READ
i think everyone been biased against pluto,
everybody say pluto's the 'bad' one, crossing into Neptune's orbit, thus making itself a dwarf
well from another point of view, we could also said Neptune's the one to be accused because it crossed over Pluto's orbit.
thus it only would make sense that Neptune be demoted because it hasnt 'clear the neighborhood' aorund it
what i'm trying to say? the new definition is pathetic, laughable and just purely stupid with the 'clear the neighborhood' clause
2006-08-29 12:52:57 · 12 answers · asked by Man 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Yeah, the "clear the neighborhood" thing is garbage. And not because Neptune crosses Pluto's path. Most every planet in our Solar System has not completely "cleared the neighborhood". Every planet has Lagrangian points in it's orbit around our Sun. These points contain small rocks and a lot of dust. The Earth may be on the weak side of this, but there is some evidence that there may be dust in our orbit known as the Kordylewski cloud. And Jupiter is, by far, the biggest offender of the "clear the neighborhood" clause. There are thousands of "Trojan" asteroids in the orbit of Jupiter. So, I can only presume that the ICU is adding the third definition in a most general way, and it certainly could only apply to our Solar System and not other star/planet configurations that we are only beginning to discover. They will have to redefine a planet again in the future.
2006-08-29 15:45:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The new deffinition is not very good and I think it will be revisted.
In the end I think the next deffinition of a planet will also exclude Pluto. If you look at pluto from a scientific viewpoint it has many traits the 8 planets don't...and the 8 planets have trait Pluto does not have...really the only trait they have in common is orbiting the sun, and if this is how a planet is going to be deffined then we have thousands of new planets.
In my opinion the IAU did a great job by excluding Pluto...the terminology they used is not obscure at best though.
The folks who stated the facts above are incorrect in the new deffinition, it has nothing to do with size or orbit. A planet has cleared it's path in it's orbit, and is not the satalite of another body. This excludes Pluto. The problem lies in that these are not the only factors that in most astronomers mind make Pulto not a planet the reasons ALSO include the reasons above, it's size, it orbit, and even it's makeup. Yet the IAU did not include any of these other factors in it's deffinition of a planet. We could easily make a deffinition of a planet for our solar system that inlcuded the 8 planets and exluded Pluto and all other Kuiper belt objects. The problem is at the moment the IAU is not only thinking about our solar system. We are discovering EXO planets, planets in other solar systems rapidly now. The IAU is looking for a deffinition of a planet that would work for all solar systems, not just ours. This is how the obscure terminology came into play.
2006-08-29 20:01:34 · answer #2 · answered by Scott A 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The biggest part of the problem isn't Pluto crossing Neptune's border, but the size of Pluto. Since Neptune is 4 times bigger than earth, earth would go before Neptune.
Besides, it's not like Pluto disappeared, we're just calling it something else.
Also, I think there's a bit of pride in this, because Pluto, until recently was the only planet discovered by an american.
2006-08-29 20:00:34 · answer #3 · answered by nitro2k01 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think you should read a little more about the subject. The issue was not about pluto's orbit being over neptune's. The problem was that pluto is too big to be an asteroid and too small to be a planet. There about three other things that meet the same criteria as pluto and are not considered planets, they either had to make them planets too or kick pluto out.
2006-08-29 19:58:04 · answer #4 · answered by Maria 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Hi. The close approaches to Neptune's orbit are what probably captured Pluto in the first place.
2006-08-29 19:59:10 · answer #5 · answered by Cirric 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You think Pluto's demotion is stupid, then you'll really think that it's even more stupid that out of the three-thousand or so members of the IAU (..the organization that decides these kind of things) only about 300 of them were present for the vote that decided Pluto's fate.
2006-08-29 21:06:17 · answer #6 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pluto was demoted because it has a hugely elliptical orbit, while Neptune is closer (though it is still eliptical) to a circular orbit.
2006-08-29 20:05:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think that Pluto should just be "grandfathered" in. It's been called a planet for so long and it might as well stay one.
2006-08-29 19:56:18 · answer #8 · answered by ♥ Tori ♥ 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is a God named after Neptune, Pluto was a cartoon dog. Won't happen.
2006-08-29 19:55:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The orbit thing was just one reason. Its size had more to do with the decision.
2006-08-29 19:57:04 · answer #10 · answered by Ha! Invisible! 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋