Originally posted by Mindship
Maybe they meant clearing your orbit of other things in your orbit, not something which merely crosses it.
But then it wouldn't apply to Pluto either. I'm jsut saying this argument is flawed. I am sure there are good arguments to deny Pluto's Planet Status, but this one jsut isn't.
thats not the only argument.
"a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."
Pluto was automatically disqualified because its orbit overlaps, but it fails beyond that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But then it wouldn't apply to Pluto either. I'm jsut saying this argument is flawed. I am sure there are good arguments to deny Pluto's Planet Status, but this one jsut isn't.
At the very least, it is a strange criteria, not one I would've even thought of. I would've gone with a "planet" having to meet a complete list of criteria, which would include (but not necessarily be limited to) something about size and orbit shape/stability.
Originally posted by Alliance
thats not the only argument."a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."
Pluto was automatically disqualified because its orbit overlaps, but it fails beyond that.
Just that the first things happen to apply to pluto...it might not be a celestial body though, I am not sure.
And if that automatically disqalifies an object Neptune has to be disqualified as well,...
Originally posted by Mindship
At the very least, it is a strange criteria, not one I would've even thought of. I would've gone with a "planet" having to meet a complete list of criteria, which would include (but not necessarily be limited to) something about size and orbit shape/stability.
It's size has been a debating point for many years, some feel that Pluto is little more than a meteor that lacked sufficient energy to break free of our suns gravitational pull and became trapped.
Apparently, size does matter.
BASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDSBASTARDS
They won't get away with this.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that the first things happen to apply to pluto...it might not be a celestial body though, I am not sure.And if that automatically disqalifies an object Neptune has to be disqualified as well,...
No it doesn't.
Neptune is the one doing it right, Pluto is doing it wrong. Pluto is getting in the way of Neptune's flight path, not the other way around. But the important point is that Pluto's orbit is shared- a planet creates its own unique orbit. Well, it does now, anyway.
Haley's comet doesn't stop Earth being a planet, and nor does Pluto stop Neptune.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No it doesn't.Neptune is the one doing it right, Pluto is doing it wrong. Pluto is getting in the way of Neptune's flight path, not the other way around. But the important point is that Pluto's orbit is shared- a planet creates its own unique orbit. Well, it does now, anyway.
Haley's comet doesn't stop Earth being a planet, and nor does Pluto stop Neptune.
That's a totally made up thing though.
How do you decide which one crosses the orbit of the other? You can't really.
Who defined (and why are they right about it) that Pluto doesn't stop Neptune from being a planet while Neptune stops Pluto...since they are doing the exact same thing, crossing each others orbit.
Originally posted by Alliance
It means its still significant (you said celestial body?) , just not a big fella.
I don't doubt that, nothing really changed, it's just a different definition, I just think that one of the reasons (the major reason) is illogical.
Well, the reason why Neptune wins that argument is because it is Pluto's orbit that is erratic.
But you are ignoring the second much more important point, about sharing orbits. Pluto's is shared, Neptune's is not.
From now on, only bodies with unique orbits count as planets; that gives us 8. That is what the final part of the definition refers to.
The thing was...ther WAS no definition. Its classification as a planet was arbitrary...
...because your'e not very cool if you discover a big icy rock, but you are cool if you discover a planet.
Pluto was termed a planet.
There is precedent. Ceres used to be considered a planet. It was demoted in the 1800s.