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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by enaught
The comet hit Jupiter and peices of the comet were sent back into space.


What...? We could see the comet impact, and the results of the impact, but there was ejecta?




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I figured I'd update this thread abit.

Just wanted to say that the UAI began meeting today 8/14/06, in which they will discuss a range of topics, one being if Pluto is a planet or not. The meeting is 11 days long, so by the 25th we will all have our answer.


Astronomers Take Up Planet Debate At International Congress



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Well I'd say yes, partly cus it has being called one for so long. I mean, why now?

anyway don't mean to burst the bubbles, but isn't Pluto going to crash into Neptune in a few millions years. So either way it won't be a planet.

There are bigger objects found further than Pluto, and we will probably find bigger ones. Apart from all the reasons for and against Pluto being a planet.

One thing Pluto has that Mercury and Venus haven't is a moon. I think that in it's self gives Pluto a bit more of a planet category. Not saying this is the only and uterior reason.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The thing about Pluto's moon is that Charon does not orbit Pluto... Pluto and Charon orbit one-another.

I think that the simplest answer to this questsion is to set a distinct size as the criteria for a planet. Though in exploring space we're likely to find many objects that blur the boundary...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe
Well I'd say yes, partly cus it has being called one for so long. I mean, why now?

Because we know now much more about it then we did back when it was declared a planet.

Just because its being called a planet for a long time, doesn't mean it deserves planetary status...Its a large KBO...nothing more.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
How about we call it a PlaNOT.?

Actually I don't see a problem with Planet categories.
Terrestrial, Gaseous, Planetary KBO's..something like that.

OR, we stop the debate until more is known about KBO's, there may be many types of KBO's..



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Even if Pluto's not a planet, we can still call it Pluto.


My bet's on it not being considered a planet. They'll have to come up with something shorter than "kuiper belt object" though.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel


My bet's on it not being considered a planet. They'll have to come up with something shorter than "kuiper belt object" though.


I agree..Kuipee.

8 planets and one Kuipee.

I still think it's too early to debate..otherwise we may have begin yet another debate in a dozen years or so.
I say lets wait unitl at least 2015, when we get a better look at it.
I predict it will look a lot like Triton, the Moon of Neptune..



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
How about we call it a PlaNOT.?

Actually I don't see a problem with Planet categories.
Terrestrial, Gaseous, Planetary KBO's..something like that.

OR, we stop the debate until more is known about KBO's, there may be many types of KBO's..


Well actually there is an asteroid with a spherical shape that could be added into this equation.

It isn't a matter of KBO's, Gaseous, and Terrestrial defined objects.

It is a matter size displacements of planets.

And a planet should simply be an object large enough to develope a spherical shape and small enough not to develope into a brown dwarf or a star.

I've created a more scientific approach by added in the words.

Terrestroids - from the word "terrestrial" - Planets resembling that of Earth, Mars, Mercury, and Venus.

Jovianoids - from the word "jovian" - Planets that resemble Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus.

Plutinoids - from the word "plutino" which refers to Pluto in which it means small or from the extent small enough not to be considered terrestroid but large enough not to be considered large space debris.


i2-images.tv2.dk...
Pluto
Xena
2003 EL61 "Janus" en.wikipedia.org...
2005 FY9 "Atea" en.wikipedia.org...
Quaoar


www.abc.net.au...
Huya

www.astronomie.de...

Sedna
Ixion
Varuna
Ceres
Virannis
"2004 DW" Orcus en.wikipedia.org...


a52.g.akamaitech.net...
2000 EB173 "Loki"

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Timeseer]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I honestly think we should just let Pluto keep it's planet designation.
I mean the majority of people consider it a planet.
This is one of those times where the science tendency to classify everything to death, should be sidestepped.


I have a question, if Pluto and Charon are a binary planet system, than what does Stix orbit?


Also, I'd just like to throw in my 2cents about how to classify a planet.

Roughly spherical.
More than 1,500mi. at the equator.
Smaller than a brown dwarf.

I think that's a good way to define a planet.

[edit on 8/16/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I honestly think we should just let Pluto keep it's planet designation.
I mean the majority of people consider it a planet.
This is one of those times where the science tendency to classify everything to death, should be sidestepped.


I have a question, if Pluto and Charon are a binary planet system, than what does Stix orbit?


Also, I'd just like to throw in my 2cents about how to classify a planet.

Roughly spherical.
More than 1,500mi. at the equator.
Smaller than a brown dwarf.

I think that's a good way to define a planet.

[edit on 8/16/2006 by iori_komei]


Actually it just has to be roughly spherical and smaller than a brown dwarf.

But here is the thing though...

If we are not calling Pluto a planet, just because it lies in the Kuiperbelt, then shouldn't we do the same with Mars and Jupiter. Both of them lie actually in the Asteroid Belt.

en.wikipedia.org...:Asteroid_Belt.jpg

This is what we consider as the Asteroid Belt...

But the fact those that two of Mar's moons were asteroids places the fact that Mars actually lies in the Asteroid Belt. And the Trojans are the exterior of the Asteroid Belt which lies in the orbit of Jupiter.

This makes both Mars and Jupiter part of the Asteroid Belt, just like Pluto.

upload.wikimedia.org...

This is a distribution of Asteroids in the solar system in AUs from the Sun.

1 AU is the average distance from the sun to the Earth. Mars is about one and a half the distance from the Sun as the Earth, so 1.5 AU is roughly the distances from the Sun that Mars lies in at. Jupiter is roughly 5.2 AUs from the Sun.

By the way all those blue dots are asteroids and apart of the asteroid belt, just not in the main asteroid belt that lies between Mars and Jupiter.

Actually if you look at it close enough you can see some of the blue dots representing asteroids bypassing where the Earth lies in at. Thus the Earth and the Moon are also a part of the Asteroid Belt.



That is a major reason as to why we cannot consider Pluto as simply just a Kuiper belt object.

In my humble opinion objects like Jupiter shouldn't be considered a planet, because they are too large.

They seem more like a protostar or a Miniture Brown Dwarf than as an actual planet.

But to be fair with everyone.

A planet is a celestial object that exclusively orbits around a star with a scale of mass smaller than a brown-dwarf or star that is large enough to have developed a spherical shape.

"Exclusively orbits around a star" is the part that distinguishes it from a moon.
"spherical shape" distinquishes it from any space debris like asteroids or comets.
"a scale of mass smaller than a brown-dwarf or star" is the part that distinguishes it from a star or protostar thing like a brown dwarf.
"celestial object" is an object in outer space.

But I could go smaller and say...

A planet is a celestial object of a developed spherical shape that exclusively orbits a star with a mass smaller than a brown-dwarf.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Timeseer]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Space.com has an article on the IAU about the planet debate, and IAU put 12 additional objects/planets on a "watch" list.

It says that pluto might become known as a double planet...making Charon no longer its moon.

Planet debate

heres the 12 possible future planets (with an earth comparison)


[edit on 16-8-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Space.com has an article on the IAU about the planet debate, and IAU put 12 additional objects/planets on a "watch" list.

It says that pluto might become known as a double planet...making Charon no longer its moon.

Planet debate

heres the 12 possible future planets (with an earth comparison)


[edit on 16-8-2006 by Murcielago]


2003EL61 should be called "Janus" after the two headed God, because of it appearing to have two heads. Two poles sticking out like ends or heads.

I propose Atea for 2005 FY9.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Timeseer]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join