Comments on: Mike Brown talks about dwarf planet bigger than Pluto

By: Jim Sokaitis

Jim Sokaitis — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:34:09 +0000

As so many of you have already stated, we were taught in school that Pluto is a planet. All i know is that I’ll be teaching my 2-year old daughter that Pluto STILL IS a planet.

Don’t these eggheads have better things to do like promoting the global warming hoax?

By: Asdfasdf

Asdfasdf — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:11:52 +0000

(136199) Eris is not a planet because it is a large TNO (trans-Neptunian object) just like (225088) 2007 OR10, (136108) Haumea, (20000) Varuna, (28978) Ixion, (50000) Quaoar, (134340) Pluto, (136472) Makemake, (90482) Orcus and (19521) Chaos. Trans-Neptunian objects are not called planets. There is thousands of them. They are small icy worlds beyound the gas giant called Neptune. Their semi-major axis is greater than that of Neptune. They form the Kuiper belt, the Scattered disc and the Oort cloud.

Trans-Neptunian objects and asteroids are minor planets, but they are not real planets. Most minor planets are irregular shaped worlds and are alled “small solar system bodies” along with comets. Larger minor planets are massive enough to be round but still lack the orbital dominance just like their smaller cousins. Round minor planets are called “dwarf planets”. (1) Ceres is the only asteroid that is classified as a dwarf planet, but (4) Vesta may be reclassified as a dwarf planet (rather than a small body) in the future.

(136199) Eris is not a planet because it does not dominate its orbit like real planets. It is just the largest Scattered disc object.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:09:17 +0000

Why didn’t the any of the inner plannets become a gas giants?

By: Hanna

Hanna — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:01:13 +0000

I still consider Pluto a planet because I don’t care what people think. Pluto WAS a planet, every kid in that time learned that Pluto WAS a planet, and scientists are so bored all the time they make stuff up to kill time. I personally think the whole “Pluto, not a planet” is crap!

By: sciencelove

sciencelove — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:40:25 +0000

indeed

By: rockhound

rockhound — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:14:31 +0000

i was just passing thrugh and seen the site by chance i have to tell you i remember when its was just the 9 planets now as i see we have found so many more that are so huge!!! wow just to think that some day we may find one that will be just like earth but only the size antares ! some day … some day bless them who have brought the outer world to us to me it means the exploreation of new minerals that might be thare ?? maybe we can only imagen

By: Laurel Kornfeld

Laurel Kornfeld — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:22:47 +0000

Why? What makes something a “dwarf planet?” The IAU’s definition is flawed to the point of being illogical in that it states that “dwarf planets” are not planets at all. This makes absolutely no sense. The requirement of “clearing its orbit” is also highly problematic, as the further a planet is from the sun, the harder it will be for that planet to clear its orbit. If Mercury were in Pluto’s orbit, it would not “clear its orbit” either. Adding this requirement was simply the agenda of a small group of dynamicists at the IAU conference and does not even reflect the views of most planetary scientists.

By: Curiously terrific

Curiously terrific — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:11:28 +0000

It doesn’t matter if the planet ERIS is bigger than Pluto its still a dwarf planet

By: Magenta

Magenta — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:48:01 +0000

Actually, I do think limiting the number of planets to objects the size of Pluto and bigger is a very good idea. It’s important that the word “planet” retain the connotation of significance. If instead every last iceball is deemed a planet, then that connotation will no longer exist.

Pluto’s diameter is an excellent place to draw the line between planets and nonplanets. If we draw the line there, we have sufficiently few planets—ten—that “planet” refers to a significant body. Plus, we don’t have to cast out a world that has, since its discovery, been deemed a planet. The only change we have to make is to add Eris to the roster of planets in the solar system.

But history shows that happens every 75 years or so: Uranus in 1781, Neptune in 1846, Pluto in 1930, and Eris in 2005.

Magenta is patiently awaiting the year 2080!

By: Laurel Kornfeld

Laurel Kornfeld — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:11:28 +0000

I too agree with Magenta. The astronomical community has NOT made a decision on this. A tiny minority of that community with its own agenda resorted to surreptitious means to impose that agenda. Thank goodness, enough people, including professional astronomers, see through this sham and won’t allow their vote to be the last word on this issue.

The issue here isn’t acceptance of change but whether a proposed change makes sense, is logical, and amounts to something more than one point of view in a controversy. The IAU decision does not create or reflect a new reality but imposes one point of view that is hardly shared by a majority of experts in the field.

Ideally, there should be a broad category of “planet” with various subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giant planets, Kuiper Belt planets, and minor planets (asteroids such as Ceres, etc.). All of them would fall under the umbrella of planets but would be distinguished further by their makeup and characteristics. If that means there end up being 100 planets in the solar system, so what? Limiting the number of planets just because it’s convenient to us is hardly a scientific argument.

Pluto and Eris are planets, and this is what I will proudly teach my nephews.