Comments on: Pluto Will Always Be Our 9th Planet http://www.crazylikethat.com/blog/2009/03/pluto-will-always-be-our-9th-planet/ There is a fine line between extreme intelligence and insanity Sat, 07 Aug 2010 02:40:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Kelly Brown http://www.crazylikethat.com/blog/2009/03/pluto-will-always-be-our-9th-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Kelly Brown Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:12:06 +0000 http://www.crazylikethat.com/blog/?p=38#comment-72 Hi, gr8 post thanks for posting. Information is useful! Hi, gr8 post thanks for posting. Information is useful!

]]> By: 5x5 http://www.crazylikethat.com/blog/2009/03/pluto-will-always-be-our-9th-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-3 5x5 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:08:05 +0000 http://www.crazylikethat.com/blog/?p=38#comment-3 This is fantastic information. Thank you! This is fantastic information. Thank you!

]]> By: Laurel Kornfeld http://www.crazylikethat.com/blog/2009/03/pluto-will-always-be-our-9th-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Laurel Kornfeld Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:44:29 +0000 http://www.crazylikethat.com/blog/?p=38#comment-2 Only ONE Trans-Neptunian Object larger than Pluto has been discovered, and that is Eris. Pluto IS a planet because unlike most objects in the Kuiper Belt, it has attained hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning it has enough self-gravity to have pulled itself into a round shape. When an object is large enough for this to happen, it becomes differentiated with core, mantle, and crust, just like Earth and the larger planets, and develops the same geological processes as the larger planets, processes that inert asteroids and most KBOs do not have. The IAU definition makes no linguistic sense, as it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. That’s like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear. Second, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were placed in Pluto’s orbit, by the IAU definition, it would not be a planet. That is because the further away an object is from its parent star, the more difficulty it will have in clearing its orbit. Many believe we should keep the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star. We can distinguish different types of planets with subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, super Earths, hot Jupiters, etc. We should be broadening, not narrowing our concept of planet as more objects are being discovered in this and other solar systems. I attended the Great Planet Debate, which actually took place in August 2008, and there was a strong consensus there that a broader, more encompassing planet definition is needed. I encourage anyone interested to listen to and view the conference proceedings at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ You can also read more about this issue on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com You can find the petition of astronomers who rejected the demotion of Pluto here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/ Only ONE Trans-Neptunian Object larger than Pluto has been discovered, and that is Eris. Pluto IS a planet because unlike most objects in the Kuiper Belt, it has attained hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning it has enough self-gravity to have pulled itself into a round shape. When an object is large enough for this to happen, it becomes differentiated with core, mantle, and crust, just like Earth and the larger planets, and develops the same geological processes as the larger planets, processes that inert asteroids and most KBOs do not have.

The IAU definition makes no linguistic sense, as it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. That’s like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear. Second, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were placed in Pluto’s orbit, by the IAU definition, it would not be a planet. That is because the further away an object is from its parent star, the more difficulty it will have in clearing its orbit.

Many believe we should keep the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star.

We can distinguish different types of planets with subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, super Earths, hot Jupiters, etc.

We should be broadening, not narrowing our concept of planet as more objects are being discovered in this and other solar systems.

I attended the Great Planet Debate, which actually took place in August 2008, and there was a strong consensus there that a broader, more encompassing planet definition is needed. I encourage anyone interested to listen to and view the conference proceedings at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ You can also read more about this issue on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com

You can find the petition of astronomers who rejected the demotion of Pluto here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/

]]>