rosen380 t1_j56xlnc wrote
Reply to comment by Jorgen_Pakieto in Will Pluto ever be a planet? by twurbster
That isn't part of the reason it was "downgraded" to dwarf planet though... per the IAU these are the requirements:
- It is in orbit around the Sun.
- It has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape).
- It has “cleared the neighborhood” around its orbit.
Pluto meets the first two, just not the third.
rickny0 t1_j56y7nr wrote
IMO Pluto lost its status because astronomers kept discovering more Pluto-sized objects orbiting the sun and they didn’t want to add a bunch of new planets. (Eris · Ceres · Haumea · Makemake)
alanz01 t1_j56yxqx wrote
I would totally be on board with having more planets. Those darn astronomers!
froggythefish t1_j570ard wrote
Fr, what’s wrong with having like 30 planets
Glum-Relationship151 t1_j57cffp wrote
Kids. They can't learn easily 30 names.
froggythefish t1_j57nie5 wrote
Half of the Kids can’t memorize 7 planets either so I don’t see an effective difference
drillgorg t1_j57091m wrote
We do, they're all dwarf planets!
Dahnlor t1_j5716jp wrote
Nitpick: Ceres is in the Asteroid Belt and was discovered in 1801. Its discovery was not unlike that of Pluto, and it was considered to be a planet until after several other asteroids were discovered.
Pluto's discovery and eventual recategorization was pretty much the same situation, except that every new Kuiper Belt Object wasn't being counted as another new planet. When Eris was discovered, which is larger than Pluto, it forced the IAU's hand in creating an actual definition for "planet".
ISeeTheFnords t1_j56ylw3 wrote
It's got a lot of work to do in regards to Neptune.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments