vincent Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 (edited) Orbiting pluto! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0510...luto_moons.html Edited October 31, 2005 by ripgut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdb815 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Man that is so weird. Pluto isn't even a real planet imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 I'm not that knowledgable on astronomy, but isn't Pluto just a large ball of ice orbiting the sun? There was another "planet" found recently that was like this, wasn't there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 I'm not that knowledgable on astronomy, but isn't Pluto just a large ball of ice orbiting the sun? There was another "planet" found recently that was like this, wasn't there? 586750588[/snapback] Well, see, that's just it, astronomy's jury has been out on deciding if pluto is indeed a planet or not. there is no uniform definition on what should be classified a planet or not. To me a planet has to meet the following criteria: - it has to have a core, rocky, iron,nickel, whatever. - it has to contain at least 3 elements in its atmosphere. These two (im sure others could attribute more), should at least be factored in when trying to judge whether a celestial object is indeed a planet or not. And so far An atmosphere has not been detected on Pluto... i believe all we know so far is that it has frozen methane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdb815 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 To me a planet has to meet the following criteria:- it has to have a core, rocky, iron,nickel, whatever. - it has to contain at least 3 elements in its atmosphere. 586750657[/snapback] So you don't consider Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, etc. planets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 So you don't consider Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, etc. planets? 586750770[/snapback] Jupiter meets those requirements Saturn meets those requirements Mercury meets those requirements What makes you think those do no meet those requisites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdb815 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Jupiter meets those requirementsSaturn meets those requirements Mercury meets those requirements What makes you think those do no meet those requisites? 586750803[/snapback] Mercury does not, as it has no atmosphere. Jupiter and Saturn do have an atmosphere and a small solid core (which I did not know until I clicked on your links :p). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Allen Veteran Posted October 31, 2005 Veteran Share Posted October 31, 2005 Moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Moon? Nice! Mercury does not, as it has no atmosphere. Jupiter and Saturn do have an atmosphere and a small solid core (which I did not know until I clicked on your links :p). 586750875[/snapback] Earth, Venus, Mars, Pluto, and three of the satellites of the outer planets - Titan, Enceladus (moons of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune) have atmospheres that envelop their surfaces. In addition, the giant planets of the outer solar system - Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune - are composed predominantly of gases. Other bodies in the solar system possess extremely thin atmospheres. Such bodies are the Moon (sodium gas), Mercury (sodium gas), Europa (oxygen) and Io (sulfur). Source - Wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdb815 Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 It seems as if Wikipedia has some conflicting info. :happy: Physically, Mercury is similar in appearance to the Moon, being heavily cratered. It has no natural satellites and no atmosphere, but has a large iron core which generates a magnetic field about 1% as strong as the Earth's. Source Even if Mercury does have a thin atmoshpere it does not include 3 or more elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted October 31, 2005 Author Share Posted October 31, 2005 It seems as if Wikipedia has some conflicting info. :happy: Source Even if Mercury does have a thin atmoshpere it does not include 3 or more elements. 586751022[/snapback] Mercury does have an atmoshpere: click here well that is just MY thoughts on requirements, experts in the field may differ, however Mercury's atmosphere is replenished, although very very thin, it's there. Another thing about mercury is that it has an eccentric orbit, its density resembles very closely that of Earth's, and its core consists or mostly Iron. To me Mercury is more of a planet than Pluto. And who knows, early in it's formation it may have once had a more complex atmosphere, thought it may have been blasted away at an early stage in its life from the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 I thought scientist's speculated that Mercury was struck by an object 100's of km long and lost some of it's mantle? 586751348[/snapback] It was struck, but it retains most of what was orignally there, i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Mercury does have an atmoshpere: click herewell that is just MY thoughts on requirements, experts in the field may differ, however Mercury's atmosphere is replenished, although very very thin, it's there. Another thing about mercury is that it has an eccentric orbit, its density resembles very closely that of Earth's, and its core consists or mostly Iron. To me Mercury is more of a planet than Pluto. And who knows, early in it's formation it may have once had a more complex atmosphere, thought it may have been blasted away at an early stage in its life from the sun. 586751152[/snapback] I thought scientist's speculated that Mercury was struck by an object 100's of km long and lost some of it's mantle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev0| Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Come on, if Pluto has 3 moons, it deserves to be called a planet, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Isn't there suppose to be a panel or something that is going to vote on whether or not to drop Pluto's planet status or am I just dreaming? By definition Pluto is a planet, so let's leave it alone. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 Isn't there suppose to be a panel or something that is going to vote on whether or not to drop Pluto's planet status or am I just dreaming? By definition Pluto is a planet, so let's leave it alone. :yes: 586753489[/snapback] read this: planet definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 read this: planet definition 586753505[/snapback] Very interesting read... thanks! So the problem, from what I'm reading, is everyone seems to have a different opinion about what a planet is or should be. According to the Encarta definition, Pluto would be a planet, but that definition doesn't seem to be one that some scientist agree with? Which makes sense because comets orbit the sun--not in the same fashion as Earth or Mars, but under that definition, it could be called a planet :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 Comets, i believe at least from what i studied. Is that they have more elliptical orbits, due to there lower mass. Sedna, has a highly elliptical orbit and hotly debated as to where it is a planet or a member of the Oort, or Kupier belt. It takes 18.500 years to complete one cycle around the sun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Come on, if Pluto has 3 moons, it deserves to be called a planet, IMO. 586753434[/snapback] 87 Sylvia (asteroid) has two moons... do we call it a planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev0| Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I'm not that knowledgable on astronomy, but isn't Pluto just a large ball of ice orbiting the sun? There was another "planet" found recently that was like this, wasn't there? 586750588[/snapback] Nobody really knows what Pluto is, other than it is round, massive, and ice like. but it also might have unusual elements and compounds. Gotta wait til the Pluto Probe. Might make a good story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev0| Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Comets, i believe at least from what i studied. Is that they have more elliptical orbits, due to there lower mass. Sedna, has a highly elliptical orbit and hotly debated as to where it is a planet or a member of the Oort, or Kupier belt. It takes 18.500 years to complete one cycle around the sun! 586753601[/snapback] I say Sedna is NOT a planet... but Pluto should be the Yardstick. You have to be as big or bigger than Pluto for Planet-dom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.nudd Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I say Sedna is NOT a planet... but Pluto should be the Yardstick. You have to be as big or bigger than Pluto for Planet-dom. 586790850[/snapback] So you say any new bodies found in this area of the solar system should be called planets (close to 23 planets)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts