Do you think Pluto should be categorized as a planet?

Question

I know there has been controversy recently concerning Pluto. Whether it should be categorized as our ninth planet in light of the discoveries of other bodies that appear to be the same as Pluto, except more massive. So the controversy is whether they should be classified as planets as well, or classified as something else, and if they were to be classified as something else, would that mean that Pluto has to categorized as that something else too? While we're at it, what do you think the definition of a planet should be or is? I was just interested in what other people thought. Your responses are greatly appreciated.

Answer 1

I have several objections to prior answers. The one stating that because it orbits the sun makes it a planet is false. Comets also orbit the sun in a very regular orbit, so who's to say there are not other objects, undiscovered as of the current, that are orbiting the sun? And, because our telescopes are so limited, and we only see a fraction of what is really out there, pluto could fall into that category. Also, just because pluto has "three moons" (which, I've only ever heard of it having one, Charon), does not make it a planet. A moon is simply a satelite that orbits a central object. And, Mercury and Venus do not have moons, yet are considered planets. So, I suppose the ultimate question is, what is a planet? Scientifically, I think Pluto should not be considered a planet, because it does not really have the same characteristics as other planets. It's orbit is very oblong, not as circular as the other planets' orbits. Also, it is composed mainly of rock and ice, while the other planets have interiors of other elements. However, until we get enough facts about what exactly is on the interior of Pluto, I think we can not safely say whether it is a planet or not. I also think that if NASA decided to claim it as something else, and make it not a planet, there would be far too many objections, and it would cause such an uprise that it would not be worth it.

Answer 2

Well . . . Pluto was only categorized as a planet because other objects like Pluto were not discovered when Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh, but I suppose that Pluto should be categorized as a planet because it has three moons, although one is half its size, and because it is separate from other bodies. Unless more objects like Pluto are discovered, I don't think that there should be another category for "non-planets."

Answer 3

Pluto must hold some characteristics that classified it as a planet in the first place. I dont think keeping it a planet "for old times sake" is a good idea, but their must be real evidence that can support a classification change. I think i will leave this one up to the scientists and be happy with their decision, if they ever come to one!

Answer 4

No. I don't think its really large enough to be classified as one. It's pretty far away from the closest real planet. If we found Pluto today, we would not call it a planet. I've heard that statement many times.

Answer 5

Yes, seeing as how it orbits the sun it makes it a part of our solar system, and its size and steady orbit make it not an asteroid, and the fact that it doesn't orbit a planet makes it not a moon, it's a planet.

Answer 6

I personally think not, I think it should just be considered one of the larger planetesimals in the kuiper belt where a lot of these objects lie in a fixed orbit around the sun. and as we have seen there are even larger objects in this belt than pluto, so it's really nothing special (in a matter of speaking, everything in space is pretty cool).

Answer 7

I know it doesn't completely fit the discribtion of a planet, but they consider it as a planet and if u have a objection, speak t NASA!

Answer 8

old is gold so consider the older definitions.