Do you agree on the demotion of pluto as a planet.?

Question

Do you agree on the demotion of pluto as a planet.

Answer 1

Hi Elijiah. I care. I think it is technically right, but psychologically wrong. Don't you. It was too sudden. Bad public relations! Sure there are scientific reasons for saying Pluto doesn't fit the classic criteria, but use this as a teaching moment for goodness sakes. Educate people and help them to see that not only do we need to get a more contemporary view of the solar system, we need to get serious about stopping wars and starting colonization! We need to go to Mars. Don't you think? We should be there by now and building a permanent Earth community.

Answer 2

What are you blathering on about Aristree? The concensus is that the universe is 13,7 billion years old (and the Solar System 4.6 billion years old), So let's gave less of these woolly exaggerations of 300 billion years ago (and gazillions of stars). They are not scientific answers!

Also you appear to be confused about the difference between the universe and the Solar System. The Oort Cloud Object, Sedna is known to orbit highly elliptically such that at its furthest away from the sun it is 975 AU away. This compares with 49 AU for Pluto at its furthest away. So we now know that the Solar System at its outermost extremities is not just comets, but I don't see how that makes it get any bigger! Just more densely populated.

But to answer the question:

From 1807 to 1846 there were 11 planets and when Neptune was discovered in 1846 there were 12, I can imagine a similar upset and outcry 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?

It was done for similar reasons. They were too small and there were too many more of them then being discovered (more than 100 by 1868), Just as we now know of more than 800 Kuiper Belt Objects like Pluto.

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.

Answer 3

the international astronomical union defined three terms "planet", "dwarf planet", and "small solar system body". this does not change anything about the solar system or pluto. it just corrects the mistake of classifying pluto as a planet initially. i don't know how long this will drag on tho. many planetary scientists are not satisfied that the definition is not rigorous enough.

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.

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.

(1) A "planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "small solar system bodies".


look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

Answer 4

the justifications are consistent! incredibly, the very reason that it became "demoted" (reclassified, actually) became because of the fact our previous definition became no longer consistent. especially because of the fact there hardly became one. we mandatory to return up with a distinctive length shrink that would exclude the 1000's of Kuiper Belt products so as that the checklist does no longer advance to stupid lengths. inclusive of Pluto for something different than arbitrary historic or sentimental motives might have meant inclusive of 1000's of greater desirable Pluto-like bodies, and one asteroid. utilising Pluto itself as a shrink could have been an arbitrary answer too. different than asserting that there are no planets and springing up with new words for rocky bodies, gasoline giants and tiny frozen Kuiper objets, and that could have been much greater debatable and annoying than reclassifying Pluto. A planet, as defined by the international Astronomical Union (IAU), is a celestial physique orbiting a celebrity or stellar remnant it incredibly is vast sufficient to be rounded by its very own gravity, no longer vast sufficient to reason thermonuclear fusion in its middle, and has cleared its neighbouring area of planetesimals. it rather is the 1st formal definition of a planet, and Pluto is denied by distinctive function of the final element. that's not sufficiently massive to have cleared its orbit. Pluto isn't the only "planet" to have been "demoted": Ceres became a planet between 1801 and 1864, grew to become an asteroid and is now a dwarf planet. The asteroid Pallas became seen a planet 1802-1864 The asteroid Juno became seen a planet 1804-1864 The asteroid Vesta became seen a planet 1807-1864

Answer 5

I think it was a pragmatic decision. It was either a demotion or in 20 years we're going to have 50 more "planets" just like Pluto.

The first asteroid discovered, Ceres, was called a planet at first...but was soon demoted when we started discovering more asteroids.

Answer 6

Yes, Too small, If it had have remained a member of the planetary club, there are several others which would have had to be admitted, and numbers could have quickly got out of hand.

There was a similar problem 150 years ago and the number of planets was reduced from 12 to 8, For very similar reasons.

Answer 7

According to the definition that the IAU laid out, the definition of planet that they adopted would exclude Neptune, Jupiter, Mars, and most important of all, Earth. I hate to think that we all live on a dwarf planet with the likes of Jupiter. :-) Therefore, I disagree with the demotion of Pluto's status and support the officially proposed definition that would have bumped up the solar system to twelve planets.

Answer 8

I would still consider Pluto as a planet. Actually, the size doesn't really matter. But the thing is, some people say that Pluto is just ice?!?!

Answer 9

I think it's nuts. Why demote it after all these years? What purpose does it serve? Demoting it for what reason? If it's there or not, was it hurting Earth? I just don't get it. It seems that earth has bigger issues to worry about.

Answer 10

The scientists in question have fallen into the umbra and want to come out of obscurity. What better way to make a headline than to come out with some outlandish claim about the size of the universe. I'm still trying to figure out how these people can tell me what happened 300 billion years ago.