You would see that its category it is in right now would classify it as a planet. I don't know why people think that it is not a planet that is just silly of them. Come on guys why cant you see that Pluto is a dwarf PLANET therefore it is still a planet.
Remember being a kid and there was that rhyme "my very excellent mother just served us nine pizzas"? Why not bring the old days back and start considering Pluto a planet again. After all, who's really to say that Pluto isn't planet? Scientists? That's just not enough for me. I believe that we should begin considering everything in the final frontier a planet. Our moon. The sun. Even black holes and satellites... Because it just makes sense. So c'mon. Let's start supporting an inclusive outer space and throw away the "nachos" and bring "nine pizzas" back. Thank you.
Back then people didn't made a definition of what a planet is which made Pluto a planet. Also, there are dwarf planets that are bigger than Pluto. Pluto doesn't match the requirements to be a planet. Also, we are debating if Pluto is a planet or not and we aren't scientist or astronomers.
The IAU is only one voice in the debate over Pluto's status. Planetary scientists generally prefer various versions of the geophysical planetary definition and I believe they are a superior authority on the matter. In times past, Astronomers could only define objects by location and movement. Now with modern tools we can define them by physical characteristics. Using location now to demote Pluto is a big step backwards for science. Using tricks to limit the number of objects in a category for no other reason than keeping the numbers down has no place in real science. Pluto actually meets the size requirements to be a planet by all the current definitions if only it's location was different. Is a bird no longer a bird just by a change of location?! Letting a flawed definition stand without challenge is a slap in the face to real science. The time to revisit Pluto's status has come.
What are people thinking Pluto is a planet though it's small it's still a planet. It has a history of being hit and a big part of Pluto fell off. Pluto is in our solar system so that mean it is a planet. Look at Mercury It is smaller then the average size so you can just judge Pluto.
Hello? Pizza stands for Pluto! What would your mom serve if there is no more pizza?My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine ... Most people try to think of Pluto as themselves cause everyone is unique and diffrent . I mean sure Pluto is small but size shouldn't matter.
The IAU's definition fails on multiple counts - it doesn't include exoplanets, it would render Earth a non-planet if we orbited at Pluto's distance and Pluto a planet if it orbited where Mars is and is semantically inconsistent given dwarf stars are still counted as stars (dwarf hippos still hippos, dwarf people still people etc ..) There are far better definitions of planet which include Pluto and its ice dwarf brethren such as noting that a planet is an object which is gravitationally self rounded so not an asteroid or comet, not self-luminous from core nuclear fusing thus not a star & not directly orbiting another planet so not a moon. Speaking of which Pluto has five moons of its own - maybe more - is geologically differentiated with an atmosphere, even weather -snowfall and may well even have rings. How then could it not be considered a planet just because there's a few similar objects in a similar zone of our solar system? (We don't deny gas giants their planetary status because there's a few of them relatively close together in their zone and ditto the rock dwarfs like Earth and Mercury! So why single out the ice dwarfs like Pluto.) A planet's a planet no matter how small!
Many prominent planetary scientists, including one of the co-discoverers of Eris, David Rabinowitz, signed a petition in support of Pluto's continued planethood after the rigged vote of the the 2006 IAU General Assembly in Prague, in which at least one voting member said they were coerced to vote to demote Pluto. The further out a planet is from the Sun, the larger it has to be to clear its path. This is a silly requirement. Earth wouldn't be a planet, either, if it was as far from the Sun as Pluto is. Pluto meets all the other requirements to be a planet. The IAU made the "clear one's path" requirement just to exclude Pluto. Lastly, the Sun itself is a dwarf star, yet is still a star. Dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Yet dwarf planets are not planets. It is pretty obvious that the IAU was being political and not scientific when it demoted Pluto. If you watch a video of the session in which Pluto was demoted and read about the circumstances of the Prague GA, you will see that scientists are capable of being petulant, petty, and political people in order to get the end they desire.
I think the elliptical orbit is the key. Scientists have said that was one of the factors for not giving it the planet status but time has shown that most extraterrestrial planets have elliptical orbits. It also has an atmosphere. I am no scientist or astronomer but I feel Pluto should get its status back. Even Neil Degrasse Tyson has had second thoughts.
Science is not determined by a decree from "on high." Only 4% of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed by hundreds of professional astronomers in a formal petition led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern. Ironically, Stern is the astronomer who first coined the term "dwarf planet," but he intended it to refer to a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians, planets large enough to be rounded by their own gravity but not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. He never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. Compositionally and structurally, dwarf planets are very much the same as the larger planets, with geology, weather, and layering into core, mantle, and crust. It therefore makes no sense to group them with tiny, shapeless asteroids and comets. The argument that we cannot have "too many planets" in our solar system makes no scientific sense either. The solar system has whatever number of planets it has, even if that number is 100+. As for elliptical orbits, Mercury's orbit is also elliptical, and many giant exoplanets have orbits far more elliptical than that of Pluto.
If we are going to classify Pluto as a planet, we have to classify Eris as a planet too. Eris, another trans-Neptunian object, is larger than Pluto, so it should have the honor before Pluto. Also, there are seven moons (including our own) in the solar system that are larger than Pluto. If Pluto is a planet, what about these other objects? What about any other TNOs we find that are of similar size, or even larger? I think the current designation is most useful. Sorry Pluto.
Pluto is too small in mass to be a planet. If Pluto were still regarded as a planet, then potentially thousands more rocks in similar mass would have to be titled as a planet, too. We would be among countless planets within our solar system which had previously been undetected by our previous academics.
While Pluto orbits the sun and is big enough to have a spherical shape, it has not "cleared the neighborhood" of its orbit. In other words, the planet is the only big thing around. As planets interact with other, smaller objects, they either consume them, or sling them away with their gravity. This causes them to become the dominant gravitational body in its orbit.
Pluto has not cleared its neighborhood, so to speak. Pluto is only 0.07 times the mass of the other objects in its orbit. For comparison, is 1.7 million times the mass of the other objects in its orbit, and this is was the deciding factor in the demotion of Pluto as a planet, as there are still many other objects in its orbit. This classifies it as a dwarf planet.
Other, larger objects orbiting in the Kuiper Belt have been classified as dwarf planets, including Eris and Ceres. Further, both of those objects have their own moons - having a moon is not a definite indicator of whether or not an object is a planet.
Based upon scientists categorization I believe it is a dwarf planet. But honestly, does it really matter? We are debating this as if it will affect ourselves when truthfully it just seems to be another thing for our opinionated society to complain about. As Elsa said, "let it go", honestly.
Astronomers got it right when they classified Pluto as one of the largest Kuiper Belt objects in our solar system. Pluto is so small and so far out there that it almost doesn't fit in out solar system at all. Plus, it doesn't fit the planetary model of smaller, rocky inner planets and huge, gassy outer planets. Pluto is a cold ball of rock that should stay that way.
There are several planets which are classified as 'Dwarf Planets' which meet two of the three criteria of an official planet. Most of these dwarf planets have moons but this does not classify them as an actual planet, in fact the criteria for the consideration of a planet include; 1) orbiting a star 2) having an atmosphere to form in a round shape 3) clearing the space around it, either throwing objects away or bringing them into the atmosphere. Pluto meets the requirements of both 1 and 2 but not 3. Thus Pluto should not be considered a planet.
Simply by definition Pluto is not a planet. There are three criteria for something to be a planet. 1. It must orbit a star 2. It must be large enough for gravity to form it into a rough sphere. Thirdly, and this is where Pluto falls short, it must have cleared cleared its orbit. This happens only when an object is large enough to either pull other objects into itself or sling them out of its orbit.
I am sorry to share this with some people, but even though "dwarf planet" has "planet" in the name, it is astronomically different from a "planet." Just like shooting stars are not really stars.
There are three requirements to be classified as a planet.
1) Orbiting around the sun (or related star). This means that they cannot be in orbit around another body, as that would make them a satellite.
2) Hydrostatic equilibrium. This means that gravity has formed the object into a nearly round shape (that is actually a sign of HE, and not what HE is).
3) Clearing the neighborhood. This is in reference to other significant sized body, outside of the Lagrangian points. It does not refer to every speck of dust in the path.
A planet must meet all three, while a dwarf planet meets 1 and 2, but fails on number 3. There are currently a number of dwarf planets, but all are located either in the asteroid belt (Ceres) or in the kuiper belt (Pluto, Eris, Makemake, etc). None of these dwarf planets have cleared their neighborhood and as such fail to meet the definition of a planet.
Pluto was downgraded to the new category of dwarf planet for a good reason. As scientists discovered more and more Pluto-sized objects out in the Kuiper Belt, they were faced with two choices: start adding several more planets to the list, or create a new category specifically for these objects. They did the latter, and it was the right move.
Its to small to be a planet.Nasa has proved it right.Plus it cant clear its orbit.It may have moons but that doesn't prove anything.So it cant be a planet.Not only did nasa prove it so did other people.This is what I think. This is the end good by people who are out there.