The refusal of people to accept Pluto's entirely accurate reclassification shows quite simply that they're not interested in science, but in preserving the nostalgia of their childhood.
It's not a planet. There are very good reasons why it's not a planet. Get over it.
▼
·
Edited 9 years ago
deleted
· 9 years ago
No.
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
Your refusal does not change the fact that Pluto does not meet the technical definition of a planet,
By definition a planet is a rocky or gaseous celestial body orbiting a star, of sufficient mass to achieve both hydrostatic equilibrium (become spherical) and orbital dominance (clear their orbit of other large bodies). Pluto is classified as a dwarf planet as it has not achieved orbital dominance. There is also debate about whether its 'moon' Charon can be considered a moon or whether they can be considered binary dwarf planets, in the same way that Earth and Luna can be considered binary plants due to Luna's unusually large relative mass. If you do not accept this definition then you have to take a view of the solar system with 15+ planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth & Luna, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto & Charon, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, and possibly, Orcus, (307261) 2002 MS4, Salacia, Quaoar, (225088) 2007 OR10 and finally Sedna. And two of those don't even have names.
There is a strong case to be had for Pluto and Charon being a binary system because their barycenter is actually well above Pluto's surface, they actually orbit each other.
In the case of the Earth and the moon however, the barycenter is some 1700 km below the surface... therefore it could be said that the moon orbits us.
No one got left behind. This is like you suddenly discovered one day that the goofy looking lovable pet dog you have actually is a kangaroo. It's still your lovable pet.
deleted
· 9 years ago
I was under the impression that binary planets or binary dwarf planets were when the barycenter was significantly displaced from the centre of the larger body, it doesn't necessarily have to be above the planetary surface, and the Earth-Luna barycenter is much closer to the surface then the core. Yes the case for an Earth-Luna binary planet system is not as strong as the case for a Pluto-Charon binary dwarf planet system, but there's still a case.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Astronomical_Union
It's not a planet. There are very good reasons why it's not a planet. Get over it.
In the case of the Earth and the moon however, the barycenter is some 1700 km below the surface... therefore it could be said that the moon orbits us.