Thursday, August 24, 2006

Bring Pluto Back!!!!

The IAU (International Astronomical Union) has officially demoted Pluto to a new class of DWARF planets. This means that under the classical definition of planet ratified at the meeting there are only 8 classical planets. (Taken from Steve's blog)

I am at odds about this. I say we start a petition to bring Pluto back. Anyone with me, comment on this blog and we will get this overruled. Come on people Pluto was not just any planet for most of you. It was your inner rouge.

This is not the usual planet, like Mars or Jupiter, that could go in any old elliptical orbit like all the others, but this was an eccentric planet. Willing to take risks. To think outside the box. To become the 8th planet at times and not always the 9th. What other planet can boast that. NONE I tell you, none. What planet could live in the realm of gaseous planets and still not be considered one of them, none other than our beloved Pluto. And now they go and try to take that away from us.

From this moment on I am in strike of the planetary system set up by the world. Strike I tell you. STRIKE!!!!

Article Here

And note, what the hell does this mean - "has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite." That is the definition of a dwarf planet. Ok does that mean nothing orbiting the object like a Moon? hmmm, they are right I can't think of any "real" planets with those.

3 comments:

  1. Hey!

    They mean that most of the space surrounding a classical planet must be cleared as a result of the accretion events of the early solar system. Pluto is in the Kuiper Belt (literally smattered with debris that was not accreted into a planet. Essentially anything in Kuiper, Ort, or the Asteroid belt no longer (and correctly) qualifies as a planet.

    As this was the only planet named by US scientists I am noticing a large number of US scientists complaining...what are they complaining about a US scientist discovered the only ratified dwarf planet.

    Satelites orbit planets therefore cannot be planets, but have been entrained by gravity of the planet and are usually the only large objects near the planet...satisfying the definition. I will not sign you petition. Be proud of the dwarf planet Pluto...it is my favorite dwarf planet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well duh, I was being sarcastic at their vague use of terminology. And since there was a planet formerly in the asteroid belt I feel that that should be a planet in and of itself. We can call it ...? Well I will think of that later. To late now to think.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know I'm sounding all teachery...but the theory that the asteroid belt was formerly a planet that exploded is now generally considered incorrect. The total mass of the asteroid belt is about 1/5 the mass of the moon. Debate could be had on whether it would be considered a planet under the new definition. The point is a nonstarter though. The currently accepted theory is that asteroids are the remains of material that was unable to form a planet due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter. Essentially asteroids are the battered remains (due to collisions with themselves)of the planetesimals that formed during the solar nebula.

    I also need to clarify that the IAU has placed both 2003 UB313 and Ceres into the dwarf planet category, despite the fact that these were not included in the resolutions. I was therefore mistaken in saying that Pluto was the only dwarf planet...but it is still the most awesome (at least until they give UB313 a real name).

    ReplyDelete

Due to the large number of spam comment (i.e. pretty much all of them). I have turned off commenting. If you have any constructive comments you would like to make please direct them at my Twitter handle @Jazinator. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.