20 replies to this topic

[AdmiralGT]

For those who don't know, recently, Scientists discovered yet a further object orbiting our Sun. Designated 2003 UB313 which is thought to be larger than Pluto, approximately 2,600km in diameter, compared to Pluto which is about 2,370km wide. There has also been a discovery of 2003 EL61 which is slightly smaller than Pluto. 2003 UB313 is about 3 times as far from the Sun as Pluto is and orbits at an angle in comparison to the other Planets, which orbit on an almost exact Plane.

This discovery, now raises questions of whether Pluto should continue to be called a Planet, or whether we should "reduce" the Solar System to 8 planets. The main opposition for this comes from popular culture in that we have all grown up to learn that there are 9 planets oribiting the Sun and we should continue to do so. However, we once believed in common culture that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. So, my question to you all, is should Pluto be considered a Planet or should we define it as a large object (probably originally from the Kuiper Belt) and have an 8 Planet Solar System?

For further information on Pluto, you can click here

Your thoughts please.

Edited by AdmiralGT, 03 August 2005 - 08:56 PM.

[duke_Qa]

the earth will be flat again! i tell ye, heretic! you might have won this battle, but the war is not over!


anyway, i consider such talk about planets and huge flying objects for nothing but nitpicking really. whats the difference on a large object and a planet really? they can both be called the same. leave pluto as a planet for now, perhaps use it as a measurement of the smallest degree a large object has to be in diameter before it can call itself an planet.

[AdmiralGT]

So you think we should have 10 planets in our Solar System then, the current 9 and 2003 UB313 and if anymore were discovered, those as well?

[Sari]

I don't see why it shouldn't remain as it is ... especially not if the only reason for its status being removed is because of what we already "know". Pluto orbits the Sun - that makes it a planet, doesn't it?

[duke_Qa]

as long as they orbit the sun, and is relatively large, i consider it a planet.

[AdmiralGT]

Sari, while your statement that Pluto orbits the Sun is correct, the planets aren't the only thing to orbit the Sun.. There are millions of objects that orbit the sun, ranging from the size of Jupiter to the size of a dust particle. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter orbits the sun, but they are considered Asteroids rather than Planets. Comets orbit the sun, albeit on a rather eccentric oribt, but they orbit the Sun on a regular basis, as do the millions of other objects in the Kuiper Belt. If a planet is something that orbits the sun, then the Solar System just got a lot of new planets. And what would be call objects that don't orbit our Sun but other Stars. Are they planets?

I'm not saying your wrong, since some people call Pluto a planet and some don't. Strangely, I think we should keep Pluto as a planet, mainly for continuity, to me it seems an awful lot of bother to change the definition of a planet because we found one new object. But I understand how we must move on from what popular culture dictates and have some sort of system for defining a planet, whether that includes Pluto, 2003 UB313, neither, or both.

[Shine On]

What i think Sari means is that Pluto Orbits the sun and not a separate entity like another planet. Also it has a moon itself so that should also go towards the fact that it should then be classed as a planet...

Its actual Size shouldn't really come into the equation.

Edited by Xeno, 07 August 2005 - 12:01 PM.

[FK47]

Isn't a planet defined as a body of mass with it's own centre of gravity?

[Ash]

EVERY body of mass has it's own centre of gravity...the amount of mass dictates the amount of gravity (ergo the moon's gravity is less significant than Earth's, but it still has gravity nonetheless) Even black holes have mass. Just they're particularly dense.

Pluto should be kept as a planet. It's large enough, has Charon as a moon as Xeno says...

Just say there are 10 or more planets. Duh, how hard is that?

[Silent_Killa]

The problem is there's no clear definition of what a planet is. Until there is, just leave it as a planet, no reason to change it.

[Mastermind]

Good definitions I've seen for planet require the following things:
- Is roughly spherical due to self gravitation
- Is of mixed composition
- Has a defined core
That eliminates a lot of the small objects such as asteroids, meteors and comets. I believe then that Pluto would qualify as a planet still, but many of the other objects would not.

[Ash]

And that post clearly supports my dislike of guest posting, mostly due to the irrelevance of the first "paragraph", and the nonsensicality of the second.

Why should we be forced to redefine what a planet is based on this new find? Is it so bad to say we have 10 planets?


Personally I find it incredible that our sun is capable of keeping a planet that much further out in its orbit. =/

[MSpencer]

Culture will adapt to more or less planets, which can especially be seen in the 1930s after the discovery of Pluto. In my opinion, Pluto should either not be considered a planet, or 2003 UB313 should be considered a planet too because it's either 8 or 10 at this point. That being said, Pluto is much closer to the sun, so it is really a manner of opinion which could possibly never be decided.

[Mastermind]

who cares about culture when youv found FACTS. the earth is not flat. the fables surrounding jesus/god are crap

the more planet we discover the larger the number of planets we have. if pluto explodes into peices than we are left with 8 planets. so what

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Care to share the magic enlightenment you've found that proves that religion is a crock? Note I said proof, not just your believe that it's bullshit.

[Ugbluz]

So what evidence makes you believe religion is crap? As far as I see it, you have two choices, to believe or not, and if you end up dying without believing and there is no God, ah well thats just great, but if you die and there IS, then what? your screwed, Lose lose situation. If however, you believe in God and you die and there is none, no big deal. If, there is though, and you die having believed, your saved. Win Win. Let the maths decide.

[Ash]

Not to get into a religious debate here, but if you've spent your entire life believing in something that doesn't exist, then you've spent your entire life under the influence of a lie. That's a big deal IMO. I wouldn't be too chuffed about it.

[AdmiralGT]

So what evidence makes you believe religion is crap? As far as I see it, you have two choices, to believe or not, and if you end up dying without believing and there is no God, ah well thats just great, but if you die and there IS, then what? your screwed, Lose lose situation. If however, you believe in God and you die and there is none, no big deal. If, there is though, and you die having believed, your saved. Win Win. Let the maths decide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, the famous Pascal's Wager.

Not to get into a religious debate here, but if you've spent your entire life believing in something that doesn't exist, then you've spent your entire life under the influence of a lie. That's a big deal IMO. I wouldn't be too chuffed about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How would you find out they have lied? If there is nothing after we have died, then we will not know if it had all been a lie. It is only if there is something afterwards that we will know, and if there is something afterwards, then at least some part was true.

[Tom]

Basically who gives a crap if pluto is a planet or not. Its a planet isn't it? Its large enough, has a moon, orbits the sun. If this new thing also is a planet then we have 10 planets in our solar system, whats the big deal with that? Its a fact, you can't change facts because it doesn't go with certain human cultures, who cares, really?

So what evidence makes you believe religion is crap? As far as I see it, you have two choices, to believe or not, and if you end up dying without believing and there is no God, ah well thats just great, but if you die and there IS, then what? your screwed, Lose lose situation. If however, you believe in God and you die and there is none, no big deal. If, there is though, and you die having believed, your saved. Win Win. Let the maths decide.

I disagree, afterall its not belief in god that would decide what happens at death, its your actions throughout life. The problem with man is that we have free will and hence we choose not to follow gods will, that will always be the case. Its my personal belief, if god exists, at death you will have to choose between gods will and free will, however apparent, death infact is gods will as it isn't really a choice. My personal belief is if god exists heaven is living in freedom, free from all physical limitations (the body, earth, etc), and going to heaven. Hell is returning to earth to be imprisioned in these bodies, as a body is a prision, its a limitation and shows that human beings are actually powerless because anything that have done in their life means nothing to them at death.