Why Should Pluto Be Demoted?

ladyleviticus · Aug 24, 2006

Hi! Why should Pluto be demoted? its been a planet since 1930? Why reck a historic piece of knowledge? I'm a very big Space Exploration fan, and I am totally against Pluto been demoted. Why? do you ask? Because Pluto is part of our 9 planet solar system, and its a type of historical for it to be the 9th planet. Simply to demote Pluto is stupid, and if I was at the big convention, I would've voted against it. For me, I will not classify our solar system as an only 8 planet solar system, just because the "Einstien Professors" say so. In my eyes, Pluto is a planet, and it will always be the nineth planet of our solar system. Does anyone else agree that Pluto should be demoted? or do you agree with the "Professors"??

harmonicaman · Aug 24, 2006

Of course Pluto is still a planet! It just has been correctly catagorized with similar small stuff out beyond Neptune. Note that for tens of thousands of years there were only 5 planets plus Earth, those visible with the naked eye. This decision seems like a good compromise and merely fixes a recent mistake.

SpeedFreek · Aug 24, 2006

Yes, Pluto is tiny so the term dwarf planet seems accurate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

staz · Aug 24, 2006

Yes, the original definition of a planet comes from the Greek word for wanderer. The definition specified a starlike object in the sky that didn't stay in lockstep with the other stars. So we had Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. We also include Uranus since it is visible to the naked eye, at least sometimes, and with a real stretch, we could include Neptune, which can be seen with a good pair of binoculars. Earth? Well, only in the sense that we want people to recognize that it is really a large object orbiting the sun like the other seven, except that since we live on it it doesn't look like a star to us. What about the objects we now find orbiting other stars? The new definition, requiring that they have cleared other objects out of their orbits, is really inconvenient since it's pretty hard to know much about such objects beyond a minimum masses and an orbital period. Here's my proposed definition: A planet is a body visible, only by reflecting light from the star, to a hypothetical observer close to the star, which changes its position relative to the fixed stars and is not a moon of another planet.

MeteorWayne · Aug 24, 2006

A few asteroids are also visible to the naked eye. As I've stated before, definitions are easy until you actually try and write one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Saiph · Aug 24, 2006

however, calling it a planet when it's more of an exception to either category (jovian or terrestrial) than following the rules is a bit misleading. It does not share the composition, differentiation, density, orbital paterns, or lets call it "dominance" of its region that all other planets (or the terrestrial subset at least) have. To maintain calling it a planet because we have always called it a planet isn't a very strong arguement in science. Traditional thought in science is hard enough to overcome, no need to use it as an excuse to avoid change. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Philotas · Aug 25, 2006

But science was dropped out in the new definition. There is no science behind a definition that says that the planet candidate must be 100 times bigger than any other objects in it's orbit. The only reason that parameter was put in, was to keep planet count low, not to satisfy science. Keeping Pluto as a planet only because of it's history, is equally unscientific as the definition itself! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

alokmohan · Aug 25, 2006

We are respecting tradition in other cases.The four giant planets and terresrial planets are not at par.Why not say :the solar system has four planets.Terrestrial planets are dwarf planets compared to gas giants.Why mercury is a planet,when Ganymede is satellite?Four Jovian sattelites are bigger than mercury.Why not demote mercury and call these four dwarf planet.Total dearth of logic.

Saiph · Aug 25, 2006

if there are lots of other objects of similar size in the same orbit...it's quite likely that the object isn't done forming yet (or it's part of an asteroid belt). As such calling it anything other than a proto-planet would be premature. Now, the 100x is rather abritrary, sure, but it's a good guess. It's quite likely that if the planet was, say, 80x the mass of any other object, and was close, or met the other criteria listed, they'd call it a planet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Search

Why Should Pluto Be Demoted?

ladyleviticus

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

staz

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Philotas

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page