Should Pluto be considered a planet?

As some of you may have discovered, there is a big controversy over the planetary status of Pluto lately, ever since a small faction of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted to demote the celestial body. There seem to be good reasons not to demote it, and there seem to be good reasons it actually doesn't qualify. What are your thoughts?

My initial feeling was that they should leave it, because justifying demoting it for it's odd elliptical rotation seemed completely flawed, logically, but on the otherhand, apparently there are a number of objects that would also qualify as the same quality 'planet' if it wasn't demoted.

eh i dont think they should, they should try to figure out a better way to classify the planets, so they dont end up calling assteroids and whatnot planets. I believe the only reason that it was disqualified was because prt of its orbit is the same as neptunes or something, i didnt really get why that should cause it be disqualified.

Mickey's a Mouse. Donald's a duck. Pluto's a Planet. :thumb: I just don't see conclusive evidence that would justify calling it anything else.

OEC

I believe the reason it was disqualified was because of it's size. They found 2 other objects in our solar system of similar/larger size that had not been classified as planets, because their orbits were about twice the size of Plutos. I think they are simply not calling Pluto a planet because it's slightly smaller than something that's orbit takes almost half a millennium to complete one circuit. Leave Pluto as a planet. It has been considered a planet for a long time, it will screw up Astrological Readings, it not being there.

oh itll still be there itll just be a "dwarf planet" size was somewhat of a factor, but they way they disqualified it was because it shares part of its orbit with neptune, and according to the new requirements to be a planet it has to have a completely independant orbit. They did that because some people wher trying to consider some moons planets.

So I don't know too much about astronomy and don't have much interest aside from being able to pick out some of the major constellations but this whole "Pluto thing" I kept hearing about in the news got me curious.

Checked out the IAU's site and I think we're (we, as in the general public) being misled a bit by the press (as if that's anything new) thanks to the focus on the reclassification of Pluto. They (the press) sort of come across (to me anyway) as saying that the whole decision was based around whether or not Pluto should be a planet. But, having read the IAU's final resolution in regard to the matter it's seems pretty clear that the issue was less what happened to poor little Pluto and more a need to redefine the term "planet" for other important reasons. And, given all that, I think that the IAU was correct in their decision. I should reiterate however, that I'm by no means an authority or trying to act like one. I'm only basing what I have to say on my interpretation of what I've read thus far. *shrug*

Check it out at the IAU's site. (I'd post a link but I'm too "new" and not nearly cool enough. Give your google some love instead)

It's actually pretty interesting once you scroll down and get to the actual text of the resolutions.

i haven't got an opinion on this one, one way or the other. let those who are devoted to the subject battle it out with pitchforks, and bowling pins...

...on the other hand, what about that new object they found that's further out than Pluto, and haven't got around to naming? it's supposedly bigger than Pluto to boot. why haven't i heard more about that lately?

How small is too small? Any object which has enough gravity to make itself spherical and orbits the sun, as opposed to orbiting another planet, should be considered a planet. Pluto has a moon, as some planets do. Why all the intellectual drivel over pluto not worthy of planetary status? Asteroids are irregular because of their small size. There is the natural Cut-off point. Not orbiting the sun? Not spherical? Not a planet.

i say they need to come up with a specific diameter to be considered a planet

their rules are far too complex and subject to different interpretation

but those wanting to call moons planets are mentally defective as they are not directly orbiting a star

i was really hoping they would keep pluto a planet then they would have had to add xena

since plutos discovery it hasnt completed one orbit of the sun it might not survive the round trip

Its now a dwarf planet, simple as that, theyve found a better more logical way to classify it. Just because they called it a planet in the 80s or whatever doesnt mean thats how it shouldve been labeled forever. Its still a planet, just in a different catagory of planets.

this is really going ot mess up astrology.

but a celestial body that really qualifies more as a loose space rock or another planets moon shouldn't be called a planet.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leisel

Checked out the IAU's site..

---

Yeah, I kinda see the point there. That it isn't like it's no longer a planet, but it's a certain qualified lesser class of planet, which may well make some sense. I'm all for adding the various lesser planet bodies. I thought that declassifying it for an irregular orbit is not sound enough logic on it's own though. Then you'd have to get into how much variation classifies as irregular.

when it comes to astrology, i've got a few friends who are professionals in that field, and they tell me that mostly the first 7 planets are all you need to look at, beyond that you're getting into stuff most people never really have to deal with.

'planetiod'? i dunno, call it whatever. it's there. so what's up with that one they found further out from it?

PLUTO WAS MY FAVORITE PLANET!!! *cries*
i like the little gibbly chunk of rock...

I think pluto should be promoted..to something new

fuck those scientists. this is upposed to be a democracy, why should we let them tell us what to think? most people consider pluto to be a planet, and it's part of our history. here's the criteria for what should and shouldn't be considered a planent- if it's one of the nine floating bodies that haven been known as planets for hundreds of years or thousands or whatever, since thier discovery, then they are planets. if it's anything else, if it's a large floating peice of shit that no one knew about until last week, then it's not. It's only because NASA knows that it's fucking pointless and they have to come up with new "discoveries" to justify thier bloated worthless waste of tax payer money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmmcherry

PLUTO WAS MY FAVORITE PLANET!!! *cries*
i like the little gibbly chunk of rock...

---

lol You're my best friend:thumb:

HAHAA YES...
but yeah totally, i think they should keep it the way it was... thats just gonna fuck up everyone thats already learned the planets... they were hard enough to learn the order of in the first place in grade 3 or whatever... ghad!

I also think the plutonians couldn't care less what our insignificant' planet' thinks of them anyway

and Pluto was my favorite planet...

well way out there is a unknow numbers of small planet type bodies that their just now seeing .but since if has gravity is is still thought of as a planet .

but what of the other planet like bodies past Pluto ,whice is a asteroid type field of large bodies ,,but too small to be planets ..
we gonna give them names ,r or they just a numbered rock.

i still say after 80 yrs ,,,its a GD planet !

I woke up just this morning thinking, you know what's nice about not being a scientist? Not having to classify things specifically. Why in my little non scientinst workd, Pluto is a planet without further explanation. Cuccumbers and Tomatos are vegitables. Spiders, scorpions and centipedes are bugs or, if the mood strikes me, insects. Dolphins are fish to me, and maybe seals too. You know what? Since I am not a scientist I can even call Marlyn Manson goth if I want. :wink2:

This may sound smartassy, but when the AIU decided to reclassify Pluto (and not even really deplanet it), it was at a level that does not apply to me. Sure the same guy who always tells you that a tomato is a fruit will not have one more thing to annoy you with, but the AIU was reclassifying it for them, not us.

The IAU is trying to make things easier for astronomers, it's not like this will change you scholarship status or something. If they decide it is helpful to reclassify Mars as a tasty desert toping that is fine as long as they dont try to put it on my ice cream.

Marlyn Manson is goth... it's a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

Marlyn Manson is goth... it's a fact.

---

Use of noun by Forrest :1orglaugh (Our old noun/adjective thread came up recently. Your exquisite irony is duly noted.)

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

I thought that declassifying it for an irregular orbit is not sound enough logic on it's own though. Then you'd have to get into how much variation classifies as irregular.

---

But, and correct me if I'm mistaken please, I don't think that the irregular orbit had anything to do with the resolutions! The text of the pertinent resolution says:

(1) A "planet"(1) is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape(2) , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects(3) except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

(1)The eight "planets" are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
(2)An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.
(3)These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

IAU Resolution: Pluto

RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.

Did I miss something? (while some cannot help possessing stupidity, there's no excuse for willing ignorance)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem

I woke up just this morning thinking, you know what's nice about not being a scientist? Not having to classify things specifically.

---

And that's a part of the whole "science" thing that really trips my trigger. I used to daydream at times about working with the taxonomy of North American Theraphosids. Helllloooo dream job! It really can be quite fascinating for some of us.

saturn has always been my favorite planet ,cause ya know rings are cool

astrological baloney aside maybe its trying to add pluto to the chart is what screws up readings but gravity of the nearby tall buildings and mountains have more influence than planets

i cant believe all the fuss over a blurry little blob

Group of kids from my yearbook staff were talking about this yesterday.

One girl was like: How can they just vote & decide this, just cause its smaller

To which I replied with: "I can hear them now 'You dont deserve to be a planet, you little piece of shit'"

for some reason, everyone went crazy.
Yeah, not that funny.:confused:


I honestly, dont care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bohoki

i cant believe all the fuss over a blurry little blob

---

thats how i feel

Quote:

---

"I can hear them now 'You dont deserve to be a planet, you little piece of shit'"

---

okay haha... sorry that was kinda funny...
but poor pluto... hehee... i love pluto!!

nah it'd be more like pluto saying"screw you guys I'm going home"