|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science Infinity Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:22 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:34 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:14 pm
|
|
|
|
Probably because there have been many people who disagree. But as much as I detest to say it, the IAU said that because there have been multiple findings of other objects about the same size as pluto and even Eris, which is largeer than pluto, they have made new criteria for naming a "planet". A) The object must be large enough to have formed itself into a spherical shape; B) The object must orbit the Sun indipendantly; and C) The object must have cleared its orbit(meaning that it must be more than significately larger than anything that crosses its orbit). Because of objects like Eris, people have learned that there are many objects as large as pluto. Also, Pluto hasn't cleared its orbit, as many other TNO's cross its path in the Kuiper Belt and also because of the 4th largest planet, Neptune, whose path sometimes makes it the ninth planet from the Sun. However, Neptune's orbit is the closest to a perfect circle, so it is Pluto "fault" that it crosses through another orbit. If Neptune had a very eccentric orbit and pluto's was less elliptical, than Pluto could possibly still be considered a planet.
Also, I'm not putting this in the Intelligent forum yet, I'm too lazy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science Infinity Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science Infinity Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:13 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|