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.

 

Pluto loses status as a planet

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Well it might seem sad or even humorous to think that they finally kicked the dog out the solar system door. However I think the astronomers messed up by calling it a dwarf planet. If the status of a planet was going to be changed, I think objects like that should have the word planet removed from the name and just be called a Large Planetoid. Planetoids could eventually become a planet if they gain enough mass and become spherical. I think calling it a dwarf planet will only confuse the general population. You say it's not a planet but then you are calling it a dwarf planet.

I also disagree with the definition of a planet as an object that has cleared its orbit of debris. Perhaps they need to add a disclaimer. Objects appear significantly smaller when viewed through the rear view mirror and obviously don't count as debris in orbit unless that debris approaches the mass of the planet in question. Then, we would only be confused if multiple planets occupied the same orbit but never collided. Would they be planets?




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Sphere of Influence has to be the deciding factor

Pluto clearly is not a planet. Neptune is the overiding influence in that area of space

That does not mean the KBO's are not worthy and intruiging additions to the solar system. They appear to be a swarm of mini-planets rather than asteroids or comets

Unfortunatly they are a collective - and sense has prevailed........I mean Ceres becoming a planet yeah right



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   


And what if it has trojans "small celestial objects" in its orbit that hasn't clear in its "neighbourhood?" Jupiter and Earth anyone?


You misunderstand what "gravitational domination of its orbit" means. You are quite correct to say that the Trojan asteroids have similar orbits to Jupiter (although they aren't as rigidly defined as textbooks would sometimes lead you to believe). However, the reason that they manage to survive with these orbital characteristics is because of "orbital resonance". They have a special relationship with Jupiter and the Sun, whereby their orbits remain stable over very long time periods.

Simply put, any object that orbits the Sun anywhere near the orbit of Jupiter (and does not share an orbital resonance with the planet) is on very shaky ground indeed. Jupiter would eventually perturb this object into a different orbit. The same applies to every other major planet.......except Pluto. That's because Pluto is under Neptune's gravitational dominion. Without that 2:3 orbital resonance, Pluto would have been booted out of the area long ago.





Well I agree with those that are correct. I mean it is quite obvious that the IAU doesn't know of the asteroids in Jupiter's orbit.


I think you'll find that they do.


NOTE: I want to apologise to the IAU for referring to them as "a pack of idiots" earlier in this thread (with respect to calling Pluto a "dwarf planet"). Whilst I don't particularly like this definition, I can't instantly think of an alternative solution ! Nevertheless, I let my emotional state at that moment get the better of me, and I shall endeavour to avoid that in future posts.



[edit on 25-8-2006 by Mogget]

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Mogget]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I think your all missing a very important aspect of this Pluto status thing.

It kinda rips astrology to shreds does it not? What mass confusion. One sign loses it's ruler but now there are enough planets for each sign to have their own (currently 4 signs share 2 planets I think). How are they going to assimilate this one?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
It kinda rips astrology to shreds does it not?


Not really...it still depends on Pluto's influence doesn't it? I mean, you can call Venus an MMP (middling midget planetoid), but it still will carry out the function astrology has for it.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
What they should have done is came out with the new standards but kept pluto since it was grandfathered in.


Cug

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
This just in..

NEWS FLASH:

Plutonian Astronomers Demote Earth to "Star Turd"

Astronomers meeting in the Capital city comment, Right back atcha Earthlings.

Details of this meeting will be available on Earth in a hard copy version in 11 years.





[edit on 8/25/2006 by Cug]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Why does everyone care if pluto is a planet or not? The argument 'man i thought it was a planet my whole life' doesnt change the fact thats its not accurate. Information has to change as we evolve and grow more intellectual.

This is just for books and scientists to keep things classified and organised. Nothing else. I really dont see the issue here.


crt

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Pluto should definitely be considered a kuiper belt object, its orbit is different than the other planets, its makeup is closer to the other kuiper belt objects than the inner planets. It makes sense to reclassify it as such. Even many asteriods are tandem, having a small asteriod orbiting around a larger one like a moon, so Pluto having a moon about the same size as it is, does not classify it as a bonifide planet.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
the only thing i really dont like is the name Dwarf planet. why didnt they just call it a planetoid or someting like that. Dwarf planet makes it sound as if it was going to be a normal planet, but something happened to stop it from growing or something like that.

oh well.. arguing over whether or not it should be a planet is pretty pointless.. its still there and its not like we are offending the plutonians ( well... maybe Emory and Oglethorpe*) by saying its not a planet.


* for those of you who dont know, emory and oglethorpe are "plutonians" on the tv show Aqua Teen Hunger Force
There are also two characters from our moon... Err and Ignignokt. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to say something about them since we are talking about pluto lol.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   


the only thing i really dont like is the name Dwarf planet.


I don't much like that terminology either, but then you could argue that another name for "asteroid" is "minor planet".......



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cug
This just in..

NEWS FLASH:

Plutonian Astronomers Demote Earth to "Star Turd"

Astronomers meeting in the Capital city comment, Right back atcha Earthlings.

Details of this meeting will be available on Earth in a hard copy version in 11 years.




Classic!



Now it's finally become official, I think it's interesting.... Human history and knowledge is always being re-written, when Pluto was discovered and classified a planet, didn't all the books around then stating we had 8 planets immediately become incorrect?.... We got over it.

I think demoting Pluto gives a slight promotion in importance and interest to other large objects and mini-planets that far out, it's an interesting place.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
To be politically correct we should call Pluto a little planet not a dwarf planet


But like I said, what's the big deal? I mean the Earth it's a rocky/terestrial planet and nobody cares. Now Pluto it's no longer a rocky planet but a dwarf one...so what?

I find though an interesting question: What if in Jupiter's orbit would exist in one of it's lagrangean points (or even in both of them) an object, let's say Mercury's size?. Well, maybe not in out solar system, but since we are know discovering more and more exoplanets should those be called planets as well?

edit to correct polically - politically

[edit on 25-8-2006 by Apass]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I think that the IAU have opened up a can of worms by trying to redefine everything. They should have left things as they were, with the only change being that Pluto is demoted from "planet" to "KBO". Why the hell do we need "Small Solar System Bodies", and "dwarf planets" ? Asteroids, comets, and KBOs were easy to define, so why the sweeping changes ?

This is likely to simmer for years.........


[edit on 25-8-2006 by Mogget]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
the only thing in all this that shocked me was Ceres I'd never heard of it

It big enough to land man on? or a base?

and i think there is several moons that should be classed as moon planets,



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   


the only thing in all this that shocked me was Ceres I'd never heard of it


You'd never heard of the largest asteroid, and the first one to be discovered ?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
if you wanna know exactly HOW nasa screwed this whole thing up, i'll tell you.

because you need to know.

the discoverer of Pluto is dead. however, his widow remains alive and is 93 years old.

talking about kicking someone when they are already down, NASA has done it again!

seriously, does anyone else find it sad, if not peculiar, that the agency was in Such a damn hurry they couldn't wait until the poor old lady passes? ?

surely she has come to face the facts her days are numbered, and telling the specifics and insiders knowledge into an icy, previously undocumented ice ball is most certainly the best part of her days.

give a big round of applause to NASA, as this poor old woman is now left to her own designs and answer questions she's too tired to answer.




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
to be even MORE politically correct, Pluto is really just Planetarily Challenged.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Pluto will always be a planet to me....man is so little compared with the stars...who does he think he is anyway...the planets are endless in space so who cares....Pluto is close compared to the millions so lets stop all this wasted energy...i know.. lets all team up i mean the whole world,and build one space ship that can travel the stars for real not like we have been doing all on differant teams,we are one planet ,one people,one species[human]. i challenge anyone ...go out side look up ....are you kidding me??something is living somewhere else...Space is endless for all we know...just look!!!!!we are so small but man thinks he is so big...hehehehehehehehehhehe



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
That aint enough. I beleive planets should be in three categories, dwarf planet, planet and giant. First we should stick mercury in the dwarf section I think that we should only count 3 objects in our solar system actual planets: Venus Earth and Mars. The next four are Giants: Jupiter Saturn Uranus and Neptune. These objects are something in between planets and stars. Planet should be defined as an object that is made up largely of solid matter with a gravitational pull and dominance in its area strong enough to support a gasseous atmostphere and/or liquid hydrosphere.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join