Shastrix.com Forums

I'm actually happy with the 8 planet solar system; to me it makes sense. You've got the inner 4 terrestrial plants followed by the outer 4 gas planets. Pluto should never have been awarded the status of a planet; compared with the other 8 its orbit has is highly elliptical and well outside the plane of the ecliptic, it?s just too messy?

The splitting of the planets into the ?classical eight? and the 'dwarf planets? simplifies the whole matter. I'm sure I read that there are potentially 40+ other celestial bodies which could, with further research, be classified as ?dwarf planets?. In schools we will be able to teach about the big 8; then mention Ceres along with the asteroid belt; discuss the Kuiper Belt with the bi-planetary system of Pluto and Charon, 2003 UB313, and the others such as Sedna, Quaoar, and 2005 FY9.

It amuses me when people say things like: ?Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I??? Well, err, that?s how science works; we research, we discover, we learn. To be fair, the redefining of the planets is of no great concern to many people,especially scientists. Why kick up a fuss? Learn it, write I down in your exam paper, then stow it away in the grey matter for the occasional pub quiz ? there are far more things to get worked up about. 0_o

Daffyd Site Moderator Posts: 209		27th August 2006, 00:16
		No, I'm not talking about the comic I used to draw, but about actual Pluto. It's lost it's status as a planet. Apparently some star-scientist people (I'm a bit out of it, currently, can't remember what the real term is, or how to spell it) had a conference, and decided Pluto is not a planet.
		---


Cameo Little Lynx (Lynx lynx) Posts: 97		29th August 2006, 17:46
		Yeah, the IAU resolution... redefinition... thingy... Anyways, I'm really disappointed with the outcome. Not simply because I wanted more planets (although I did) and the original version would have given Ceres, 2003 UB313, and Pluto's "moon" Charon planetary status, either; it was because of the essentially-meaningless, and arbitrary, criterion used to separate the eight classical planets from the others. Apparently, the reason Pluto, Charon, 2003 UB313 (that thing really needs a name...) and Ceres aren't allowed to be planets: They haven't "cleared the neighbourhood" around their orbits of other random junk floating around with them. I'm pretty sure this means that their size, compared to the orbit-junk, is such that they don't "dominate their orbits" - but I still think it's stupid.
		---


ASH Site Owner Posts: 92		29th August 2006, 20:17
		I'm actually happy with the 8 planet solar system; to me it makes sense. You've got the inner 4 terrestrial plants followed by the outer 4 gas planets. Pluto should never have been awarded the status of a planet; compared with the other 8 its orbit has is highly elliptical and well outside the plane of the ecliptic, it?s just too messy? The splitting of the planets into the ?classical eight? and the 'dwarf planets? simplifies the whole matter. I'm sure I read that there are potentially 40+ other celestial bodies which could, with further research, be classified as ?dwarf planets?. In schools we will be able to teach about the big 8; then mention Ceres along with the asteroid belt; discuss the Kuiper Belt with the bi-planetary system of Pluto and Charon, 2003 UB313, and the others such as Sedna, Quaoar, and 2005 FY9. It amuses me when people say things like: ?Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I??? Well, err, that?s how science works; we research, we discover, we learn. To be fair, the redefining of the planets is of no great concern to many people,especially scientists. Why kick up a fuss? Learn it, write I down in your exam paper, then stow it away in the grey matter for the occasional pub quiz ? there are far more things to get worked up about. 0_o



Syx Feral Feline (Felis catus) Posts: 9		5th September 2006, 00:45
		Agreed - I much prefer things as they are now as I was one of 'those' that did not think Pluto deserved status as a 'planet'. The new classification suits me just fine, and makes more sense too.
		---


GA Odd Ocelot (Leopardus pardarlis) Posts: 68		8th September 2006, 03:19
		People will always get upset when you kill their sacred cows; it's a rule of life. Pluto just happens to be one of those great huge sacred cows (like Christianity (I know I'm going to get blasted for saying that...))
		---