Debate, No right Or wrong answer. Should pluto be a planet why or why not?

Answer 1

Yes it should because then we have to convince our children and peple everywhere that pluto is not a state. Dealing w/ the children and convincing them that pluto is not a planet will be kinda hard.

Answer 2

Actually, even with the old system Pluto should have been classified as an asteroid in the first place, never a planet! Yes, it spins around the Sun, yes it's a round object but that's the same with Ceres, which has always been considered an asteroid (until recently, that is).

Also because all the other planets were formed at the same time, Pluto is not related by 'blood' to them, because it's been captured in that position much later than these planets were formed. How do we know that?

First, at this distance, you should expect to see a giant gaseous planet for Pluto due to the available material of the original disk. Second, the high eccentricity of Pluto's orbit's is a clear sign that Pluto is a newer object in that position, as all other planets had time to convert their original orbits into more circular eccentric ones.

Anyway, no matter how you see it it's not the end of the world!

Answer 3

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defines "planet" as a celestial body that, within the Solar System, that:

1. is in orbit around the Sun;
2.has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (near spherical) shape; and
3.has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

Our solar system is thus considered to have eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Pursuant to a separate resolution, the IAU has designated three dwarf planets: Ceres, Pluto, and Eris.

Before 2006, there had been no formal scientific definition of "planet" and without one, the Solar System had been considered to have various numbers of planets over the years. This changed when a resolution covering planets within our solar system was formally adopted by the IAU, limiting the number to eight.

So it all depends on how you define a planet. Apparently, Pluto does not meet at least one of the three IAU criteria listed above and so was downgraded to a Dwarf Planet.
So I guess you can say that Pluto is still a planet although it is a small or Dwarf Planet.

But if the IAU does not have an official definition of a Moon, and decided to make the definition that to be a Moon you must be at least 400,000 miles from the parent planet, then our Moon would no longer qualify as a Moon. Perhaps it would just be called a satellite. Then Thousands of songs would have to be changed, such as "Satellite over Miami".
"Satellite River", "By the light of the Silvery Satellite", etc and book titles such as " The Satellite and Six Pence".

My humble opinion is that the Moon will always be the Moon regardless of definitions and similarly, Pluto should always be a planet, regardless of the definitions. BOO to the IAU.

Answer 4

I think they (whoever changed Pluto to a "minor planet") were interested in the movement of Pluto because it moved inside the orbit of Neptune. Nothing wrong with this, or course, but the preceding eight planets didn't act this way and those who keep track of such things like planets to all line up in a particular manner so that numbers and graphs are neat and tidy. Then there is the aspect of other solar bodies moving about our solar system beyond the (?) Pluto. How will they (those who have planet control naming) ever get to sleep at night if those orbits are not exactly like the first eight? Its hard times for these people.

Answer 5

On August 24, 2006, astronomers declared that Pluto is no longer a planet, thereby downsizing the solar system from nine planets to eight. After a week of debate, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of planetary status because its orbit crosses Neptune's and therefore fails one of three planetary requirements. Instead, Pluto (along with Ceres and Xena) is now classified as a dwarf planet.

For seventy-six years school children remembered the order of the nine planets with the following mnemonic: "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas." (My-Mercury, Very-Venus, Educated-Earth, Mother-Mars, Just-Jupiter, Serve-Saturn, Us-Uranus, Nine-Neptune, Pizza-Pluto)

Pluto was discovered in 1930 and immediately became accepted as the ninth planet. However, science is not stagnant and recent research has helped the scientific community decide that it does not meet the requirements of what a planet is.

This is not about nostaglia or removing a rightful planet in our solar system. It is about science coming up with theories that occasionally have to be modified based on further examination.

The way some poster are responding you would think that Pluto has a right to be a planet because that is what we grew up with. Resistance to change in this case is not a crucial factor, but what about new technologies that offer new hope for cures or solutions for public health issues.

For instance, the government has just approved the spraying of foods with viruses that consume the listeria bacteria (which can be fatal if ingested). The idea of eating food purposely treated with viruses is probably enough to shock many people but the technology has been tested over many years and has proven itself harmless to humans. These particular viruses are present in our everyday lives and eat only the listeria bacteria. Should our preconceived notions of viruses (bad) affect our decision to treat food so that people do not get sick or worse.
We have treated meat, for example, with antibiotics for years and now we have strains of bacteria that are resistant to those antibiotics. The viruses don't treat the bacteria, they engulf and "eat" them. You can't become immune to being eaten if you are a bacteria. But people are all up in arms over this new technology because a "virus' is being used.


In conclion i think that Pluto should be a planet because your mom said it should.

Answer 6

As with all scientific method, definitions are constantly being refined and adjusted as more up to date information comes to light. How does this affect pluto's status as a planet. It probably shouldn't be classified as a planet. Its eccentric orbit suggests that it is a captured body rather than one that formed from the accretion disk of the early protosun. Its size and mass would put it into the classification of a proto-planet rather than a full planet. And the similarity in size of its moon Charon would indicate that at some time in its past it was pulled apart by gravitational forces,which suggests a low density body. But That just my opinion. I'm probably totally wrong.

Answer 7

In my opinion, Pluto should be a planet because it is all or mostly spherical and it has a orbit consistently around one star.
The problem as I have heard it is that the scientific community is not happy with the idea of a vastly larger number of objects that we call planets than are already known. As a result they decided to come up with a different definition for a planet.
This seems more like scientists agreeing that they all do not like Broccoli so they decide to decide that it no longer meets the criteria to be a vegetable. Incidentally, in terms of full disclosure to my opinion, I both think Pluto should be a planet and I like Broccoli.

Answer 8

It doesn't matter. Pluto and Charon are still sattelites of the sun. With Hubbel and all the other far-seeing gadgets coming out they are seeing so many different kinds of objects the astonomers can't figure out what to call them.

A few years back there were people saying Jupiter wasn't a planet, that it was a failed star because if it had just a little more mass to it, it could have developed a core hot enough for fusion to take place.

Answer 9

Well you have to decide what a planet is. For Pluto to qualify, so would hundreds of other object orbiting the Sun. Plenty of asteroids, for instance, are larger and in closer orbits.

So you have two choices - define planet to exclude these and lose Pluto or get your memory cap on to learn about HUNDREDS of new planets.

I would rather drop to 8 planets than go up to 909.

Answer 10

for a object to be called as planet its gravity should make the planet a near spherical should orbit around sun & should have its own dominant orbit. Now pluto follows all execpt the last one coz its orbit crosses that of neptune. Almost all know how planets are formed its like this disc surrounding the sun containing various elements used to orbit sun. These became planetesimals & started to come together and collide this made them like molten balls which came together & formed a planet in diff orbit, due to heavier particles was near to sun solid planets formed near the sun and gaseous away.Now pluto's composition is similar to that of a comet means if pluto is to come near to sun it will have tail and would have called a comet but since its far away it is cold and dont have a tail and is frozen.It has highly elliptical orbit as we know the process of planet formation they had their own orbit but since pluto has such a strange orbit it might have been captured by suns gravity and orbited sun rather than formed there and orbiting & charon which we call as satellite of pluto it seems like they both have a common centre orbit like that of binary star system which is unlikely for a planet.
pluto behaves like a planet yes but not like others and to scientific condition so its not a planet yes but it is a minor planet.