Aug 13, 2008 05:15PM GMT
Question
•
Science - Space & Astronomy
Should Pluto be a planet?
I know I'm a little late to the game on this one, but I just wanted to know what everyone else thought about last year's revelation that Pluto isn't really a planet. What do you think? Should it be? (for the record I'm talking about the celestial body and not Mickey's dog... I'll be here all week folks)
Loading...-
raves posted Aug 15, 2008 03:37PM GMT
Answered Undecided
who cares... sorry but if their a nemesis planet x coming our way we have bigger things to worry about and if u think it's a hoax think again it was documented by tha Egyptians, tha Azteks, oh yeah and tha Sumerians which is might I add present day Iraq -
raves +1
Answered No
Let's not insult the real planets by calling Pluto one for nostalgia's sake."The debate came to a head in 2006 with an IAU resolution that created an official definition for the term "planet". According to this resolution, there are three main conditions for an object to be considered a 'planet':
1. The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
2. The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium.
3. It must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
Pluto fails to meet the third condition, since its mass was only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit (Earth's mass, by contrast, is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its own orbit). The IAU further resolved that Pluto be classified in the simultaneously created dwarf planet category, and that it act as the prototype for the plutoid category of trans-Neptunian objects, in which it would be separately, but concurrently, classified.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pluto doesn't cut it. We'd have to start classifying other objects as planets.