Poll: Should Pluto be classified as a planet?

[marquee]

link to an interesting article.

so do you think Pluto should be considered a planet?

 

[neutralizer]

8 planets sounds better than 9...
I don't know... even numbers are cooler.

 

[TheNinja]

Sure, my favorite planet is the sun anyway, it's like the king of planets

 

[dullard]

I think it is a silly pointless argument. Why should object X that orbits the sun have a different term than object Y that orbits the sun? Planet, asteroid, rock, who cares. To me, we should instead focus on much more critical information - what is pluto made of, how did pluto get made, why is it behaving the way it does, etc. Not what term do we assign it.

The best part of the article:
"Scientifically, there really is no question" that Pluto should be reclassified, says Michael Brown, "Either Pluto is not a planet, or many other things are planets. Which is a better choice? I want my planets to be more special, not less special, so I favor Pluto not being a planet."

Why is there no scietific question? Because Brown has emotional sentiments to certain objects which should be 'special'. I never saw 'special' as a scientific term in any of my textbooks.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Staley8
Sure, my favorite planet is the sun anyway, it's like the king of planets

LOL.

"You know its not actually a planet."

"Well either way when that thing burns out we're all gonna die."

 

[shenaniganz]

Originally posted by: Staley8
Sure, my favorite planet is the sun anyway, it's like the king of planets

Planet or star, when that thing burns out were all gonna be dead.

 

[Wallydraigle]

I don't care. It just doesn't matter.

 

[Chaotic42]

Nope. Neither should Charon. Damned Kuiper Belt trash.

 

[DurocShark]

I was under the impression that 2 of 3 things were required to classify as a planet:

At least one of these:
Size (over 1000kms diameter IIRC?)
Atmosphere

Plus this (required!):
Only orbits the sun.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I was under the impression that 2 of 3 things were required to classify as a planet:

At least one of these:
Size (over 1000kms diameter IIRC?)
Atmosphere

Plus this (required!):
Only orbits the sun.

Pluton and Charon both orbit a point in space between them and the sun. Therefore neither are planets.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I was under the impression that 2 of 3 things were required to classify as a planet:

At least one of these:
Size (over 1000kms diameter IIRC?)
Atmosphere

Plus this (required!):
Only orbits the sun.

Pluton and Charon both orbit a point in space between them and the sun. Therefore neither are planets.

So do the moon and the earth...

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: silverpig
So do the moon and the earth...

Then by that definition neither the moon nor the Earth are planets.

So any "planet" with satellites is out.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: silverpig
So do the moon and the earth...

Then by that definition neither the moon nor the Earth are planets.

So any "planet" with satellites is out.

I know... I was adding to your counterexample to his definition

 

[VIAN]

There is no definition. Why don't these people argueing about. Create a damn definition all ready. Yeah, I can argue that a hotel is a shack, if there are no definitions to one or the other.

 

[OrangeJellyDisk]

1)Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.

2) Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed nor where they are located.

3) Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).

I knew this book would come in handy one day.

 

[feralkid]

Enough with all the talk about Pluto. Why don't we talk about Uranus? I hear it's big and gassey.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: OrangeJellyDisk
1)Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.

That's what we're arguing.

 

[bootymac]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Enough with all the talk about Pluto. Why don't we talk about Uranus? I hear it's big and gassey.

And it has a crusty surface!

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: OrangeJellyDisk
1)Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.

That's what we're arguing.

Same argument in the convention of calling a shrimp/prawn.

A flying rock, body, asteroid, comet or planet that orbit a (moon of the) star is all the samething. Stop arguing about the semantic of it and put the effort on something more meaningful.

 

[prvteye2003]

Originally posted by: bootymac

Originally posted by: feralkid
Enough with all the talk about Pluto. Why don't we talk about Uranus? I hear it's big and gassey.

And it has a crusty surface!

and smells really bad

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Same argument in the convention of calling a shrimp/prawn.

A flying rock, body, asteroid, comet or planet that orbit a (moon of the) star is all the samething. Stop arguing about the semantic of it and put the effort on something more meaningful.

Man, I'm just kicking back after a day of work, eating cereal from the box and looking at softcore porn. This discussion is just something to pass the time.



:beer:

 

[aircooled]

So size does matter