Pluto - Planet or Moon?
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
"Planet Hunter" Michael Brown of CalTech, who discovered 'Xena' apparently does not agree with the new definition given to planets, and has said that 12 planets is too big a number on the basis of data presently available with scientists.
http://news.aol.co.uk/article.adp?id=20060814084909990001
This Article says it's no longer a planet..
This Article says it's no longer a planet..
.
Madsalty
Club Cricketer
There are many theories, personally i'm quite impartial and although that because of many of its properties and patterns it could be a planet it could also be described as a comet following a small eliptical orbit around earth. This is also supported by the fact it is a rocky (excuse the terminology) planet
I do apologise if this has already been said but i seem to have become illiterate to the writing above due to my tiredness
I do apologise if this has already been said but i seem to have become illiterate to the writing above due to my tiredness
I saw on the news yesterday that this would cause problems for star signs as their theories on planets are based on there being 9 of them.
Dwarf planets though, sounds interesting. Pluto fits right in with the size of the other dwarf planets.
Dwarf planets though, sounds interesting. Pluto fits right in with the size of the other dwarf planets.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
As astrology is complete bunk, it'll have no effect on it whatsoever. Astrologers will continue to con people out of their money, wether Pluto is classed as a planet or not.aussie1st said:
blackleopard92
Panel of Selectors
to my best rememberance, Indian astrologers had to adjust to fit pluto in their charts.
or maybe I am wrong.
or maybe I am wrong.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
They just had to adjust their lies. There was no scientific method to adjust. Astrology is made up.blackleopard92 said:
Kshitiz_Indian
Executive member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2006
- Location
- New Delhi, India
what i wanted to be changed in the planet resolutions are these points .
1. Such a heavenly object must also posses some kind of gravitational force, thats the basic need of planet.
2. It should also have a atmoshphere.
This way, all the asteroids would be out of the ring of planets, as they dont possess any gravity.
Pluto can be called a planet for several reasons.
1. It is orbiting a star, not a planet.
2. It has Gravtational Force.
3. it has an atmoshphere. Planets are known to possess atmoshpere's, and moons do not.
And regarding its small size, it can be possible. According to the Big Bang Theory, every object in the universe is formed due to objects flying out in different directions, due to the explosion. pluto could just be an ordinary piece like that, although smaller in size.
1. Such a heavenly object must also posses some kind of gravitational force, thats the basic need of planet.
2. It should also have a atmoshphere.
This way, all the asteroids would be out of the ring of planets, as they dont possess any gravity.
Pluto can be called a planet for several reasons.
1. It is orbiting a star, not a planet.
2. It has Gravtational Force.
3. it has an atmoshphere. Planets are known to possess atmoshpere's, and moons do not.
And regarding its small size, it can be possible. According to the Big Bang Theory, every object in the universe is formed due to objects flying out in different directions, due to the explosion. pluto could just be an ordinary piece like that, although smaller in size.
As a matter of fact the new definition is based on the fact that a "planet" must have enough mass to have sufficient gravitational force to describe its own (spherical) orbit. Pluto got demoted due to this very clause, since its orbit overlaps with Neptune's due to its small mass.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
No. Although their orbits appear to overlap, at no point do their orbits occupy the same point. It's like a railway bridge that goes over a road. The railway and road overlap, but the trains are never going to hit the cars.Adarsh said: