Pluto: The Rejected Planet

I went in to this whole Pluto study biased.

I was raised on the knowledge that Pluto was a planet.

The Solar System had 9 planets.

It just doesn't seem right to say that it only has 8.

You just can't throw a planet out of the Solar System!

 I'm a little sentimental when it comes to Pluto.

I like Pluto.

He's the underdog.

(no pun intended) 

;)

I'm going to interject here to thank those of you who voted for our Pluto Planetship question on facebook.

I have to admit I was a little disappointed that we only got 11 votes (out of 211 friends),

BUT, I am so thankful to those of you who did vote!!  So thank you!!

I am going to list the reasons why Pluto was taken out of the category of Planet.

Followed by the reason for why it still should be a planet.

At the very end,

I'll give you our unanimous (as a family) vote on how we feel about it.

But I'm sure through my subtle sarcasm . . . You'll figure it out.

REASON AGAINST: Pluto is the size of a moon.

FOR PLUTO: Um . . . Ever hear of Mercury???  Smaller than Jupiter's moon Ganymede.  And not a ton bigger than Pluto.

REASON AGAINST: Pluto has an off center orbit that is elliptical.

FOR PLUTO: Again.  One word.  Mercury.  It has an elliptical orbit.  Pluto's is only ever so slightly more elliptical than Mercury's.  And guess what!  All the planets actually have an elliptical orbit to some extent, but the planets from Venus through Neptune's are more circular.  The off-center orbit could be explained by the next "For".

REASON AGAINST: Pluto has an inclining orbit.  Most of the planets orbit on a flat plane.

FOR PLUTO: Is it at all possible that (being near the Kuiper Belt) it may have been hit by a Kuiper object altering it's orbit????  You would have to answer: Yes, it is possible.

REASON AGAINST: Pluto's moon is too big.  All the other planet's have comparatively much smaller moons.

FOR PLUTO: Pluto has a gravitational pull.  Once again, is it possible that Pluto could have pulled a comet into its orbit?  Yes.  It is believed that Triton was a comet pulled into Neptune's orbit.  We consider Triton a moon and Neptune a planet.  A moon after all is a natural satellite orbiting a planet.  Does it matter the size, if it's doing what the definition of a moon describes?

REASON AGAINST: Pluto is made of ice and rock and all the other planets beyond the asteroid belt are gas giants.

FOR PLUTO: I'm gonna be a little rude here.  VERY DUMB REASON.  Where is the law that says all planets outside of the asteroid belt have to be gas planets?  It makes perfect sense that there would be planets far away from the Sun that are made of ice and rock.

Bringing us to this:

REASON AGAINST: Pluto looks like a comet.  Comets don't have a hot inner core and neither does Pluto.

FOR PLUTO: Agreed, Pluto doesn't have a hot inner core.  BUT all the comets make changes.  They form comas or burn off material.  Pluto doesn't do that.

REASON AGAINST: Well, comets burn off material and change because they get close to the Sun.  Pluto never gets that close, so that's why it doesn't change.

FOR PLUTO: The comets that don't get near the Sun are in the Kuiper Belt.  Guess where Pluto is not.  Yep.  The Kuiper Belt.

REASON AGAINST: Well then, it looks like a Kuiper Belt object, even though it's a larger object.

FOR PLUTO: You're right.  Pluto is a lot bigger than all the other Kuiper Belt objects. It's not in orbit with the Kuiper Belt.  It's much larger than anything in the Kuiper Belt.  So the logical conclusion here is, it's not a Kuiper Belt object.

REASON AGAINST: Pluto doesn't fit into the definition of a planet.

FOR PLUTO:  First of all, the definition of a planet was changed.  But, let's go with the raw definition of a planet: Any large object that orbits the Sun with a strong enough gravitational pull to keep it in orbit.  Does Pluto fit that definition?  Yes.

REASON AGAINST: Well with that definition, anything "large" could be considered a planet including comets.

FOR PLUTO: But comets don't fit into all the other guidelines of a planet.  You're grasping.  It's unbecoming.

Ok.  There are all the arguments and rebuttles, laced with my sarcasm.

;)

If you haven't guessed it,

We're all for PLUTO!!

Some of my kids weren't at the beginning or our study.

But the evidence and facts changed their minds.

I also have to add,

I hate it when people change the rules, definitions, laws or whatever to make their point valid.

Changing the definition of a planet is just nuts to me.

That's like changing the definition of a word just because you want it to pertain (or not pertain) to something.

If you recall, Pluto was not stripped of its planetship until they changed the definition.

I know the Hubble has given us much more information,

But that information, to me, has seemed to prove the fact that Pluto is a planet even more now.

Not stripped it of it's title.

Ridiculousness.

The Votes on Facebook:

3 Against Pluto being a planet

8 For Pluto being a planet

If you disagree with my opinion. That's ok. That's what makes everyone different.  I am not saying that I am right.  I am saying based on all the facts and evidence, this is how I feel.  I'm sure somebody could find fault with my reasoning.  Wouldn't you agree that if we all agreed on everything, this would be a very boring world?

Our information came from "Exploring Creation with Astronomy", by Jeannie Fulbright and published by Apologia.