Quote:
| Originally Posted by Jamez Just recently Pluto has been disqualified as a planet with our solar system. Can any of you experts explain to me how or why this was determined? |
The criterion they use is eccentricity of orbit, and its distance from the sun.
Its orbit doesn't follow the usual orbital plane but comes in at a highly elliptical angle making it appear cometary as it loops in nearer than Neptune and then loops out beyond it again. It's composed of mostly ice and rocks and has only 1/5 the mass of Earth's moon. Its distance momentarily places it within the Kuiper Belt where comets are said to originate. Its size is not unique in that area since other objects of similar size have been discovered the Trans-Neptunian object Eris for example, which like Pluto also has a moon with its moon, Dysnomia, is larger. So in order to avoid having to call all these objects planets as well they opted on disqualifying Pluto.
Pluto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto Trans-Neptunian Objects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object
BTW
Fourteen objects of considerable size have been found after Pluto.
If we include Eris as a planet because it is bigger than Pluto, then we have a ten planet Solar system. To which I say, why not?
Nix and Hydra, are also moons of Pluto.
Yes, I don't see why the solar system planets have to be limited to the present nine. If there are one hundred other planets out there the size of Pluto or bigger then call them planets. At the very least either, make an exception of Pluto or include only Pluto sized objects or larger as planets.
If indeed Pluto was unacceptable as a planet due all the factors mentioned above, then why didn't they disqualify it before? So it seems to me as if the disqualification had more to do with the discovery of additional planets than with Pluto itself.
http://www.lowell.edu/users/buie/pluto/planetdefn.html
IMHO
Linear Mode
