 |
Who the hell is trying to call Pluto a star??? Sure, its not a true normal planet anymore, but this is ridiculous.
|
|
|
schiron I know what you all mean, that is what I said when they told me that... I was in high school but I heard it from a younger sibling of a friend who was in like 3rd grade rolleyes So the high school student believed the third grader? |
 |
|
|
SmallTownGuy Perhaps. But I'm a bit vague as to what star-like properties she might be referring to. Someone recently observed lots of methane in the atmosphere and a temperature inversion such that the upper atmosphere was warmer than the surface. That's interesting, but hardly what I'd chose for the defining feature of a star - especially since it was still at -180 Celsius. Well them scientists are a fickle bunch. |
|
|
Would there be a link somewhere or a scientific journal that someone could possibly link to show evidence of this newfangled classification Pluto has now? Because I'm undeniably curious.
|
|
|
|
Sigfridr Would there be a link somewhere or a scientific journal that someone could possibly link to show evidence of this newfangled classification Pluto has now? Because I'm undeniably curious. Pluto is not a Dwarf Star, it is a dwarf planet, or a Planetoid, meaning that it's more like a massive Asteroid that has enough of a gravitational pull to have gained its own moon, which it has. |
|
|
Is this topic for serious?
Sigfridr Would there be a link somewhere or a scientific journal that someone could possibly link to show evidence of this newfangled classification Pluto has now? Because I'm undeniably curious. Same here. Please post. sweatdrop For people who are vehemently opposed to changing classifications in general, remember that science is constantly rewriting itself in an attempt to describe things more accurately. What's the difference between a star and any planet? I would say mass and whether nuclear fusion is taking place. But isn't the mass requirement related to the requirements for nuclear fusion to take place? Surely nuclear fusion isn't taking place on Pluto...? |
|
|
|
Pluto is in no way, has never been, and shall never be a star. I shouldn't even need to explain further.
|
|
|
Morberticus SmallTownGuy Perhaps. But I'm a bit vague as to what star-like properties she might be referring to. Someone recently observed lots of methane in the atmosphere and a temperature inversion such that the upper atmosphere was warmer than the surface. That's interesting, but hardly what I'd chose for the defining feature of a star - especially since it was still at -180 Celsius. Well them scientists are a fickle bunch. |
|
|
|
The defining characteristic of a traditional star (excluding neutron stars and the like) is fusion. You show me where, on pluto, that thermo-nuclear fusion takes place, and I'll eat my house...
|
|
|
Mecill Is this topic for serious? Sigfridr Would there be a link somewhere or a scientific journal that someone could possibly link to show evidence of this newfangled classification Pluto has now? Because I'm undeniably curious. Same here. Please post. sweatdrop For people who are vehemently opposed to changing classifications in general, remember that science is constantly rewriting itself in an attempt to describe things more accurately. What's the difference between a star and any planet? I would say mass and whether nuclear fusion is taking place. But isn't the mass requirement related to the requirements for nuclear fusion to take place? Surely nuclear fusion isn't taking place on Pluto...? X_Grimmjow__Jaggerjack The defining characteristic of a traditional star (excluding neutron stars and the like) is fusion. You show me where, on pluto, that thermo-nuclear fusion takes place, and I'll eat my house... |
|
|
|
schiron Ok Pluto is a small planet yes, but it has been a planet since before it was called pluto. Before it was called pluto is was called planet x, but now it is classified as a star and it really erks me to no end. Pluto was founded March 1930, of course it was an accident but now it is being called a star in school. If they wanted to call it a star cause it is a dwarf planet ok, but at least they can tell kids it's still a planet in some cases you know. Also it is so small that is catagorized as a dwarf planet. scream A star is not made up of rock! is made of super heated gasses! |
|
|
I remember it being classified as a dwarf planet, and some others have proposed that it could be a moon of a planet. But I have never heard it being called a star
|
|
|
|
boombox223 schiron Ok Pluto is a small planet yes, but it has been a planet since before it was called pluto. Before it was called pluto is was called planet x, but now it is classified as a star and it really erks me to no end. Pluto was founded March 1930, of course it was an accident but now it is being called a star in school. If they wanted to call it a star cause it is a dwarf planet ok, but at least they can tell kids it's still a planet in some cases you know. Also it is so small that is catagorized as a dwarf planet. scream A star is not made up of rock! is made of super heated gasses! As a substance heats, its particles becomes less correlated, so pluto fits the definition of a star. |
|
|
Morberticus boombox223 schiron Ok Pluto is a small planet yes, but it has been a planet since before it was called pluto. Before it was called pluto is was called planet x, but now it is classified as a star and it really erks me to no end. Pluto was founded March 1930, of course it was an accident but now it is being called a star in school. If they wanted to call it a star cause it is a dwarf planet ok, but at least they can tell kids it's still a planet in some cases you know. Also it is so small that is catagorized as a dwarf planet. scream A star is not made up of rock! is made of super heated gasses! As a substance heats, its particles becomes less correlated, so pluto fits the definition of a star. Pardon me if this is just ignorance speaking, but I thought a star was always made up of plasma, meaning Pluto could not be one.. |
|
|
