ChatterBank0 min ago
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Chapel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The only thing I've heard about this (some time ago) is that if Pluto was only just discovered these days it wouldn't fit whatever criteria there is for "planet", but it's been considered a planet for so long that it keeps the title.
I'm surprised someone that actually knows what they're on about hasn't already elaborated on this. Unless I'm making it all up.
I'm surprised someone that actually knows what they're on about hasn't already elaborated on this. Unless I'm making it all up.
there is no answer, as there is no definable question.
it goes right to the heart of what a planet is. when pluto was discovered, they obviously believed it to be a planet. its been known as a planet for so long now, I'm not sure it should be changed (though maybe it should).
for example, how would you define a planet in our solar system? would it be a large mass that circles the sun? in which case, there are a lot of very large asteroids in the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter that may come into this classification.
does the orbit have to be near-circular? in which case, how do you define a "near" circular orbit? imagine if in some equation, 0 is a circle, and 1 is an oval of some sort, is it "near" circular enough when this number is 0.2, or 0.3, or maybe 0.4? or maybe 0.3855? you just end up defining it based on arbitrary values. that's no way to define something.
the same goes for the size. if a planet has to be above a certain size to be a planet and not an asteroid, then what size is this? 0.5x the Earth? 0.6x the Earth? again, quite arbitrary.
the debate on this one is going to go on for a fair length of time yet.
it goes right to the heart of what a planet is. when pluto was discovered, they obviously believed it to be a planet. its been known as a planet for so long now, I'm not sure it should be changed (though maybe it should).
for example, how would you define a planet in our solar system? would it be a large mass that circles the sun? in which case, there are a lot of very large asteroids in the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter that may come into this classification.
does the orbit have to be near-circular? in which case, how do you define a "near" circular orbit? imagine if in some equation, 0 is a circle, and 1 is an oval of some sort, is it "near" circular enough when this number is 0.2, or 0.3, or maybe 0.4? or maybe 0.3855? you just end up defining it based on arbitrary values. that's no way to define something.
the same goes for the size. if a planet has to be above a certain size to be a planet and not an asteroid, then what size is this? 0.5x the Earth? 0.6x the Earth? again, quite arbitrary.
the debate on this one is going to go on for a fair length of time yet.
1 to 6 of 6
