Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Dwarf Planets

  1. #1 Dwarf Planets 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    9
    Do you think that Ceres, Pluto, and Eris should be considered planets. A.K.A. All are Dwarf Planets. If so why



    Also do you think that The asteriod belt is all the matter that Ceres could not pull together to make a bigger dwarf planet/ planet


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    No I don't think any of them should be considered anything other than dwarf planets because both Pluto and Eris lie in a zone known as Kuiper Belt where thousands of other small rock bodied objects lie of all dimensions. Ceres lies in the Asteroid Belt which again is the same exact thing. Neither one of these bodies was able to form a major planet because it's gravity is far to weak.


    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Neither one of these bodies was able to form a major planet because it's gravity is far to weak.
    That is only part of the story. It is the disruptive influence of Jupiter that prevented a significant body developing at the distance of the asteroid belt. Similarily it was the gravitational influence of all the giant planets that ejected planetesimals into the Kuiper Belt, with orbital parameters that limited the opportunity for them to form a single substantial body.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Since a human dwarf is still a human, then of course dwarf planets are still planets. Should Jupiter and Saturn be in a class of giant planets? When Ceres and Vesta were discovered in the 19th century, they were classified as planets. The real problem is that we don't know how to define a planet. Mercury is a rock blasted more barren than anything in the Kuiper Belt and the moon Titan is larger than Mercury. Fewer than half of the scientists responded to the vote to make Pluto a dwarf planet. This decision only added to the confusion and I see no reason to respect it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    This decision only added to the confusion and I see no reason to respect it.
    Consistency of usage within the astronomical community wouldn't be a tiny bit important would it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Since a human dwarf is still a human, then of course dwarf planets are still planets.
    Umm, totally different context here... Under your reasoning, every spherical object in the asteroid belt could be considered a planet, are the dust particles micro-planets?
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Since a human dwarf is still a human, then of course dwarf planets are still planets.
    This is just an irrelevant linguistic coincidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Or not... 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4474
    Here’s a link to the Astronomy magazine story about the decision. As one astronomer pointed out:
    "I think there will be a lot of people who just choose to ignore it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Umm, totally different context here... Under your reasoning, every spherical object in the asteroid belt could be considered a planet, are the dust particles micro-planets?
    The question is whether or not it's spherical because its own gravity has shaped its material into a sphere. I believe Ceres (which is about 1000 km in diameter) is the only thing in the asteroid belt large enough to be spherical because of its own gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    9
    Could Planet X be a dwarf planet but have a huge gravitational pull?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Starseeker
    Could Planet X be a dwarf planet but have a huge gravitational pull?
    Not unless it was incredibly dense, which would be contradictory to everything we currently understand about planetary formation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7
    perhaps the only fair argument that you can make is that there are 4 planets in our solar system -

    jupiter
    saturn
    uranus
    neptune

    everything else is just a ball of rock and bares little relation to those four. For example, our own Earth has much more in common with the dwarf planets than the giant ones
    neptuniana
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •