Planet Pluto?
What are your thoughts. It has been a planet for so long do you think it is worth changing?
Answers:
When it was discovered in 1930, nobody knew that objects like Pluto were pretty common outside the orbit of Neptune. So it was a bad decision then to call it a "planet." Since then, many similar bodes have been found in its vicinity, including its moon Charon, other large bodies like Sedna, and even a body larger than Pluto (2003UB313).
A very similar renaming happened to Ceres (between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter) back in 1801. First classified as a planet, it was soon discovered to be the first among a bunch of similar objects, and it was re-classified as an asteroid.
The problem was that there has never been, until now, a firm definition by astronomers as to what a "planet" is. The discovery of UB313 forced the issue.
So the IAU had a choice. If they defined "planet" to include Pluto, then there is no reason they could not include UB313, and Charon, and Ceres, and then additional asteroids like Vesta and Pallas, and other trans-Neptunian objects like Sedna, Quauoar. There are as many as 53 objects we know of that would fall into a similar category as Pluto.
To me, a definition that results in 53 planets, and always growing, would have been worse. (You worry about schoolkids and mnemonics? . start adding names like Ceres, Charon, Xena . and then next year they have to add (and pronounce) Quaoar . and the year after that we add Vesta, Pallas, Ixion Orcus, Varuna etc. etc. to the things you have to memorize.)
The PR-sensitive thing to do would have been to simply declare Pluto as a special exception to the new definition. Unfortunately, that's just bad science . you don't grant things "honorary" status just because of historical sentiment. A scientific definition applied inconsistently just erodes confidence that scientists know what their talking about.
Another thing to consider . scientists are also thinking about the new planets we are starting to find orbiting other stars. They need to have a classification system that works well into the future.
So as much as I am sentimentally saddened by the news . it is the scientifically correct thing to do.
leave it be. It isn't hurting anyone. Why change it now.
it is a stupid decision.but i think pluto isn t much worried about it:)
I believe the criteria used to determine whether a celestial body is a planet is overly complex and should be simplified. We're pulling human factors into determination. Size, mass, SHAPE, and composition should NOT be factored into the determination. Alien worlds must be given alien consideration - not a dogmatic narrow view based on human experiences.
Simply put, a planet should have two things:
1. A planet should maintains an orbit within a system. Otherwise it can be classified as an asteriod or comet.
2. A planet can be a statellite to zero or more stars. It cannot be a satellite to another planet.
-Leon S
Who really cares whether a hunk of stuff thousands of miles away from us is technically a planet or not. Leave Pluto be.
Pluto has just as much a right to be a planet as anyother one. it isnt hurting no one.
and on now we have to come up with a new accronym to learn the planets..
let them change whatever, I know still that it's GOD's creation and not their's :)
I don't really care how many scientists tell me it has been downgraded, to me it will always be the 9th planet in our solar system. It really annoys me when so called learned people try to change the rules and then tell us we are all wrong.
I think that astronomers have to have a holiday on the company expenses, so they all meet in the west indes to discuss stupid topics that don't change anything.
Am I right in saying that it was something like 2,500 people who met to vote on whether pluto was a planet or not?
Absurd.
What a waste of time, effort and resources! If we're really committed to finding things out, we should be working on how to get there, not what to call things.
Its a foolish decision, pretty indefensible on a scientific basis --their definition of "planet" is so flawed that several major planets will no longer qualify if it is strictly enforced.
I am tired of hearing about it. That's my thoughts. All the problems going on and here are these scientists on the national news arguing over what to call a frozen rock out in the middle of nowhere that has nothing to do with us. Didn't you people used to do things. Where are all the Edisons and Einsteins? Now they just talk about their IQs and regurgitate old ideas. Then after that I got hear about what was going on in Tom Cruise's life.
Apparently it has a moon which is is bigger.!
No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days.
If Pluto "isn't" then what happens to Micky Mouse?
it should stay the same its not fair to change it
Leave it as a planet I think. Let it be an exception to the rule if need be.
It is a Planet.
Always has been a planet.
Always will be a planet.
It is a Planet.
Some blokes have the misfortune to have small dick are we now to stop calling them dick.
Some women have small breasts are we now to stop calling them breasts.
I agree that it is necessary to have set criteria so there is no debate as to what qualifies. It still will be classified a drarf planet though. I am still taking it all in though but I agree with the change
ah well i never believed in my horoscope anyway but i read it today and it said Pluto was doing something in my sign next month and it was going to be a good one....well i suppose it is still there though but it might be in a huff now.
Yeah I was pretty peeved about it myself when I heard. It doesn't really help knowing that scientists would say people aren't supposed to have feelings about scientific decisions. It just makes them seem arrogant. However, the reasons are hard to dispute. Pluto is really a big chunk of ice that doesn't have enough gravity to be round like the planets. It doesn't have it's own orbit because it crosses the path of Uranus. Stupid Uranus!
let it still be a planet. it's always been one, so leave it alone.
Recently at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) General Assembly in Prague, astronomers decided that the Solar System has eight planets, and Pluto is not one of them. Instead, Pluto is a "dwarf planet."
To be a planet, the assembly ruled, a world must meet three criteria:
(1) It must have enough mass and gravity to gather itself into a ball.
(2) It must orbit the sun.
(3) It must reign supreme in its own orbit, having "cleared the neighborhood" of other competing bodies.
So, e.g., mighty Jupiter, which circles the sun supreme in its own orbit, is a planet--no adjective required. Pluto, on the other hand, shares the outer solar system with thousands of Pluto-like objects. Because it has not "cleared its own neighborhood," it is a dwarf planet.
This decision clarifies the vocabulary of planetary astronomy while simultaneously upturning 76 years of "Pluto is a planet" pop-culture. Will non-specialists heed Pluto's demotion? That remains to be seen. Meanwhile, according to the IAU, the Solar System has eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune; and three dwarf planets: Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313.
It just show's that some people have to much spare time just sat around thing about cr*p and probably they are paid silly amounts of money for it.
I think it really sucks. Why can't they just leave well enough alone, Pluto (our 9th planet) wasn't hurting anything or anyone.
And it really hurt the widow of the man who discovered it. I saw her on a news channel and she was crying about it. Her deceased husband (Clyde William Tombaugh) discovered it in 1930.
In the UK, when do salmon swim upstream to spawn?
Does the small intestine have a strict structure?
Flying same distance at same speed along and opposite direction of earth's rotation - which takes more time?
I am English but is it 'Aluminum' or 'Aluminium'? They can't both be right?
Hey,I would appricate if someone could tell me, How Rubber Duckies are made!thanks?
the advantages of high frequency versus low frequency echo sounder?
how long does human flesh take to decompose?
how fast can a whale swim?
Answers:
When it was discovered in 1930, nobody knew that objects like Pluto were pretty common outside the orbit of Neptune. So it was a bad decision then to call it a "planet." Since then, many similar bodes have been found in its vicinity, including its moon Charon, other large bodies like Sedna, and even a body larger than Pluto (2003UB313).
A very similar renaming happened to Ceres (between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter) back in 1801. First classified as a planet, it was soon discovered to be the first among a bunch of similar objects, and it was re-classified as an asteroid.
The problem was that there has never been, until now, a firm definition by astronomers as to what a "planet" is. The discovery of UB313 forced the issue.
So the IAU had a choice. If they defined "planet" to include Pluto, then there is no reason they could not include UB313, and Charon, and Ceres, and then additional asteroids like Vesta and Pallas, and other trans-Neptunian objects like Sedna, Quauoar. There are as many as 53 objects we know of that would fall into a similar category as Pluto.
To me, a definition that results in 53 planets, and always growing, would have been worse. (You worry about schoolkids and mnemonics? . start adding names like Ceres, Charon, Xena . and then next year they have to add (and pronounce) Quaoar . and the year after that we add Vesta, Pallas, Ixion Orcus, Varuna etc. etc. to the things you have to memorize.)
The PR-sensitive thing to do would have been to simply declare Pluto as a special exception to the new definition. Unfortunately, that's just bad science . you don't grant things "honorary" status just because of historical sentiment. A scientific definition applied inconsistently just erodes confidence that scientists know what their talking about.
Another thing to consider . scientists are also thinking about the new planets we are starting to find orbiting other stars. They need to have a classification system that works well into the future.
So as much as I am sentimentally saddened by the news . it is the scientifically correct thing to do.
leave it be. It isn't hurting anyone. Why change it now.
it is a stupid decision.but i think pluto isn t much worried about it:)
I believe the criteria used to determine whether a celestial body is a planet is overly complex and should be simplified. We're pulling human factors into determination. Size, mass, SHAPE, and composition should NOT be factored into the determination. Alien worlds must be given alien consideration - not a dogmatic narrow view based on human experiences.
Simply put, a planet should have two things:
1. A planet should maintains an orbit within a system. Otherwise it can be classified as an asteriod or comet.
2. A planet can be a statellite to zero or more stars. It cannot be a satellite to another planet.
-Leon S
Who really cares whether a hunk of stuff thousands of miles away from us is technically a planet or not. Leave Pluto be.
Pluto has just as much a right to be a planet as anyother one. it isnt hurting no one.
and on now we have to come up with a new accronym to learn the planets..
let them change whatever, I know still that it's GOD's creation and not their's :)
I don't really care how many scientists tell me it has been downgraded, to me it will always be the 9th planet in our solar system. It really annoys me when so called learned people try to change the rules and then tell us we are all wrong.
I think that astronomers have to have a holiday on the company expenses, so they all meet in the west indes to discuss stupid topics that don't change anything.
Am I right in saying that it was something like 2,500 people who met to vote on whether pluto was a planet or not?
Absurd.
What a waste of time, effort and resources! If we're really committed to finding things out, we should be working on how to get there, not what to call things.
Its a foolish decision, pretty indefensible on a scientific basis --their definition of "planet" is so flawed that several major planets will no longer qualify if it is strictly enforced.
I am tired of hearing about it. That's my thoughts. All the problems going on and here are these scientists on the national news arguing over what to call a frozen rock out in the middle of nowhere that has nothing to do with us. Didn't you people used to do things. Where are all the Edisons and Einsteins? Now they just talk about their IQs and regurgitate old ideas. Then after that I got hear about what was going on in Tom Cruise's life.
Apparently it has a moon which is is bigger.!
No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days.
If Pluto "isn't" then what happens to Micky Mouse?
it should stay the same its not fair to change it
Leave it as a planet I think. Let it be an exception to the rule if need be.
It is a Planet.
Always has been a planet.
Always will be a planet.
It is a Planet.
Some blokes have the misfortune to have small dick are we now to stop calling them dick.
Some women have small breasts are we now to stop calling them breasts.
I agree that it is necessary to have set criteria so there is no debate as to what qualifies. It still will be classified a drarf planet though. I am still taking it all in though but I agree with the change
ah well i never believed in my horoscope anyway but i read it today and it said Pluto was doing something in my sign next month and it was going to be a good one....well i suppose it is still there though but it might be in a huff now.
Yeah I was pretty peeved about it myself when I heard. It doesn't really help knowing that scientists would say people aren't supposed to have feelings about scientific decisions. It just makes them seem arrogant. However, the reasons are hard to dispute. Pluto is really a big chunk of ice that doesn't have enough gravity to be round like the planets. It doesn't have it's own orbit because it crosses the path of Uranus. Stupid Uranus!
let it still be a planet. it's always been one, so leave it alone.
Recently at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) General Assembly in Prague, astronomers decided that the Solar System has eight planets, and Pluto is not one of them. Instead, Pluto is a "dwarf planet."
To be a planet, the assembly ruled, a world must meet three criteria:
(1) It must have enough mass and gravity to gather itself into a ball.
(2) It must orbit the sun.
(3) It must reign supreme in its own orbit, having "cleared the neighborhood" of other competing bodies.
So, e.g., mighty Jupiter, which circles the sun supreme in its own orbit, is a planet--no adjective required. Pluto, on the other hand, shares the outer solar system with thousands of Pluto-like objects. Because it has not "cleared its own neighborhood," it is a dwarf planet.
This decision clarifies the vocabulary of planetary astronomy while simultaneously upturning 76 years of "Pluto is a planet" pop-culture. Will non-specialists heed Pluto's demotion? That remains to be seen. Meanwhile, according to the IAU, the Solar System has eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune; and three dwarf planets: Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313.
It just show's that some people have to much spare time just sat around thing about cr*p and probably they are paid silly amounts of money for it.
I think it really sucks. Why can't they just leave well enough alone, Pluto (our 9th planet) wasn't hurting anything or anyone.
And it really hurt the widow of the man who discovered it. I saw her on a news channel and she was crying about it. Her deceased husband (Clyde William Tombaugh) discovered it in 1930.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.