Two weeks ago, while on my amazingly cool Astronomy course, my teacher decided the class to debate about wether or not Pluto should be a planet. before we started arguing though, she gave us the three definitions of a planet, according to the IAU:
1. It orbits the Sun 2. has enough mass and gravity to become almost spherical (hydrostatic equilibrium) 3. Has cleared the neighborhood around it
Now, if you look closely you may realize that number 3 is highly debatable (Number 2 in a sense as well): What is the definition of cleared up? You'd think it were 'the planet has absorbed, or thrown out of orbit all nearby objects. If that were true, then Jupiter wouldn't be a planet, because it has two asteroid groups orbiting with it.
I don't want to get into a lengthy tale about what happened in our classroom (It was mostly one group saying 'You're racists against little planets' and 'If we took out number three, we'd have 500,000 planets in the Solar System). Now I ask you:
Is Pluto a planet?
P.S: I don't want to hear a simple 'yes' or 'no', I want to hear why. This is a very debatable topic (So is everything else in Astronomy, but...), and I just want to hear what everyone thinks. I might debate a bit myself if this gets interesting.
[quote="MRWalker82"]I looked over the information, the debate for and against the new classification, and I admit that based on my limited experience in the field that the new definition seems both legitimate as well as necessary.[/quote] Oh, well, yes, definitely. Pluto does not fit the new definition--but some of us just wanted to shed a tear over the loss of a planet... or the demotion of it, anyway (call it an economical downsizing).
[quote="MRWalker82"]If only we were as concerned with the fair treatment of our own species perhaps this would be a much more enjoyable rock to live on.[/quote] That will be the day. Perhaps a committee somewhere will form and begin reclassifying humans based on their contribution(s) to society. Then... Pluto can have the last laugh.
Oh, well, yes, definitely. Pluto does not fit the new definition--but some of us just wanted to shed a tear over the loss of a planet... or the demotion of it, anyway (call it an economical downsizing)
Eh, we didn't really 'lose' a planet. We just gained a more aptly titled dwarf-planet (See, and you all thought I was a perpetual pessimist) oh, and it think it's an astronomical downsizing... or something to that effect.
That will be the day. Perhaps a committee somewhere will form and begin reclassifying humans based on their contribution(s) to society. Then... Pluto can have the last laugh.
Please oh please oh please I hope I'm on that committee.... >
what is with the violence, is someone becoming......a troll? Well since we all know what a planet is and isn't, Pluto is not a planet, its a dwarf planet. Don't shed tears that ur fav dwarf planet is taken off the planet list. Its just a comet that got caught in the suns gravitational pull.
eh, it's not a comet, and most likely never was, and was more likely either knocked into our solar system's gravitational field by some other celestial body, or pulled in by neighboring planets on some leg of their orbit.
[quote="MRWalker82"]Please oh please oh please I hope I'm on that committee.... >[/quote] Are you giving me the authority to accept or deny your request?
[quote="DrPepperRain"]Its just a comet that got caught in the suns gravitational pull.[/quote] Here's an article about that, actually. According to that article, Pluto is just a celestial object. I find it not surprising in the slightest, really. Also, Harvard talks about that question, too. It's not a new idea, but simply a very good theory.
The thing about Pluto being a comet... it's not entirely impossible. Regardless, the celestial body does share in the orbit around our sun, so whether or not it's called a planet, a dwarf planet, a comet, or late for dinner, it's inconsequential. Those that still consider it a planet will call it one.
I was writing a very long post on this yesterday, and didn't get to submit/save it...
I see this is getting into an argument that Pluto cannot be a planet because it does not follow the guidelines. That depends on if you believe the guidelines are correct and if Pluto actually does fit in the guidelines.
Its just a comet that got caught in the suns gravitational pull.
Everything in the Oort cloud is there because of the Sun. The Sun most likely did not capture Pluto (Objects do not simply randomly drift around in space), rather Pluto or the materials were created with the Sun.
Here's an article about that, actually.
I like Neil Tyson... I loved the way he made a pun on a talk show about how getting sucked into a black hole and being stretched into lots of tiny pieces is called 'spaghettification'.
I wouldn't go so far as to all Pluto a comet, for that it's far too big. It also has enough mass to become sort of round, so it fits more a dwarf planet than a super-duper mega comet.
And that article is old... It says the Oort cloud consists of dust, but we are pretty certain long orbit comets like Halleys comet come from the Oort cloud.
No! The Mi-Go has made Yuggoth their home! We must not call THAT a planet!
its not a planet though. Whatever you say it's still not a planet, its a dwarf planet for the tenth time, it does not meet the criteria to be a planet like I stated already.
... That is so not funny.
I agree this is a serious topic, it's not the time for your silly jokes and for making fun. Anyway, go back a page and the criteria for a planet and a dwarf planet.
