From 1930 till this year there were 9 plannets and i find it confusing to tel the future generation that there are only 8 as declared in a meeting held in Prague .
Let us share each others views from all corners of the world
2006-09-06 06:42:16 · 15 answers · asked by girishdeshmukh_9 Girish 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
it is true that geography textbooks might have to be rewritten and millions or say billions more new books have to go off the printing presses worldwide as an answer stated that we would have to reteach billions so share your views
2006-09-08 19:28:56 · update #1
Pluto's orbit is irregular, one of the definitions of a planet is that it has a circular orbit, unlike Pluto that has an elliptical orbit. Pluto also crosses over Neptune so isn't always the furthest away from the Sun. Why they never converted Pluto into a Dwarf Planet years ago, since they have known of its orbit for a long time.
P.S: Before Pluto's status was relegated to a Dwarf Planet there were 10 planets because they found another Planet earlier this year.
2006-09-06 07:27:44 · answer #1 · answered by Elliot The Runescape Master 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pluto is not a dwarf planet it is a Pluton.
When Pluto was discovered it was called a planet without there really being a clear definition of what a planet was. Now for years (more then 50 of them) astronomers have debated over what qualifies as a planet or a moon or some other type of celestial objects. So a bunch of astronomers said "Hey since no one else will define a planet why don't we just do". So they held a conference invited astronomers from all over the world, debated, argued, and conversed and deiced that Pluto did not qualify as a Planet.
Yet since Pluto wasn't a planet and yet unlike everything else in solar system the named a classification after it.
2006-09-06 14:50:50 · answer #2 · answered by boter_99 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this changes nothing about the solar system or pluto. the international astronomical union defined three terms "planet", "dwarf planet", and "small solar system body". this isn't over yet tho. it seems that many planetary scientists are not satisfied with the definition.
i have been waiting for this since i was about twelve. i feel somewhat satisfied. this was the right thing to do, believe me. i don't understand why so many are having such a problem with this. this just corrects the mistake of classifying pluto as a planet at the start.
because pluto orbits the sun, is round, does not have an isolated orbit (a bunch of other similar bodies have similar orbits.), and is not a satellite it is a dwarf planet.
look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
2006-09-06 23:35:20 · answer #3 · answered by warm soapy water 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as I know the term 'Dwarf Planet' will be used for anything with planet-like characteristics but is too small to be classified as a planet. Probably in the near future we will have some more planets added to our Solar System as the whole reason this debate came about is because other objects that could be classified as a planet have been discovered that are bigger than Pluto.
N.B. These facts may not be true. It is just what I have deduced from various places.
2006-09-06 14:03:42 · answer #4 · answered by Taboo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From 1807 to 1846 there were 11 planets and when Neptune was discovered in 1846 there were 12, It was similarly confusing when the number was slashed to 8 in the 1860s and Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta were reclassified as asteroids, But who remembers that now? Who even knows about it?
The moment we find a planet with life on it nobody will think about lifeless rocks on the fringes of our Solar System, our horizons will have got bigger and our attention been diverted.
2006-09-07 15:56:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason that Pluto was excluded is that it's just one Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) of many that we've now seen. Either there are eight planets or there are more (probably a lot more) than nine. Nine is not logical no matter what. It's not fair to favor Pluto over other KBOs, some of which are probably larger. And it's better to treat KBOs like asteroids, which are also not considered planets. That way we have eight well defined planets, thousands of asteroids, and thousands of KBOs, instead of trying to pick some special asteroids and some special KBOs out and call them planets. What could make them special, that people would not argue endlessly about?
2006-09-06 13:55:43 · answer #6 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Due to a simple formality. A decision taken by the Astronomers.
To avoid confusions, as many small objects have been discovered in the Solar System, they decided that only objects from a certain size and orbiting around the Sun will be considered planets. Unfortunately for Uranus, it is smaller than the minimum size they decided, and has been de-classed to be a, uh... rock, asteroid?
2006-09-06 15:43:58 · answer #7 · answered by NaughtyBoy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cos they discovered so many more objects the size of pluto in our solar system with new technology. these bodies are not planets so it was considered unfair to say pluto is a planet which i think might be smaller than the moon.
in 1930 they thought it was a planet but thats cos of the lack of technology
2006-09-06 13:50:23 · answer #8 · answered by yy y 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know what? That really irrattaes me. How are you going to reteach BILLIONS of people that there is no pluto.? There will always be pluto and that's that!If you want to edit and rewrite every text book in America than so be it. Have fun!
2006-09-06 13:58:27 · answer #9 · answered by amylr620 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The future generation WON'T find it confusing, as they'll never be taught there were 9 planets.
2006-09-06 15:22:21 · answer #10 · answered by Zhimbo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋