Do you think this was a good choice? Why or why not?
2006-12-12 15:45:30 · 12 answers · asked by Rascal_Flatts_Fanatic! 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
It is, was, and always should be our 9th planet. Whos to say a bunch of scientists have the right to tell the world that pluto is not a planet? Have they made the trip out there? If so, then they would be too old to know what they were even talking about!!
2006-12-12 15:54:26 · answer #1 · answered by whispy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pluto should have stayed. It was supposedly called a "dwarf planet". So what? It's still a planet. There are stars called "dwarf stars" and they're still considered stars. Besides, now that the scientists declared this, all over the world, information about Pluto being a planet would be useless. Should all that hard work of past scientists, publishers, and other people who worked really hard just to let others know more about Pluto, go to waste?
I've learned that there are 9 planets. Now, supposedly there are 8. Pluto has characteristics just like any other planets, so why should it not be one?
2006-12-13 00:35:10 · answer #2 · answered by Huh, Wait What? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It simply doesn't matter. Calling something a planet or not is simply a classification scheme. If what we now know about Pluto makes it more closely related to other asteroids, then why continue to call it a planet.
If planets represent large bodies that were formed by the accretion of material from the early solar system, and if asteroids are thought to be the remnants of larger bodies or other space debris that has been swept up by our solar system, then they objectively deserves a distinct classification.
When Pluto was discovered and classified as a planet it was a tiny speck on a photograph. We simply did not have sufficient data to really characterize it. Now we have much more detailed information, so why not revise our description? That's the way science works, we revise our ideas as we learn more.
2006-12-13 01:37:31 · answer #3 · answered by amused_from_afar 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Herein lies a sad story. It begins with Percival Lowell, the man credited with the discovery of Pluto. Let's take a look at his career:
Claimed that the surface of mars had canals in which water must have flowed. He was wrong. The things he saw were not canals, but natural formations (Scientists are now finding evidence of formations where water must have flowed, but Lowell was saying these were CANALS, not natural formations, ie, there was life on mars that built the canals).
Claimed to have evidence for a planet outside the orbit of Neptune (pluto). His calculations were wrong.
Years later, one of his students actually does discover Pluto and credits him with the discovery and even practically names it after him (the symbol for pluto is PL, percival lowell!!).
This is Percival Lowell's only way of staying in the astronomy history books with any dignity (even though he didn't really find Pluto) and it is being taken away from him. He has nothing else (as far as I know) except the Lowell observatory. As for his scientific achievements, they are now down to none. Poor guy.
2006-12-13 00:01:22 · answer #4 · answered by vidigod 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was correct. We now know Pluto is one of a large number of similar objects, the Kuiper Belt Objects. It makes no sense to make just one KBO a planet.
The exact same thing happened with Ceres. When it was discovered it was listed as a planet. 50 years later they had realized that Ceres was just one of many asteroids, so it was no longer considered a planet. Even though it was the biggest asteroid.
The eight planets are relatively unique, not one of a large group like Pluto.
2006-12-13 01:19:29 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good choice. It should never have been given planet status in the first place. It is just way too small; smaller than the Moon! Only problem is that we didn't know that at the time it was discovered. It was originally estimated to be bigger than Mars, so they called it a planet. We know better now.
2006-12-12 23:52:37 · answer #6 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well it would have been idiotic to keep him on the list. We didnt know about the Oort cloud when we discovered him (hes not even the biggest inhabitant of the cloud) so he seemed like a planet.
Hes not one hes just a ball of ice that moves about with potentially trillions of others.
He is still part of our solar system but hes just now an object, not a planet.
As a side note we now understand that there is more to being a cool object in a solar system than just being a star or a planet. Look at jupiters moons, they are more planetlike than most of the planets and one could possibly hold life in its sub ice ocean! (i dont mean sentient)
---
oh and whispey, we HAVE been there and still are there. Go look up voyager. and secondly, it was the scientists who gave us all the planets. Without them you wouldnt have your computer so show some freaking respect!!!!!
2006-12-13 00:00:07 · answer #7 · answered by delprofundo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bad choice- I don't like thier terms about dwarf planets. I think planets need an orbit, and an axis to revolve on. Now that they said that planets need to be a certain mass or wieght. That is absurd.
2006-12-12 23:59:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I couldn't care less. Demoting Pluto has absolutely no effect on the universe, our solar system, our planet, nor any of the myriad problems it faces.
2006-12-12 23:57:54 · answer #9 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
good choice - pluto was a terrible planet
2006-12-12 23:47:56 · answer #10 · answered by forex 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋