Should Pluto be considered a planet? Why or why not? And what about the others they have found?

Question

I'm curious. I have seen so many documentaires about this subject. I've heard dwarf planet and stuff about it being out there in the belt. Do you think this is going to stick or do you think the discovery of other things out there may change the viewpoints of scientists and others in the astronomy feild in the future?

Answer 1

I think it's relevant to come up with a scientific basis for what is considered a planet because astronomers are finding more and more in our kippers belt. From what I understand pluto has an orbital path that's 30% off all our other planets and is closer to the sun than neptune at times during its orbit. Pluto's rotation is elliptical in conjuction with its 2 moons acting like a hoola-hoop because the gravities of the 2 moons and pluto are near equivalent. Pluto is mostly an ice-object as well. In time, we'll find larger bodies such as a dwarf planet or star in kippers belt that's been predicted from examining other galaxies...it's just so massive and if planets aren't reflecting enough light, they're very difficult to find.

Therefore, I'm in support in naming pluto as an asteroid of the kippers belt region.

However, I only think defining the planets is relavent today only because astronomers have found the 10th (so-called) planet that is larger than pluto and is also made mostly of ice.

Cheers.

Answer 2

Sometimes even Scientists cannot agree. Pluto has been a Planet for me ever since the thirties when it was first discovered. It is true that better telescopes have been developed since then, but technically speaking: A planet is anything that travels around the sun in an orbital manner.

Pluto orbits beyond the orbit of Neptune (usually). It is much smaller than any of the official planets and now classified as a "dwarf planet". Pluto is smaller than seven of the solar system's moons (the Moon, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan and Triton).

That is what it is all about.
I hope this is helpful

Answer 3

There's no "scientific reason" to define what a "planet" is. Pluto is out there. It's a frozen ball orbiting the Sun and it'll stay a frozen ball orbiting the Sun, whatever we call it. Since there are lots of other Pluto-like objects out in the Kuiper Belt it makes sense to either decide that Pluto isn't a planet or all those other ones are. But it's nomenclature, not science.

Answer 4

I believe Pluto should not be classified a planet. I agree with the new standards. An object should be massive enough to form a sphere under the influence of its own gravity, and it should clear its own orbit, not bisecting with another object. Pluto veers into Neptunes orbit on occasion.

Answer 5

I think they are trying to distinguish between planets and Oort-belt anomalies and ice masses that didn't make it into being comets.

But I think the new definition of "planet" is wrong, because if a body large enough to form itself into a sphere ESCAPES the gravity of a planet and moves from being a planetary moon to its own orbit around the sun, that body SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A PLANET even if it was part of the Oort Cloud billions of years ago.

Since Pluto and Charon used to orbit Neptune and both are big enough to be spheres, I think they should be re-designated as a binary planet, because they "graduated" to that status regardless of the Oort Cloud possible origin.

Answer 6

No my dear, this last year science definitively stated that Pluto was not a planet. Get with the times.

Answer 7

no it shouldn't because the definition of a planet is not what pluto is.

Answer 8

These discoveries are going to play hell with astrological charts, huh.

Answer 9

Isn't it enough yet that 500,000,000,000,000 people have already asked this lame question on this site?

Answer 10

age old rule honestly....

its easier to take away then add more.....

ill always believe in pluto... cuz they told me to in school, and teachers are always right ;)