ive heard that pluto is no longer a planet ?? what's up with that ?
2006-09-22 12:53:38 · 31 answers · asked by foxchristian90 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Scientists now thinks it's too small to be a planet
2006-09-22 12:54:37 · answer #1 · answered by Devin 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as 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 neighbourhood around its orbit.
This means that the Solar System consists of eight "planets" Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. A new distinct class of objects called "dwarf planets" was also decided. It was agreed that "planets" and "dwarf planets" are two distinct classes of objects. The first members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 (temporary name). More "dwarf planets" are expected to be announced by the IAU in the coming months and years.
Pluto fails criterion c because it has many neighbors of similar mass.
Aloha
2006-09-25 11:41:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pluto was never a plant lol. And this question has been asked and answered many times on here. Pluto simply no longer meets the new criteria of what is a planet.
2006-09-22 13:01:18 · answer #3 · answered by Island Queen 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
it extremely is simply by new definition of a planet, which wrkey published. until now, there has actual no longer been a scientific definition of what's a planet. The international Astronomers Union (IAU) replaced into forced to do something simply by discovery of an merchandise better than Pluto (2003 UB313, popularly ordinary as Xena). could they call this a planet or no longer? The committee they set as much as earnings this reported that they define a planet as: a million) great adequate that its gravity varieties it right into a sphere, and a pair of) independently orbiting the sunlight. This definition could have made Xena a planet, and could have promoted the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon, and in all probability dozens of alternative gadgets to planet prestige. some individuals of the IAU weren't pleased with this and further the 0.33 requirement, that a planet clean its orbit of alternative gadgets (it extremely is allowed as much as a million% of its mass in asteroids and different debris). simply by fact Pluto shares orbital area with Neptune, this new requirement disallowed Pluto, leaving us with 8 planets. the determination has been debatable, with the two the known public and with some astronomers, who think of the orbit clearing requirement is unfair and ambiguous. So it extremely is genuine for now, yet could ultimately be overturned. yet there in all probability isn't from now on ameliorations until the subsequent IAU known assembly in 2009.
2016-10-17 11:37:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So text book publishers can sell more books. Seriously, it is now considered a micro plant because of it's diminutive size. Plus Pluto really does follow of it's own rules, a revolution that is opposite the other planet's, the fact that it crosses another planet's revolution. And again, it is so small
2006-09-23 01:35:47 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because pluto is smaller than our moon Luna if our moon is 1/4 of our world pluto is almost 1/8 only of the world
2006-09-22 16:17:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because scientists say that is just a giant ice rock floating in space, but on of pluto's moons became a planet.
2006-09-22 14:44:42 · answer #7 · answered by Katie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some pencil pushers decided to refine the definition of a planet and included a minimum mass. Pluto falls below the minimum of their definition. Otherwise, nothing has changed about Pluto.
2006-09-22 12:58:12 · answer #8 · answered by water boy 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Some astronomers met in I think it was Prague and agreed to redefine 'planet' a certain way. The result didn't include Pluto. You can read the new definition of a planet here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet
It doesn't include Eris, Quaoar, Varuna, Sedna or Ceres either. Mercury, however, is included.
2006-09-22 12:54:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Pluto is an animal, not a plant. Just like Mickey and Donald
2006-09-22 12:56:09 · answer #10 · answered by psychosolodiver 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
they found a lot of rocks in space with the same size of pluto so they didn't want like twenty planets so they raised the criteria for a rock to become a planet
2006-09-22 12:55:43 · answer #11 · answered by Coke-n-Snickers 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋