Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Pluto's 4th moon found by Hubble

Adrian

By Adrian
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

Earl

Earl

Posted
Posted
Now that Pluto has moons, what's the feeling that it should be re-classified back to its planet status... how many other objects (asteroids) have other objects orbiting them.

Well the more moons it gets says to me that its in reality a gathering of objects rather than a Planet true.

Do they all have a common center of gravity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stephen

Stephen

Posted
Posted
Now that Pluto has moons, what's the feeling that it should be re-classified back to its planet status... how many other objects (asteroids) have other objects orbiting them.

Umm there are a few documents asteroids I think, don't have the proof to hand.

Well the more moons it gets says to me that its in reality a gathering of objects rather than a Planet true.

Do they all have a common center of gravity?

Yes, Charon and Pluto observed together rotate around a point 1/3 the way between them I think?

Off the top of my drunk head :BangHead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stephen

Stephen

Posted
Posted

Wikipedia

The center of mass (barycenter) of the Pluto–Charon system lies outside either body. Since neither object truly orbits the other, and Charon has 11.6% the mass of Pluto, it has been argued that Charon should be considered to be more than just a satellite of Pluto.

and .... minor planet moons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_planet_moon#Main-belt_asteroids

Sorry, I fall on the side of the fence that say Pluto is not a planet :BangHead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
661-pete

661-pete

Posted
Posted

I remember reading somewhere, that there used to be a theory that Pluto was an escaped satellite of Neptune, which was finally dispelled by the discovery of Charon.

Doesn't stand up, I think. The most telling evidence that Pluto couldn't have been a Neptune (or any planet's) satellite is that the orbits don't come even near intersecting.

As to whether it should be upgraded to 'planet' once more, well does it matter? Remember Romeo and Juliet "a rose by any name..." etc. etc. Pluto is - Pluto, whatever we happen to call it.

Do they all have a common center of gravity?
Not sure what you mean by that. Any collection of massive objects, however they move in relation to each other, have by definition a common centre of gravity (or, more accurately, 'centre of mass'). It's how you define centre of mass.

Or do you mean, do all these objects pursue elliptical orbits around their common centre of mass, as opposed to parabolic or hyperbolic? I imagine that's been established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michaelmorris

michaelmorris

Posted
Posted

Surely the whole point is that there is a continuum of particles orbiting the Sun, from specks of dust to Jupiter. Pluto is just on one point along this size distribution. Whether or not it is called a 'planet' is completely arbitary thus, this whole 'is it or isn't it a planet' argument is all purely academic.

Personally, because of all the new large objects found in the outer reaches of the solar system, I can see the logic in reclassifying Pluto. It just makes things simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.