planet_bill @ Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:15 pm wrote:
I don't care what these "scientists" say. I say there are 9 planets and Pluto is one of them, and that's the way it's going to remain.
OK, we discovered five large bodies in the 1800s (Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, Hygeia) that were declared planets at the time. All of these objects are around the same size or larger than Pluto AND orbit between Mars and Jupiter.
There are TWELVE, count them TWELVE objects about the same size or larger than Pluto past Neptune (Chiron and Sedna being the largest).
There is even an object called Charon that orbits near Pluto that is almost the same size.
Why are these 17 objects not planets? Because in both cases, the first four objects and the other twelve object are in the same orbits with other countless objects, which by definition makes them astoriods.
Pluto is in the same orbit with uncountable smaller objects. By definition, that makes it an astoroid.
The definition of a planet according to the International Astronomical Union:
a celestial body that is (a) in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit
So, you can pick. We can either change the definition and go back to the old definition, in which case we have about 25 planets that we know of, or we can stick to the new, more consise definition and FOREVER have 8 planets.
We had a crappy definition, so we IMPROVED the definition. It's called PROGRESS for all you ignorants out there!!
Whoa, take it easy there big guy! Seemed like you had a pretty good argument, and gave some good examples. You just about had me convinced until you called me and the universe of other people "ignorants" -
! Besides in case you weren't able to tell my statement was kind of a joke.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
LMAO LMAO
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
! Besides in case you weren't able to tell my statement was kind of a joke.