Please support your answer.
Thank you!!
2007-11-05 02:53:39 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
You guys realize that it doesn't have as much to do with size as it does with its orbit, and other traits, right?
2007-11-05 03:17:40 · update #1
It's all rather academic, don't you think? Does it really make a lot of difference?
In our desire to categorise everything, it is always a possibility that we will end up with a few anomalies.
Insomuch as Pluto is a body that circles the Sun and has its own moon (Charon), then I believe it should be called a planet, rather than a dwarf planet.
If we all lived on Jupiter, we'd all be arguing that everything smaller than Uranus should be called a dwarf planet.
2007-11-05 03:05:02 · answer #1 · answered by the_lipsiot 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would classify it as an asteroid, but that annoys too many people so they came up with the new name "dwarf planet".
And is it NOT mostly about orbits and other traits. All that was known even back in 1930 when it was first discovered. If that was the reason to demote it, it would never have been granted planet status in the first place. What changed is two things. 1) More objects discovered even farther from the Sun; many as big as Pluto and one even bigger. 2) New telescopes proved that Pluto was far smaller than originally estimated. And a rare occulation of a star by Pluto recently pinned down the exact size for the first time ever. It is smaller than our Moon. If we still thought Pluto was as large as Mars (like we used to) nobody would have even considered demoting it, despite its slightly odd orbit.
2007-11-05 04:42:21 · answer #2 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the best way i can explain this is to show you a graph:
okay, i lost the link to the graph, but it was a good one. The graph was distinct orbital parameters vs distance from the sun or something like that and it showed each known object in the solar system.
what was telling about the graph was... there was one object in each slot (not counting moons) until you get to Pluto. At the orbit of Pluto, there are a number of objects, mostly smaller, but if you say "Pluto is a planet" then you gotta say, "So are the other... ten or twelve" and that is just Plutoids! There were other 'smears' on the graph too, farther out than Pluto... again, grant Pluto planet status and there is NO argument that the others qualify too.
9 planets or 8?
its more like 31 planets or 8... and I am too old to memorize that many new names.
2007-11-05 04:19:28 · answer #3 · answered by Faesson 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Frankly, I think the IAU fudged on this. They decide pluto is not a planet. so what do they call it? a dwarf PLANET! Any reasonable reading of that has "dwarf" being an adjective modifying the noun "planet". So the official decision is that pluto is not a planet, it's just a certain kind of planet. Huh?
that's like saying chocolate cake isn't cake.
2007-11-05 03:56:06 · answer #4 · answered by Michael M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were right to call it a "dwarf planet" - as they're likely going ot find up to *50* more of them, Pluto-sized and larger, as they get better & better views. I'd rather remember the names of 8 planets & a few dwarf planets, than 60 planets....
2007-11-05 04:09:37 · answer #5 · answered by quantumclaustrophobe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that Pluto should be classified as a chunk of ice orbiting the Sun as part of a comet belt on the outer edge of our solar system. Because that's what it is. There's comets larger than Pluto out there. We just saw Pluto first.
But, for the sake of nostalgia, I say leave it a planet. Who cares? It's just a name. The chunk of ice will still exist, and this way My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas.
Otherwise, My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us NOTHING!!!
...and that's not cool.
2007-11-05 03:06:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dwarf planet. Though the IAU's new definition is flawed, it makes more sense than having no definition at all. Pluto is seriously weird compared to the eight real planets.
2007-11-05 02:58:06 · answer #7 · answered by GeoffG 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't really care and don't see why many people do...
But dwarf planet because it is smaller than our moon - infact our moon is 6 times heavier than Pluto - way too small to be a planet.
Moon mean radius - 0.273 earths,
Pluto mean radius - 0.19 earths
2007-11-05 03:07:22 · answer #8 · answered by Unrequited Soul 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dwarf Planet sounds best. This way it is not a moon, but just a small planet. Which in my opinion it is, a small planet.
2007-11-05 03:02:15 · answer #9 · answered by tannum2000 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it should be considered a little person planet. Dwarf is such a passe expression.
2007-11-05 03:02:38 · answer #10 · answered by effthemann 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋