Pluto defines Pluto as being a Planet!

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jakethesnake

Guest
You have completely missed the point of my argument and that is before the IAU ruling there was no set scientific definition for a planet. For over 70 years Pluto was accepted as a planet and for the last 30 years the size of Pluto has been known to be approximately 2,000 kilometers in diameter. All of a sudden it appears that there might be more celestial body as large or larger than Pluto and now it’s a problem. I use dimensional standardization as an analogy because to define and/or standardize anything including a Planet is exactly the same thing.<br /><br />To say that a Planet is this or that at this point is to select a set of parameters that until last week meant nothing. There have been no less than 200 solar systems found so far and gas giant Planets have been found toward the inner part of these solar systems so, to use the location of our Kepler belt or the placement of various types of Planets to reject or accept Pluto as a Planet is simply ridicules. As far a Planet clearing it’s own zone, all of the Planets have been in these orbits long enough that this argument makes no sense. Besides that’s not technically correct either and IAU has been highly criticized for using that as part of a Planet’s definition because there are many object in Earths orbital zone as well as the rest of the Planets. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong></strong> </div>
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
Nobody's saying that the new planetary order is perfect, it's just a bit more clear where everything stands now. <br /><br />And why do you think Pluto isn't a planet any more? It's now just lumped together with other trans-Neptunian objects. Why doesn't this make sense to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts