THIS IS FOR MY science debate. i am a pro. but i can go both ways. so give me your answers with citations, facts, details, and also suggestions. THANKS
Previous answers are right that there are now three parts of the planet definition. When it was classified as a planet, the Kuiper Belt wasn't well understood and nothing large other than Pluto was found there.
with the discovery of other Kuiper Belt or trans-Neptunian objects, the new definition was needed. Agree with it or not, we now use that definition.
First, the mass has to be large enough to be spherical. Pluto fits that.
Second, it has to have its own orbit around the Sun, not another planet (like Titan, Callisto, or Ganymede). Pluto fit that.
Third, the object has to have enough mass to clear its orbit, meaning either ejecting or gathering objects that shard its orbit. For example Jupiter groups asteroids along its orbit into clumps or ejects them. Pluto does NOT do that, so it's a dwarf planet.
Dwarf planet was a made up term to keep Pluto near the planetary status. Other objects classified as dwarf planets are Ceres (meets #1 and #2), Eris (meets #1 and #2 and is LARGER than Pluto), and Makemake (just classified).
Pluto used to be a planet, but now, it's nothing more than a dwarf planet. It's because of its unusual orbit. It does not orbit the sun as a "planet" should. Its orbit is highly inclined, and sometimes Neptune gets beyond Pluto.
Pluto has loads of similarities with the other Kuiper Belt Objects, for instance, Haumea, Eris, Makemake. Eris, as a dwarf planet, is more massive than Pluto. They all have unusual orbits. At the same time, there could be upto 2000 such Kuiper objects, as we explore the belt further. According to the rules of IAU, an object which has not cleared other planet(s)' path cannot be considered as a planet. As Pluto does not hold short of Neptune's orbit, it's not a planet. It is however a dwarf planet, because it comes with enough gravity to assume the hydrostatic equilibrium.
I'd suggest you to go against Pluto as a planet. Advocating for Pluto as a planet would just bring a sad defeat, no matter how good you are. (Unless you are up with a bunch of kids).
Pluto is a body of matter in orbit around the sun. It's orbit is similar as that of the other bodies of matter that orbit the sun. By the way, planet means "wanderer" which is a definition based on the observation experience of the ancient people. This definition is not very well understood by the people today because we are not used to pay attention to the stars like the ancient people did.
So, pluto fits the ancient definition of a planet. The ancient came out with this word; ergo, pluto is a planet.
Pluto is shown as a planet on the Pioneer plaque, an inscription on the space probes Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, launched in the early 1970s. The plaque, intended to give information about the origin of the probes to any alien civilization that might in the future encounter the vehicles, includes a diagram of our solar system, showing nine planets.[88] Similarly, an analog image contained within the Voyager Golden Record included on the probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 (also launched in the 1970s) includes data regarding Pluto and again shows it as the ninth planet.] The Disney character Pluto, introduced in 1930, was also named in honour of the planet. In 1941, Glenn T. Seaborg named the newly created element plutonium in Pluto's honour, in keeping with the tradition of naming elements after newly discovered planets (uranium after Uranus and neptunium after Neptune, although this tradition is also used for some non-planets: cerium is named after Ceres and palladium after Pallas).]
It's not. Scientists have laid out criteria and Pluto simply doesn't fit the bill, so it's now considered a dwarf planet. So, technically... it's still a type of planet.
THANKS
Comments
Previous answers are right that there are now three parts of the planet definition. When it was classified as a planet, the Kuiper Belt wasn't well understood and nothing large other than Pluto was found there.
with the discovery of other Kuiper Belt or trans-Neptunian objects, the new definition was needed. Agree with it or not, we now use that definition.
First, the mass has to be large enough to be spherical. Pluto fits that.
Second, it has to have its own orbit around the Sun, not another planet (like Titan, Callisto, or Ganymede). Pluto fit that.
Third, the object has to have enough mass to clear its orbit, meaning either ejecting or gathering objects that shard its orbit. For example Jupiter groups asteroids along its orbit into clumps or ejects them. Pluto does NOT do that, so it's a dwarf planet.
Dwarf planet was a made up term to keep Pluto near the planetary status. Other objects classified as dwarf planets are Ceres (meets #1 and #2), Eris (meets #1 and #2 and is LARGER than Pluto), and Makemake (just classified).
Pluto used to be a planet, but now, it's nothing more than a dwarf planet. It's because of its unusual orbit. It does not orbit the sun as a "planet" should. Its orbit is highly inclined, and sometimes Neptune gets beyond Pluto.
Pluto has loads of similarities with the other Kuiper Belt Objects, for instance, Haumea, Eris, Makemake. Eris, as a dwarf planet, is more massive than Pluto. They all have unusual orbits. At the same time, there could be upto 2000 such Kuiper objects, as we explore the belt further. According to the rules of IAU, an object which has not cleared other planet(s)' path cannot be considered as a planet. As Pluto does not hold short of Neptune's orbit, it's not a planet. It is however a dwarf planet, because it comes with enough gravity to assume the hydrostatic equilibrium.
I'd suggest you to go against Pluto as a planet. Advocating for Pluto as a planet would just bring a sad defeat, no matter how good you are. (Unless you are up with a bunch of kids).
HTH
Pluto is a body of matter in orbit around the sun. It's orbit is similar as that of the other bodies of matter that orbit the sun. By the way, planet means "wanderer" which is a definition based on the observation experience of the ancient people. This definition is not very well understood by the people today because we are not used to pay attention to the stars like the ancient people did.
So, pluto fits the ancient definition of a planet. The ancient came out with this word; ergo, pluto is a planet.
Pluto is shown as a planet on the Pioneer plaque, an inscription on the space probes Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, launched in the early 1970s. The plaque, intended to give information about the origin of the probes to any alien civilization that might in the future encounter the vehicles, includes a diagram of our solar system, showing nine planets.[88] Similarly, an analog image contained within the Voyager Golden Record included on the probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 (also launched in the 1970s) includes data regarding Pluto and again shows it as the ninth planet.] The Disney character Pluto, introduced in 1930, was also named in honour of the planet. In 1941, Glenn T. Seaborg named the newly created element plutonium in Pluto's honour, in keeping with the tradition of naming elements after newly discovered planets (uranium after Uranus and neptunium after Neptune, although this tradition is also used for some non-planets: cerium is named after Ceres and palladium after Pallas).]
It's not. Scientists have laid out criteria and Pluto simply doesn't fit the bill, so it's now considered a dwarf planet. So, technically... it's still a type of planet.
it's the largest object in the kuiper belt
In 2006 the internation astronomical union defined "planet" for the first time and pluto is now classed as a dwarf planet
Hey Yana go here it has everything you need
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
not anymore i think it's found to be just a rock in space or something like that
this is a matter of definition, not a matter of proof.
a good debater should at least know what they are debating...