Everyone has been saying that pluto isnt in the solarsystem anymore beacause its not a planet.well thats true.pluto isnt really a planet.well my guess is that when a sun dies evantually it turns out like pluto.so possibly pluto could have been a sun that died a long time ago.and another thing is that the planets that are rocky and that you can walk on are near the sun.and the planets that are like big balls of gases are away from the sun.so it is true that pluto isnt a planet but a cold dead suns remains floating in space and got caught into our suns gravity field.so at the end the choice is yours.if you say plutos not a planet its your own thoughts.and if you say its a planet you can say it.who agrees and disagress?thats what i wait for.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/plu...omposition.html

Pluto is a rocky dwarf planet. It was never a sun. Suns don't turn into rocky planets when they die.

I really don't know that much about captured binary stars, but would suggest it unlikely for our solar system. The reason being the proximity that might be required for sufficient orbital interaction, of a fair population number of interacting stellar objects. I believe the issue of even a brown dwarf, out to the hypothetical Ort Cloud (that lies beyond even the Kuiper Belt- of which Pluto might be considered inner-most) has been greatly discussed and not shown, yet, to exist.

So, if there are no nearby swarms of stars in our immediate stellar neighborhood, which might be necessary for the possibility of interaction and binary orbit, then the odds of it ever occuring decrease, dramatically.

Of course, one might make somewhat of a comparison between Pluto (perhaps a massive cometary body) and a white dwarf star. But, not without a deeper understanding of their heritage and compositions. If a satellite landed on the surface of Pluto, it might be there for the duration of the planet. If a satellite landed on a white dwarf star, it would be flattened and crushed by the density of the gravity.

(typo from my sister's jumping tomcat)

No one is saying that Pluto isn't in the solar system any more. The solar system consists of more than just the Sun and the planets. Asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects (which is what Pluto is) satellites and comets are all part of the solar system.


Agreed.


This is not true of other stars. Dozens of "hot Jupiters," have been discovered. These are huge gas which orbit very close to their star, in some cases much closer than Mercury orbits the Sun.


As others have already said, this is not true. Firstly Pluto is not a single body, orbiting alone. It is part of the Kuiper belt. This is like an outer aseroid belt, with thousands of objects just like Pluto (Pluto is not even the largest of these objects, Eris is). For your theory to be true the Sun would have had to have captured tens of thousands of dead stars.

Rather than being old dead stars, the Kuiper Belt objects are probably remnants of the creation of the solar system.

Secondly Pluto is simply not massive enough to be a dead star. Under a certain sive a star will not undergoe the thermonuclear reactions at their core. ven if Pluto was just a fragment of the core of a star it would have to be far denser.

Thirdly a technique called spectroscopy allows us to determine the surface composition of astronomical objects. Pluto is not not made of the right stuff to be a star.

Stars die in a variety of ways, none of those ways produce objects like Pluto.


Ultimately the decission on what constitutes a planet lies with the International Astronomical Union (IAU). They have determined that Pluto is a dwarf planet and so, officially, a dwarf planet is what it is.

The reason Pluto is not a planet anymore is because they found another ball with a smaller moon.
Pluto and its moon could be two planets inside of one ball just as our solar system is thousands perhaps millions of little balls travelling around a humongous ball of charged particles. I guess we have named the most active balls as planets.

^^ Is it just me or does none of above make any sense?

The reason Pluto is no longer considered a planet is because the definition of a planet since 2006, is now along the lines of, " a body that orbits the sun, is large enough that it's gravity makes it round in shape and is sufficiently massive to have swept its neighbourhood clear of other bodies." As Pluto is just one body amongst thousands in the Kuiper Belt it does not fit the last part of the definition. As it fits the first two parts of the definition it is considered a "dwarf planet".

What? Pluto orbits the sun, that's clear. Pluto was made a planet because it was the brightest object in the Kuiper belt. Check this link out:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/#planet and this:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm

I think they're just pulling your leg, though. Is the outer Kuiper belt a total belt like the one between mars and halfway to jupiter?

Eris is only 435 miles bigger around than Pluto and its moon, Dysomia, is just a little thing.

Pluto has 3 moons and the biggest Charon is about 1/4 of the size of Pluto, but still.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/r...005/19/image/c/

Pluto may be another system. . . . of little people.

Correct.


Not really correct. Pluto was made a planet because when it was discovered no one knew of the existance of the Kuiper belt. It was believed to be the mysterious object that was thought to cause deviations in Neptune's orbit. It soon became clear that it was not massive enough to do that. It's catagorisation was always problematic and came to a head with the discovery that it was not orbiting alone. This was not unprecedented, when Ceres was discovered in 1801 it was initially catagorised as a planet but was later downgraded to a asteroid (it was upgraded to "dwarf planet at the same time as Pluto".


The only person I suspect of pulling my leg is you Gregg. In thread after thread in the science section you pot absolute drivel and claim it as fact. I find it hard to believe that:
a ) anyone can have such little scientific knowledge
b ) if anyone does have such little scientific knowledge it is possible to be unaware of the fact.


Yes


True, but relevant how?


Also true, but also relevant how?


Back to drivel. With you it is difficult to tell when you are serious and when you are joking, as the quality of scientific knowledge is about the same. I am assuming from the smilie that this is deliberate drivel and an attempt at humour.

Seriously Gregg, your enthusiasm is to be commended but you do not seem to have even an elementary understanding of basic science. Do you self a favour, go to the library, get some books and learn. Alternatively ask questions here. There are plenty of people here with very good scientific knowledge. Ask the right questions and you could learn a lot. Simply wading in and posting nonsense and claiming it as fact and you will learn nothing.