Pluto
it's so sad that we only have eight planets now.pluto is no longer part of the solar system, that is, it is no longer considered one of the major planets. it has been re-categorized as one of the "dwarf-planets", others being the ceres and the 2003 UB313.
(august 24) the international astronomical union (IAU) members gathered at the 2006 general assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.* given this definition, they voted that pluto does not fit to be a planet but a dwarf-planet.
a dwarf planet is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.*
in my personal point of view, i do not want pluto to be expelled from the solar system. i grew up knowing, accepting, and liking that we have nine planets in our solar system. changing this would somehow dishearten me since i like pluto very much. i like it in a way that it is (or was) the smallest planet, the mystery it gives of what more could be inside it as the supposed-to-be farthest known planet, the creep it brings when it is described as a frozen planet (since it is very far from the sun), etc.
however, i am not against changes. if those who know better than me (the astronomers) decided that pluto must take a different category, so be it. the change is just a bit hard to take since pluto has already established its place and name in the solar system, and has been accepted as a unique planet (not a dwarf-planet) since its discovery.
(august 24) the international astronomical union (IAU) members gathered at the 2006 general assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.* given this definition, they voted that pluto does not fit to be a planet but a dwarf-planet.
a dwarf planet is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.*
in my personal point of view, i do not want pluto to be expelled from the solar system. i grew up knowing, accepting, and liking that we have nine planets in our solar system. changing this would somehow dishearten me since i like pluto very much. i like it in a way that it is (or was) the smallest planet, the mystery it gives of what more could be inside it as the supposed-to-be farthest known planet, the creep it brings when it is described as a frozen planet (since it is very far from the sun), etc.
however, i am not against changes. if those who know better than me (the astronomers) decided that pluto must take a different category, so be it. the change is just a bit hard to take since pluto has already established its place and name in the solar system, and has been accepted as a unique planet (not a dwarf-planet) since its discovery.
*http://www-csm.stecf.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.
posted by Centsuality @ 11:26 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home