! This is how it goes to what I know. I guess some of them are not in the planet category. Pluto, Mercury, Mars, Venus, Earth, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Sun, Sirius, Pollex, Arcturus, Rigel, Aldebaran, Betelgeuse, Antares. Antares is the 15th brightest star in the sky. This all intresting and put the earth in perspective. When you look at the sun, Sirius, Pollux, and Arcturus, The earth is invisible at that scale. So earth is very small like earth is to Pluto. So that is funny. So they say for a planet to be a planet it has to have a hard surface. So gas planets do not count. Pluto is so cold that is has to be hard, Pluto is a planet then. I’m so confused.
Posted:
August 24th, 2006, 10:02 pmby dedman
The Wiki says:
A planet within our solar system is defined by the International Astronomical Union as a celestial body that is in orbit around the Sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. Those bodies which fulfill the first two conditions but not the third are dwarf planets if they are not satellites.
There remains no universal definition to cover extrasolar planets, but it is likely similar criteria will apply. One division that remains unclarified is that between planets and stars. A body that is massive enough to undergo the fusion of hydrogen in its core is generally considered a star, although debate remains over objects that sustain deuterium fusion. There is also debate about whether secondary objects in planetary systems qualify as planets if they orbit a barycentre outside the primary's surface. The nature of such double planet systems has not yet been settled by the IAU.
So in spite of what is a pretty common belief as far as I am aware, they refuse to call pluto a planet, instead calling it a dwarf planet. Hair splitters...
Posted:
August 24th, 2006, 10:06 pmby Joe
as far as I am concerned, wikipedia is crap. mainly because it is unregulated so some of its information might be solid, but other information could be complete bunk, since it's all just tossed on there from random places. I never trust wikipedia. cool set up, bad idea.
Posted:
August 24th, 2006, 10:51 pmby Ominous
Well, Wikipedia is massively watched-over by moderators who change anything unverified back and will commonly ask an expert to verify it and cite their words with other articles that've been published. So, while some smaller articles are incorrect, most big ones (like this) are well-taken-care-of.
Anyway, Pluto not being sustained as a planet is good. It shows astronomers can admit being wrong, or change their minds with new data. It's like slavery: For years and years we said it was right, but then changed our minds.
So, if you support Pluto being a planet, you support slavery. And do you really want to support slavery?
Slippery slope, I admit. But it gives a good point.