Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Is Pluto a planet?
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 22:38, 8 June 2009 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 21:58, 30 July 2009 (edit) Alibreland (Talk | contribs) (→No) Next diff → |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
*[http://demotepluto.com/case.php "The Case for Demoting Pluto". DemotePluto.] | *[http://demotepluto.com/case.php "The Case for Demoting Pluto". DemotePluto.] | ||
- | + | *[http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/topten/tyson_pluto_is_not.html "Pluto Is Not a Planet". The Planetary Society.] | |
- | + | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |
Revision as of 21:58, 30 July 2009
Is Pluto a Planet or was it properly classified as a dwarf-planet in 2006? |
Background and context |
Characteristics: Does Pluto fit the characteristics of a planet? | |
Yes
|
NoThe arguments in this section need to be converted to look like the arguments on the pro side of thsi debate article. Argument that Pluto fits the description of a Kuiper belt comet more than of a planet: Neil deGrasse Tyson, a famous American Astrophysicist, "Pluto is Not a Planet" Natural History Magazine 2/99 - "The more we learned about Pluto, the more it did not fit any reasonable classification scheme that applied to the other planets. It was in a class by itself. But can you have a class of one? Should you have a class of one? In 1992, David Jewitt of the University of Hawaii and Jane Luu of Harvard began to discover icy bodies just beyond the orbit of Neptune. Since then, nearly a thousand such objects have been discovered with similar properties: They are small, they are icy, they all orbit just beyond Neptune, they have somewhat eccentric paths, and their orbits are tipped out of the plane of the solar system. This new class of objects was duly named the Kuiper belt, in honor of the Dutch-born American astronomer Gerard Kuiper, who in the 1950s advanced the idea that such a belt of comets might exist. Alas, Pluto, which is small and icy and orbits just beyond Neptune and has an eccentric orbit that is tipped out of the plane of the solar system, is none other than a Kuiper belt object—a leftover comet from the solar system’s formation. If Pluto’s orbit were ever altered so that it journeyed as close to the Sun as Earth, Pluto would grow a tail and look like a jumbo comet. No other planet can make this (possibly embarrassing) claim. I must vote—with a heavy heart—for demotion." Argument that a "planet" needs to dominate its locality, and that this was the primary justification for the IAU's demotion of Pluto: National Geographic News, "Pluto not a planet, astronomers rule" 8/24/06 - "Pluto has been demoted because it does not dominate its neighborhood. Charon, its large 'moon,' is only about half the size of Pluto, while all the true planets are far larger than their moons. In addition, bodies that dominate their neighborhoods, 'sweep up' asteroids, comets, and other debris, clearing a path along their orbits. By contrast, Pluto's orbit is somewhat untidy." Argument that the new definition of a planet adopted by the IAU was needed and that it is much more scientific than anything before it: Astrophysicist Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution - "reversed course completely, and offered up a definition that's much more scientifically palatable. They reworked it and it has become a much superior definition. I think this will stand the test of time." Argument that the new definition under the IAU will eliminate the possibility that dozens of new "planets", under the old definition, be found and that an unmanageable and less meaningful list of "planets" emerges: DemotePluto.com "The Case for Demoting Pluto" - "The Pluto-Charon system is too small and common in the outer solar system to be rightly categorized as a planet, and should be removed from the repertoire. Otherwise the panoply of planets in our solar system -- and in other planetary systems -- would grow at an unmanageably rapid pace as we discover more and more 'Plutons,' and our astronomy textbooks would become hopelessly out of date with every new discovery."
|
Social effects: Will the downgrading of Pluto's status cause negative social effects? | |
Yes
|
|
Write Subquestion here... | |
YesCommittee of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society said in 2006 - "This action would undoubtedly be viewed by the broader scientific community and the general public as a reclassification of Pluto from a major planet to a minor planet. We feel that there is little scientific or historical justification for such an action."
|
NoClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here |
Pro/con resources | |
Yeshttp://www.dwarfplanetsrplanets2.com http://laurele.livejournal.com
|
No |
External links |
Categories: Pluto | Planets | Space