Hm, intriguing. The new definition sounds a bit more inclusive.
I like the new definition better... I never figured out why Pluto was picked as the planet and Charon as the moon since they're not that much different in size and they orbit eachother as well as the sun (Charon has as much gravitational pull as Pluto does)
Who cares?? A new definition of planet will not make our lifes better nor more happy.
Woah... picture size increase?
I beleave it was either cnn or yahoo news who is saying that with this new definition that Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Did anyone else see that or is it something I mistaken to be a fact?
"Dwarf Planet" is the term used here in the states, and agree that it really isnt an option to name similar objects all planets.
So Guys!....... Pluto is not a planet....... I wonder what effect will it have on the Zodiac signs?
Oh My! what are all the scorpios going to do?
haha....lol
well, its a "dwarf planet" now, and i have no idea what they are going to do abt the zodiac signs!!!
Gotta agree with the new definition. At least there IS a definition now. Yes, it will be hard to give up things you have taken for granted your whole life, like Pluto being a planet. But eight is enough, and 8,000,000 (or many, many more) is way too much.
Got a better definition? Let's hear it.
Why dont they just say if it has an perminant atmosphere its a planet !!!!! , as to Pluto I think they should leave pluto alone as the only none planet planet and use whatever is the new definition on new found objects, to me its a bit like redefining the Wright brothers flight as a long jump in a 100 years time because it was under 1000 feet ( or some other inane point ) as someone mentioned before we can call pluto a rhino in a pink dress and it wont effect our lives
The planet, Mercury, the closest to the sun, does not have an atmosphere. It is larger than Pluto, but it doesn't have an atmosphere as its proximity to the sun would cause an atmosphere to be burned off by solar wind and heat.
I remember hearing about this argument with Pluto, some time ago, but this is the first time they have changed or so defined planets and if they are to stick to A definition then I think that the definition should affect the current, not just be something that matters only for adding later.
They may find more planets even by the new definition at a later point, somewhere closer to the heliosphere, with better technology in astronomy. I think that's how they found that UB-2003 planet a while back was by noticing the slight gravitational pull of another planetary body that caused the formula for the orbit of pluto and neptune to be slightly off so they knew that something had to be there. They may, they may not, but they are always finding out something, but I would imagine, I don't think that it would be a long-shot, to think, that with today's technology, i.e. Hubble Telescope and all the like, that anything with significant size would have showed up by now, so under the new definition then they wouldn't be added. I wonder what the actual breaking off point for mass or volume would be for a planet vise dwarf-planet.... I don't know.
It is pretty interesting though that after all this time, they decided to change the definition, therefore changing the status of one of the previously described. Textbooks and encyclopedias, true, will have to be changed, but reallly, that in itself is alright, if that is what is needed to correct an inconsistently with current info.
It might not affect our daily lives, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. Facts are important, and in the scientific community expressly having the facts right are very important, even a small difference from the facts can have dire consequences, like the probes that failed going to Mars. I know that's an unrelated topic and the definition of what Pluto is certainly will not cause a space craft to crash or malfunction, but facts no matter how unrelated to daily life will always be important, and not just in the scientific community, but as a general rule. In teaching and just in casual conversation we learn every day. Good for the scientists for making the change, as they are admitting they were wrong, but they schould probably have drafted this definition years ago, for if they did then they wouldn't be in this situation now. Like in the previous post... better 8 than 8000. Could you even imagine having the memorize even 30 planets? Well, if that's what it took I would, but these little planetary bodies such as Pluto exist probably, even more so than we are aware such as the new discoveries and probably further out and more out of the planetary plane.
--
?
