Pluto loses status as a planet

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   


Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of its status as a planet.

About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.

Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.


news.bbc.co.uk...

it seems Pluto, as a planet, is no more. But three other objects have been brought into the club. so we have three new planets and one no longer (i believe).

btw, what are the names of the three other objects?




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
i hate to see this, pluto has been a part of our system so long that i feel it should have the right to keep its place.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Supposivly not to long ago they found the 10th planet. 10 in roman numerals is X. So technically they found the legendary "Planet X". They cleverly called it Planet Xena.

I think there is some conspiracy going on with the astrologers. I think they wasted their whole career looking for this legendary "Planet X", and when it was found, they were disappointed that it didn't have the characteristics they thought it would, according to ancient Sumerian texts. So they want to reset the count, to find the real Planet X. Hard to explain but.... there is something to this....

I really don't understand how they can just not count Pluto anymore, it doesn't make any sense at all, and I think there might be a fight about it.


The other 2 I think are Planet Sedna, and Planet Quaoar.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I really don't understand how they can just not count Pluto anymore, it doesn't make any sense at all, and I think there might be a fight about it.


The problem with counting Pluto is that there are a number of other objects out there beyond Neptune which are larger than Pluto and have better claims to being a planet than it does. Xena is one of them.

As I understand it they had a choice to either revert to eight planets or up the official score to "12 and counting" with the likelihood that dozens more will be identified in the Kuiper Belt.

Let's face it, there is no definitive standard on what constitutes a planet but for ease of reference, (and to prevent every astronomer with a telescope in the back garden identifying new "planets" on a regular basis), they are going to have to make a stand somewhere.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I guess we should start calling children, "dwarf humans".

Basically, Pluto is just a new planet and hasn't gathered enough space junk yet. So 1,000,000 years or more from now, if humans exist, Pluto will be bigger and be changed into a planet status again?



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Actually I agree with this decision. I posted earlier that keeping Pluto as a major planet would open the door to dozens of other "planets". Now we have the 8 classical (real) planets and these "dwarf planets" along with lesser entities that will be known as "small solar system bodies". All in all I think it’s a good compromise. Pluto had to go, keeping it would have made things confusing.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Yes I agree, if we would've kept Pluto, the 'planet' count in our solar system would go up past 20, then 30, then 50, then 100!...well maybe not 100 but you get my point


-Jimmy-



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Actually I agree with this decision. I posted earlier that keeping Pluto as a major planet would open the door to dozens of other "planets".


Whats wrong with opening the door to dozens of other "planets"? Who says we are only supposed to have only a few planets?


You say it will be less confusing, but, if you call something a "dwarf planet", technically since the word "planet" is still used, it will still be considered a planet, just a dwarf one.

So, on one hand you got people saying Pluto isn't a planet, yet it still has the word planet in its name. On top of that, changing text books, and 70+ years of history. Does it really sound less confusing? Not to me.

Why cant they make a totally new name/word for the other objects? Call the smaller objects Plandets, or Plantoids. I think astrologers need to have more of an imagination.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy910130
Yes I agree, if we would've kept Pluto, the 'planet' count in our solar system would go up past 20, then 30, then 50, then 100!...well maybe not 100 but you get my point


-Jimmy-


Whats wrong with having 100 planets?? We have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000¹ºº stars, why not planets?


Edn

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I'm glad they did not go for the other proposal that would have made pluto another class of planet and bring in "dual planets" because it would have effectivly brough up out planet count to somthing like 20 not to mentioun out moon woud have to become a planet.

this proposal seams much more sensible. Yes its a shame that pluto has been demoted but then thats all part of progression.

Theres a simple reason not to make everything thats round a planet its called common sence we have to have some sort of system that can class what everything is. I would agree that nameing them dwarf planets probably isnt the best term the one thing I did like from the other proposal was useing pluto as the clasification of other smaller round abjects in our system calling them Plutonians I belive.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I can't believe this is happening...fo the love of all that is sacred make it stop.

Next you will be telling me that Texas is not a country, and the fine line that seperates America and Canada ISNT actually drawn on lines of DNA, and Rhode Island is actually a state.

Not happy...not happy at all!





posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Whats wrong with having 100 planets??


How would you remember what order they come in? You'd need a mnemonc as long as War And Peace sooner or later. I don't think you've thought through the consequences.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Seriously, I think I actually agree with this finding.

I think it will now lend more credance to what really delegates a planet from an object.

I think, however, they could have done a better job of naming the new objects.

Dwarf PLANETS will only add confusion.

They should have went with Solar System Object Pluto.

- Beezer

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Mr Beezer]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
This is simply ridiculous.

Unless of course, kicking Pluto out of the mainstream is just one more subtle attempt to rearrange consentual reality and further divide the populace on minor, trivial issues!

Just think - we'll all have wonderful stories to tell our grandchildren about the days when Pluto was loved and accepted by all.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
How would you remember what order they come in? You'd need a mnemonc as long as War And Peace sooner or later. I don't think you've thought through the consequences.


I was in Christian school and had to remember all names of the books of the King James version of the Bible, in order. I also had to memorize massive amounts of scripture. I learned my A,B,C's with a song, you can do the same with planets. Are astronomers getting lazy? They don't want to memorize the planets??

B.T.W. I thought a planet was a round object with gravity, whos parent hierarchy of rotation is the sun.

Since our Moons parent hierarchy of rotation is the Earth, it wouldn't be a planet. Since Pluto rotates around the sun, it should be a planet.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
So, what's next? Are we to deem Pluto to be an adjunct of Al Qaeda and have it blown to smithereens? This is without a doubt the funnest thing ever because no one actually cared about the planets before this "significant" event of the Aquarian Age was allowed to occur.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
B.T.W. I thought a planet was a round object with gravity, whos parent hierarchy of rotation is the sun.

Since our Moons parent hierarchy of rotation is the Earth, it wouldn't be a planet. Since Pluto rotates around the sun, it should be a planet.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

By your definition the asteroids and the comets are also planets.
I think that the Earth-Moon system would be a double planet since beside Pluto and Charon, the ratio Moon / Earth is the biggest in solar system



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
But when you get to Neptune it feels like such an anti-climax



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   


The problem with counting Pluto is that there are a number of other objects out there beyond Neptune which are larger than Pluto and have better claims to being a planet than it does. Xena is one of them.


2003UB313 is the only known object beyond Neptune that is larger than Pluto. Neither this, nor any other KBO has any claim whatsoever to the title "planet".

By the way, "Xena" is not an official name.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I'm throwing an official strop over this one.

Just think of all the out of date textbooks and confusion this will bring.

hmph.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join