It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

should we consider Pluto as a planet

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I dont think pluto should be called a planet because of its size. an its relation with the kuiper belt. to me i think its just another rock with enough gravity to have something spinning around it.

whats your opinion




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I believe Pluto received planet status because of the time it was discovered. It were discovered today, planet status would definitely not be considered... unless the three satellites were found at the same time.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
The main problem with this whole "planet" thing, is that there is no absolute definition of the term "planet." Apparently, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) will be releasing its final decision on the matter of defining what a planet is in September 2006. Check it out here:

Click Here



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
The main problem with this whole "planet" thing, is that there is no absolute definition of the term "planet." Apparently, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) will be releasing its final decision on the matter of defining what a planet is in September 2006.


good news.


After they announce it...If Pluto is still considered a planet...they should all be fired.

Pluto has never being a planet. It was thought that since its big and orbits the sun its a planet......But then bigger & better telescopes came along...and now we know that its just a KBO, there are a few KBO's that are even bigger then pluto. The majority of Pluto is ice...and if it get close to the sun as earth is it will have a tail...hmmm...what other objects in space have a tail??? My view is Pluto is just a big comet...nothing more. I will still be wowed when the probe New Horizons reaches pluto and takes some amazing images...But If I remember right...thats nearly a decade away.

anywho...No, Its not a planet...Far to many people have 9 engraved into there brains...They should start teaching students in school that there is 8...hopefully they will start doing that after this IAU meeting.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
What about its shape ?
There are lots of rocks orbiting the sun but the are not round ?
wouldnt this sugest that it formed at the same time as the rest
of our solar system ? all of those other rocks look like muntant
potatoes ! yet pluto is perfectly round.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
What about its shape ?
There are lots of rocks orbiting the sun but the are not round ?
wouldnt this sugest that it formed at the same time as the rest
of our solar system ? all of those other rocks look like muntant
potatoes ! yet pluto is perfectly round.


perfectly round? The best pictures we have of pluto have been taken by Hubble...and there a fuzzy blur.
We wont get any good pictures of Pluto until the probe New Horizon reaches it...which is in 2015.

I dont think shape would be a planetary requirment.

Reasons:
If it came closer to the sun you would think its a commet.
Its orbit is different then all other planets.
Its Size, its smaller then our moon. There are other planetoids out there (in the kbo) that are bigger then it.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
What about it being made the same time as our own ?
The shape would sugest this. Also if it turns out to be
a large floating glob of nothing then it shouldnt be a planet.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
What about it being made the same time as our own ?
The shape would sugest this. Also if it turns out to be
a large floating glob of nothing then it shouldnt be a planet.


I i remeber correctly, werent most objects orbiting the sun created around the same time. I dont think that should be a consideration for planetary status.

And about the round shape of planets. I think it has more to do with gravity than with they being formed around the same time.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Oh, and i forgot. Pluto should most definately not be considered a planet



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Murcielago, you posted some interesting comments. The thing that no one has mentioned is that it has objects orbiting it. I think there has been some discussion on whether Pluto's natural satellites should be considered moons due to their size. If you want to call them moons, Pluto holds a strong case for planetary status, however, Charon is almost as big as the planet itself. So you can look at it two ways, accept that binary objects can be considered planets, or state that it's not going to fly as accepted in relation to their position in the Kuiper Belt. And puneet, you're absolutely correct about gravity making objects round.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The problem with satelites being used for planetary status is that there are planets in our solar system that do not have moons. So, that can not be the deciding factor. Honestly, I think the best way to determine if a planet is a planet is by setting a minimum size. Shape doesn't mean diddley, since our atmosphere makes our planet look "round" when in reality the surface is pretty much like a 14 year old's face: veeerrrryyy bumpy.

I don't think pluto should be considered a planet (by us) especially since it is smaller than our moon.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Pluto is one of the sun's satelittes.


I do not understand the debate: Pluto is too small and is too close to the KB. What is small and what is close? And why do either of these criteria have merit in application with classifying the charactersitics of a planet?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cerebral Souldier
The thing that no one has mentioned is that it has objects orbiting it.


Aside from the already mentioned holes in that arguement, I thought I would add one more... Well, two, really...



Ida and Dactyl.

Should Ida be called a planet then?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
you would think that a planet should at least have some sort of atmosphere.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
you would think that a planet should at least have some sort of atmosphere.

Then what happens to the big gas giants? I dont believe they have an atmosphere...and they have no surface to land on...Would you consider them planets?


Good point cmdr, It shouldn't be called a planet just because it has something that orbits it...anything with enough mass can do that.


Another good point, Cerebral Souldier, Pluto & Charon...Pluto is consider the planet and Charon is the moon, but if you were to observe the two you would see that they kind of have a tug-of-war going on...Pluto is bigger, but Charon is big enough to make pluto appear to wobble, and thats the reason that Pluto & Charon is often thought of as a double planet.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
OF course the gas giants have atmospheres and surfaces.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by enaught
OF course the gas giants have atmospheres and surfaces.


Well atmospheres yes, technically the gas giants are nothing but big spheres of atmosphere.

About the surface part, could you provide me with some links on that. I dont think i have ever come accros anything that stated the gas giants as having a surface (we are talking about solid surface right?). Thanks



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
About the surface part, could you provide me with some links on that. I dont think i have ever come accros anything that stated the gas giants as having a surface (we are talking about solid surface right?). Thanks


It's never been proven, becuase we lack the capabilities of sending probes so far down there, but it has been hypothesized.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

It's never been proven, becuase we lack the capabilities of sending probes so far down there, but it has been hypothesized.


There you go


Now that rules out 'should have a surface' as one of the criteria for defining a planet. Hence Pluto's case is weakened further



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
About ten years ago, astronomers were fortunate to watch the impact of a comet with Jupiter. The comet hit Jupiter and peices of the comet were sent back into space. There may be no solid or liquid surface, but at some point below the upper atmosphere Jupiter is very dense, hence a surface.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join