Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Pluto IS a Planet.


Geoff Barnes

Recommended Posts

How many objects would you classify as being planets if Pluto was classified as a planet again.

You would have to include Eris (whose discovery was partly responsible for Pluto's declassification) and possibly also Makemake and Haumea, and with new discoveries the list would continue to grow.

You have to remember that when Pluto was first discovered it was thought to be around the same size as the earth, this later got revised downwards to around 3,600 miles in diameter (still larger than Mercury) and more recently to around 2,000 miles (smaller than our moon).

John 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone posted this on FB in answer to a similar question. Whilst emotionally I still think Pluto should be a planet, and it likely always will be to me, logic says it should have some other designation.

FB_IMG_1567348564656.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/08/2019 at 13:31, alan potts said:

I think they only took it out because Holst didn't write music for it, always has been a planet for me too, wish I knew which speck of light it was on sub or indeed with the 18 inch.

Alan

The Planets Suite or The Planets [Opus 32] was composed between 1914 and 1916. Pluto was discovered in 1930. Gustav Holst, however expressed no interest in writing a movement for Pluto. He had become disillusioned by the popularity of the suite. In 2000, composer Colin Matthews, wrote a piece and dedicated to Imogen Holst, [Gustav's daughter], and called it 'Pluto, the renewer'.

Edited by Philip R
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many, many years ago in a small town by the sea a little boy memorised a little mnemonic: My Very Early Morning Jam Sandwiches Usually Nauseate People. It's stuck in my mind ever since and all these years later I really wouldn't know what to do if I got rid of people :mellow:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure lots of people complained when Ceres was demoted from planet status (150 years ago). But it looks like zero people care now...

Bridenstein's argument is simply "I was taught it's a planet so it's a planet." That is not a very robust way of thinking about anything! And since when does the latest NASA appointee get to decide such a matter? It's for the IAU to decide.

Edited by Ags
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a non-question.

The line between planet and non-planet is an arbitrary construct whose value is enabling humans to classify non-stellar objects for the purpose of studying them.

I would say division into gas-giants, ice-giants, rocky bodies with active gelology, static rocky bodies and comets  would be more likely to be useful but even taht woudl have some ambiguities (like the asteroid that changed colour by out-gassing like a comet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.