It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


And the debate goes on....

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:31 AM
Since the reclassification of Pluto as being a Dwarf Planet and now the recently coined 'Pludoid' to account for any new objects yet to be found (or announced officially) many have argued about the status and classifications.
This debate will go on for a long time to come so it seems. I would like to hear some arguments from ATSers points of view.

This was inspired by an article I recently read about this very same topic.
The Great Planet Debate: Dwarf Planets Are Planets Too

There are a number of good arguments for both cases in the article. I know many of you will have your own opinion (As I do) and I would like to hear some of them.

Since it appears that the discovery of various sized planets is just around the corner, this will only get bigger I feel

[edit on 24/6/2008 by VIKINGANT]

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:32 AM
I guess I should clarify this further. It is really a two part question.
One, was Plutos reclassification justified and two, should anything now found within the K. belt automatically be classed as a plutoid simply because it does not clear a path in its orbit even though there is so much cosmic debris out there that it would be almost impossible or that it does not reflect enough light because it is too far away?

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:38 AM
To be honest, I'm getting tired of this reclassification BS. I was all in favour of stripping Pluto of its planetary status (and I still am), but I really didn't want it to go any further. As far as I am concerned, it's a KBO (Kuiper Belt object) that just happens to be larger than normal. Eris is a scattered disk object that just happens to be larger than normal. So what ? Neither of them is gravitationally significant enough to affect the orbits of other objects in the same region of space, so why do we need to classify them differently ?

Since there is evidence that a massive body has perturbed the orbits of many of the scattered disk objects, it stands to reason that this body should be called a planet when/if it is discovered. It must be relatively massive when compared to the other objects beyond Neptune, otherwise it wouldn't be able to significantly affect the scattered disk.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:00 AM
I guess growing up with Pluto as being a planet I was dissapointed with the reclassification. I kinda saw it as the weaker defensless sibling copping a raw deal.

I can see how it was demoted due its size etc, but I am sure it has cleared its orbit (as much as it can in a 250 odd year orbit) and in regards to brightmess, it can reflect enough light to me been from hear and has it own moon even. How many other K.Belt objects have their own moon and not just some randomly gravitationally attracted lump of misshaped rock?

new topics

top topics

log in