2007-01-18 13:44:00 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/pluto
on 24 august 2006, the international astronomical union reclassified pluto.
http://www.iau.org/fileadmin/content/pdfs/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf
pluto does orbit the sun, is ball-shaped and is not a satellite, but it does not have an isolated orbit (a bunch of other similar bodies have similar orbits.) so it is not a planet.
this was the right thing to do, believe me. this does not change anything about pluto or the solar system. this just corrects the mistake of classifying pluto as a planet initially.
i have been waiting for this since i was about ten when i learned that pluto didn't fit the pattern set by the major bodies in the solar system so it was an anomaly. it just felt "out of place". now that astronomers have found hundreds of other bodies with similar orbits, classifying "134340 pluto" as a planet is even more irrational. i feel somewhat satisfied, but i don't know how long this will drag on tho. many planetary astronomers are satisfied that the definition is rigorous enuf. i can accept that the definition is flawed, but i can not accept that "134340 pluto" is a planet.
this same thing happened has happened before. in 1800, an astronomer found a body orbiting the sun between the orbits of mars and jupiter and thought it was a planet. astronomers finally stopped classifying them as planets after they found several other bodies with similar orbits, and no one thinks ceres, pallas, juno, and vesta are planets today.
many astronomers consider pluto and charon to be a binary system, but two small bodies orbit that system. they are called nix and hydra.
incidentally, "134340 pluto" was never a moon of neptune. neptune did capture triton. this is why triton has a retrograde orbit
2007-01-18 15:12:31 · answer #1 · answered by warm soapy water 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The astronomy society has "redefined" their definition of a planet to include a minimum size requirement and Pluto is smaller than the number that they have as a min.
2007-01-18 13:49:09 · answer #2 · answered by Jen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The astronomers were in doubt of this for years , they couldn't decide because as it is so far away and its so small they think that it could probable be a very large object of Kuiper's belt
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt) . This controversy was because if Pluto was really a planet then other Kupiers objects need to be also considerated as planets to.
2007-01-18 13:58:37 · answer #3 · answered by vatsq 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pluto is not a planet because two of its moons were discovered to be bigger in size and more like planets than pluto itself.
2007-01-18 13:48:36 · answer #4 · answered by [LeRose] 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because they discovered loads of objects bigger than Pluto in the solar system.
it was simpler to downgrade pluto than introduce a load of new planets
2007-01-18 13:48:34 · answer #5 · answered by epbr123 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Scientists decided to redefine the definition of what a planet is. It is stupid, in my opinion.
2007-01-18 13:46:10 · answer #6 · answered by betatesterwood 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because its too small to be considered a planet now...I believe that's what I heard
2007-01-18 13:47:12 · answer #7 · answered by irlefw 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think its cos it went out of the orbit or sumthing
2007-01-18 13:48:22 · answer #8 · answered by .:♥JiZzOnE nDa HiZzAy♥:. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess size does matter!
2007-01-18 13:47:05 · answer #9 · answered by Jeff 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its too small,lol
2007-01-18 13:47:08 · answer #10 · answered by Jilmiya 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋