Pluto a Planet? New Research from UCF Suggests Yes

Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 6 months ago to News
19 comments | Share | Flag

Yea!...we might back Pluto as a planet...finally some justice in the solar system.

The reason Pluto lost its status in 2006 is not valid, according to a recent study led by planetary scientist and UCF alumnus Philip Metzger.
SOURCE URL: https://today.ucf.edu/pluto-planet-research/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 6 months ago
    Is there some federal funding for a planet that isn't available for a non-planet, or vice versa?
    There is no rational reason that the label makes any difference at all.
    Scientists, quit arguing over irrelevance and get to work disproving the idiotic theory of global warming, you lazy bums!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 6 months ago
    From the article: "Instead, Metzger recommends classifying a planet based on if it is large enough that its gravity allows it to become spherical in shape." But this would allow our moon and dozens of others in our solar system to qualify as planets. I would add "orbiting a star" to the list of qualifications.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 6 months ago
    Of course Pluto is a planet. It has all the characteristics of a planet, even though it is so far out it should be a frozen, icy rock. But it isn't. It's filled with a myriad of interesting stuff. Besides, I love dogs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 5 years, 6 months ago
      Does classifying planets as rocky planets, gas giant planets, and dwarf planets somehow remove them from the concept of planet? If Pluto is not a planet, then do not claim that it is a planet by qualifying it as a dwarf planet.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 6 months ago
        Pluto is a planet. Only planets are globular. You can describe a planet without classifying it. A small planet is a description of a planet. A dwarf planet is a classification but does not describe what a dwarf is. The planet Mercury is small but completely globular.Scientists love pretension which often leads more to confusion rather than clarification.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 5 years, 6 months ago
        They took it off the list as a planet and replaced it with Ceres which has no where the diversity that Pluto has...plus, Pluto has moons.

        If they go with: enough gravity to make it spherical then both will be planets, if they go with diversity then only Pluto wins out between the two.

        As far as being Dwarf...it's more than big enough to be a Gulch!...laughing
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 5 years, 6 months ago
    Clearing it's orbit was an 1802 suggestion but: “It’s a sloppy definition,” Metzger says of the IAU’s definition. “They didn’t say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit.”
    [The meaning is taken as: the largest or strongest, gravitational force in its orbit]
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo