Other folks are asking "Should we accept 3 new planets, or say goodbye to Pluto as a planet?" type questions. Thing is: this is entirely in the hands of the IAU (International Astronomical Union) so "we" have no say in the matter. So I'm asking a more relevant question: What if you DON'T accept the IAU's decison? What are you going to do about it?
2006-08-18 10:39:03 · 14 answers · asked by Search first before you ask it 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Absolutely nothing.
2006-08-18 10:45:20 · answer #1 · answered by bprice215 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no matter how sovereign, the IAU cannot erase history, sinc e1930 Pluto has been a planet for 76 years, the IAU could take away its status in name but will never to able to erase the image of pluto from our minds.
I wish there is a way to petition to the IAU, i want 12 planets or more, its just so..interesting!
our solar system is a HUMONGOUS thing and yet they think a mere hundred planet is a crazy thing, JUST BECAUSE SCHOOLCHILDREN CAN'T REMEMBER 100 PLANETS, DOESNT MEAN THERE SHOULDN'T BE!
i check on space.com and they say some astronomers think there should only be 8 planets, wth its like expecting an ant hive to have only 2 ants!!
pray pluto will stay, and xena and ceres and many more....
2006-08-18 11:03:49 · answer #2 · answered by Man 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I believe that their solution is going to turn out to be ridiculous. By adding Ceres, Charon and 2003 UB313 as planets they are opening the solar system up to dozens of new 'planets' and that's only the ones that we know of now. This new definition of a 'planet' will inspire many people to keep looking for Trans-Neptonian Objects (TNO's) in the Kuiper Belt.
I predict that within 10 years the IAU will have reconvene because there will be so many objects of the Kuiper Belt that could classify as a planet that our Solar System would then have hunderds, perhaps thousands of planets. It will become so unwieldy that the definition will have to change at that time.
I agree with the guideline of a specific size to the object but if they wanted to make things simple they should also look at the eccentricity of the orbit of the celestial body. For those of you who don't know eccentricity relates how close to a circle a lanets orbit is. The closer to 0.00 and the closer the orbit is to a circle.
Taking a look at the orbits of Pluto, Charon and 2003 UB313, as well as the other TNO's that make up the Kuiper Belt, their orbits are far too oval (similar to comets) to be classified as planets. Take a look at the link below for the comparative orbits and see how both Plato/Charon and 2003UB313 cross Neptune's orbit.
In my view, this would mean that Ceres would become a planet but Pluto/Charon and 2003UB313, a well as all the other objects of the Kuiper Belt, would not.
Just my two cents here, not that the IAU is listening to me.
2006-08-18 15:45:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Teach the controversy!
Seriously, I'm a college astronomy professor, so I do teach this stuff. I've been teaching about Pluto's status as a planet since I started teaching about 10 years ago, always stating that Pluto was *officially* a planet until the IAU says otherwise, even though it is my personal *opinion* that Pluto should not be a planet. My opinion hasn't changed. When I teach astronomy next spring (with the same old textbook) I will discuss with my students the new definition (it's not set in stone yet - they haven't had the official vote yet), why we needed a definition, and why we now have a different number of planets than what they learned about previously.
So I will teach them the official definition, and I'll teach them about all the different objects in our solar system. It's all just semantics, anyway.
2006-08-18 11:53:49 · answer #4 · answered by kris 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It looks like they are going to decide against what I believe. But, there are going to be a lot more than three new planets! At first there will be 40-50 planets, but eventually there will be hundreds. I would prefer to have just eight planets.
My reaction is two-fold: 1) I found their arguments surprisingly persuasive, and 2) In any event, it doesn't really matter how we define the word "planet". I found their definition plausible because it really is the simplest possible way to define a planet.
Perhaps the only side-effect will be minor: now we will have two types of planets: inner planets, and Kuiper Belt planets. Or maybe we will have rocky planets, gas giants and Kuiper belt planets.
2006-08-18 11:09:02 · answer #5 · answered by Tom D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ignore them and keep calling Pluto a planet.
Who elected these guys and put them in charge anyway?
I don't recall voting for any Astronomical Representative to any Astronomical Union or even for the existence of any union and I don't know any law that keeps me from calling Pluto a planet if I want to.
This reminds me of a bunch of thugs, educational thugs in this case, getting together and deciding to beat up on a little guy.
Everything they say is just theory anyway.
2006-08-18 13:10:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can "not" accept it, but your children will be taught it, "as fact" in the public school. You will be looked at as a nut right up until the time the IAU changes it mind again. At that point your children's children will be taught the new and improved decision. Today's decision will not be mentioned and will be forgotten because scientists don`t like to be looked at as stupid.
2006-08-22 07:56:25 · answer #7 · answered by Gone Rogue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly what are we *supposed* to do about it? Sorry, but it seems like a dumb question to me. The IAU will rule and everyone simply has to accept it. Sure, folks can argue about it, but it won't make any difference.
2006-08-18 12:32:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The heavens are unchanged, don't have any worry. Pluto has been there for eons. it truly is guy that has replaced... guy replaced the criteria by technique of which a planet is easily-known. The heavens are unchanged, Pluto remains there. it is merely categorized as something decrease than a planet.
2016-11-26 00:40:35 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im personally not going to do anything. It doesnt matter much what happs, all it will do is mean they wont be appearing in text books ever again. Otherwise, they are still observable and visible.
Except for naming the newest planet beyond charon and pluto "Xena," I wont really mind much.
2006-08-18 10:50:10 · answer #10 · answered by iam"A"godofsheep 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have yet to see an informed reason on here as to why people would not accept it in the first place. It seems like most of the people against it are just resistant to change, or do not want to have to learn the new names.
p.s. cailano's answer is hilarious
2006-08-18 10:48:55 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋