View Full Version here: : Out You Go Pluto, and this is the reason why...
An explanation on what makes a planet a planet - and errr..., Pluto not.
If I'm to share my opinion,:question: I would have to say, no, I don't think Pluto should be given planetary status. :shrug:
Other reasons aside, memorising the 70,000 other "planets" (icy objects that have shown to be similar to Pluto out in the Kuiper belt) could be a toughy. :screwy::lol:
30-05-2011, 10:31 AM
I agree it for the de-classifacation. I think it was only considered a planet because first observation saw it as almost the size of the earth.
I also heard that ever so possible it could be considered a Comet. Mainly because it has a tail.
I think we will have to wait till the probe gets there to confirm a lot of things
30-05-2011, 03:24 PM
Pluto has enough mass to form a globe and the definition of a planet is below and comets dont form a globe so how can it be classed as a comet.
Even this definition still calls it a Dwarf planet so still refered to as a planet even if it is a small one
Going by the above definition there are actually 13 planets because it defines 5 dwarf planets
30-05-2011, 04:05 PM
Read all about it.
Get all the 'good' facts. Don't walk but BOLT straight to this site
ps Don't forget to take your nuts along.:eyepop:
01-06-2011, 04:29 PM
If you follow the IAU's "accepted" definition of what a planet is, then none of the "planets" of our Solar System can be called a planet. Not a single one of them, including Jupiter, has cleared its orbit of miscellaneous debris. What about all the Trojan asteroids, the NEO's, the Aten objects, the short period comets, the Centaur asteroids/comets etc etc etc.
The IAU definition is marginal at best and wasn't even taken with barely a quorum of members of the Union present. It was rushed through right at the end of the last Union conference when most of the delegates had left. Most of those present there then were supporters of the new definition to begin with.
01-06-2011, 11:52 PM
Is the actual wording 'cleared'? I thought I saw it once as 'dominated its orbit' which is different and would make them planets again.
Also, by rule #1 there can be no planets around other stars as they are not 'The Sun'. Or has this wording been misquoted also?
02-06-2011, 12:09 AM
Cleared....never was dominated.
02-06-2011, 09:49 AM
All the controversy has got nothing to do with astronomy, solar systems, planets etc. It is all about some hopeful scientist/astronomers getting their names to the forefront in the hope of new appointments and MORE MONEY. :thumbsup:
02-06-2011, 10:04 AM
What:question: all 400 or so who voted in favour of the change,who is going to give them more money and Jobs just because they changed the deffinition of a solar system body:screwy::screwy::screwy::screwy :
02-06-2011, 10:51 PM
The following video clearly explains the whole Pluto issue:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.