OMFG Since the scientific community descided to exclude Pluto in the official planet lineup, i figured we should just override them with our own poll. Please encurage everyone to vote on this one for the most accurate results.
Pluto is a planet because:
1.) It only orbits a star.
2.) It closely conforms into a sphere due to its own gravity.
3.) It doesnt orbit any other body inside the local solar system.
(it does not orbit its moon, and is not a binary planet).
1.) It only orbits a star.
2.) It closely conforms into a sphere due to its own gravity.
3.) It doesnt orbit any other body inside the local solar system.
(it does not orbit its moon, and is not a binary planet).
You should be grateful it's not a planet, or you would have to start learning the names of 50+ other objects out there that should be called a planet by that definition.
Well off hand I cant think of any asteroid or commet that has molded itself into a sphere under its own gravitation weight. Plenty of moons sure, but not debris. So you voted incorrectly.
Please refresh my memory and let me know which your are thinking of.
Thanks
Please refresh my memory and let me know which your are thinking of.
Thanks
And there I was, thinking you sort of knew what you're talking about. I'm not talking about asteroids or comets, I was talking about Ceres (now also a dwarf planet), Xena (nickname/codename. not yet officially named but bigger than Pluto), and an estimation of a number of objects as of yet undiscovered.
Oh sure. I was thinking of the problem about keeping Pluto a planet, which would by the latest defs, include comments and asteroids. But yes I dont mind adding planets to the lineup as long as they meet the 3 requirements. I havent seen any scientific reports yet on anything beyond Ceres and Xena and a few others. As for "google", its hardly scientific if you want exacts. Since your also including possible hypothetical planets in your arguement, it is fair to conclude we need a clear definition of what constitutes a kepler belt object instead. Many scientists say that pluto is one, as well as anything further out (other the comets). In fact, scientific survays have suggested objects beyond pluto that are the size of Mars, and possibly Earth; so do we include those as planets? Example: the object Sedna is 4 times larger the pluto, and fits all the requirements as listed so it would clearly be a planet too, if not for the Kepler belt.
So I suggest adding a new requirement to the definition of a planet:
A planet has to orbit at least X AUs close to the star it orbits. Anything further would be kepler planets (not dwarf planets).
It would be logical to include Pluto as a Kepler planet because the boundry between giant gassious plannets end at Neptune. So I could live with that... but I will not stand to call Pluto a dwarf planet that wont be included in our 9 planet system. If we need to have 15 planets to cover pluto fine. Kids have good memory skills.
It would be logical to include Pluto as a Kepler planet because the boundry between giant gassious plannets end at Neptune. So I could live with that... but I will not stand to call Pluto a dwarf planet that wont be included in our 9 planet system. If we need to have 15 planets to cover pluto fine. Kids have good memory skills.
Too late. You've lost already. Pluto is now officially a dwarf planet.
8 votes! Thats it? you guys suck at getting other people to vote one way or the other.
The other forum I have this going on is up to 200 posts. And its a car forum. (its about 50/50 I guess.)
I haven't voted. Why? Because Pluto was an oddball anyways. Now, if we were to keep Pluto as a full planet, that means at least 3 others (Pluto's 'moon', which kindof isn't a moon - its really a binary planet system - but that depends on definitions again - included) are planets. And in the future, more similar type planets will be detected. So I feel the situation is about as good as it can get. There are the 'major' planets, dwarf planets (still planets, but too small, or too oblique, or too comet-like or something), and asteroids for all the little bits.
So, I could vote yes, Pluto should be a planet, and it is - a dwarf planet. Or I could vote no, Pluto shouldn't be a planet, but it is - a dwarf planet.
If it was a big deal, I may actually get a headache worrying about it. It's not.
Your forgetting that Pluto is not in a binary planet system. Charon does orbit pluto.
Secondly, if we discover another pluto object further away from puto why is it a bad thing that we could have more then 9? There arnt any comets or asteroids soo big they are squeezed into a sphere under their own gravity, so they will never be included.
Your forgetting that Pluto is not in a binary planet system. Charon does orbit pluto.
Secondly, if we discover another pluto object further away from puto why is it a bad thing that we could have more then 9? There arnt any comets or asteroids soo big they are squeezed into a sphere under their own gravity, so they will never be included.
I thought I read that the orbital mass centerpoint (There's a term for it but I'm not an astronomer) of Pluto & Charon combined was outside Pluto's body (or maybe that was under discussion too???), so that meant they're a binary system. But again, I'm not an astronomer and don't really care that much.
I.e.: I like it the way they have it now. Makes assigning things much easier since it's clear. There's a clear definition of Planet, Dwarf Planet, asteroid, etc. The way it was before is fine too. I'm not going to visit Pluto in my lifetime (probably), so it's immaterial.
Oh, and never say never... It'll bite you eventually.
Ceres was a planet before getting grouped in by its location (asteroid belt) and becoming an asteriod. This still makes my statement wrong anyway, so there are exceptions to what I said, which is the case of Ceres.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.