Pluto was first discovered 85 years ago. Some people enjoyed the name, the distance, or the size, but it was a favorite among planets in polls and surveys. The IAU (International Astronomical Union), however, was quick to degrade it when more data and photographs came in. Experts found that Pluto was the tenth greatest object orbiting the sun. The only bigger dwarf planet being Eris.
So, what is lower than a Dwarf Planet? Why did Scientists rush to classify planets without proper evidence? If Ceres, a object in space first discovered in 1801, is too small to be a dwarf planet, why do we recognize it as one? All of these answers* and more are in Roger B. Culver's latest column.
Culver explains that Ceres was once considered to be a part of the "asteroid" family, citing it's size, but those ideas never came to surface. When Pluto was re-classified, researchers theorized that Ceres might once again be "up for demotion", and, around a decade after Pluto was re-classified, it might be the end for Ceres as a dwarf.
Roger tells us that in the beginning that, "Ironically, Pluto’s loss in this matter turned out to be Ceres’ gain, since the latter object also satisfies the defined characteristics of a dwarf planet". I disagree with Culver, as if that was true, than scientists wouldn't have originally considered it's demotion. It also doesn't make sense how Eris and Ceres can be in the same "group" yet have completely different characteristics, Culver doesn't explain this. I would not recommend this article, as it doesn't answer any questions that a common reader would think of while reading.
*-Only the first question was ever answered (Asteroid). I've emailed Mr.Culver for a response, but I've received nothing yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI read Niko’s review of the article “As we learn more; Planets get less.” I really enjoyed reading this review about Pluto, one of the most mysterious things in our galaxy. One thing i really like in Niko’s review was the visual aid, or picture, he added to help us understand better the information he was talking about. Another thing I liked about his review was that Niko actually reached out to the author of his article for more answers to unanswered questions. Lastly, the review of the article gave a different perspective, as Niko disagreed with some of the points the author put forward. It really made it seem like a debated topic.
ReplyDeleteThis article presented many new ideas to me as an Earth Science student. One of these ideas was the fact that at first Pluto was considered being moved into the “asteroid category” before being demoted to a dwarf planet. This leaves me wondering why doesn’t it classify for an asteroid? Isn’t it small enough? What classifies an asteroid or a planet from each other? The second fact I learned was that another small body in the sky, Ceres, is almost too small to be considered even a dwarf planet and may be up for demotion.
Even though I thought Niko did a great job with his review there are a few things I would do to make it even better. One of these ideas was to write a little more in each category. Writing more would allow possibly more background information to be added in, such as more details on the classifications of these objects and what is Ceres? With more detail and background this review would have been more substantial in its information and the debate with the author’s statement would have been even more proven. It would enhance the overall reading experience for the reader. Overall a great job!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNiko’s review of "Planet-asteroid-dwarf-planet Ceres Subject of Changing Labels" by Rodger B. Culver shed light on the celestial bodies known as dwarf planets. He begins his review with some background information or rather a little history on the dwarf planet Pluto. In doing so, Niko was able to bring the entirety of his review into the context needed to understand it. Another good aspect of his review is that he provided a visual aid, which would be helpful in further understanding the topic. I also liked how he states how he tried to reach out to the author; he even critiques the authors work. Niko disagrees with some of the author’s disputed points which makes the paper seem more like a review than a simple summarization of the article itself.
ReplyDeleteThe article presented a couple new ideas to me, but since my planet presentation was on Pluto and dwarf planets it’s hard to say if there were any more ideas that would have been learned had I not done that. I did not know that Pluto was demoted to an asteroid prior to being classified as a dwarf planet. I believed Pluto was still considered the ninth planet in our solar system till the demotion. Scientific definitions must be less straightforward than I initially believed. The other idea I learned was that Ceres, a celestial object located within the asteroid belt, is almost too minimal in size to be considered a dwarf planet. If Ceres is considered too small to be a dwarf planet, then it would have to be demoted- which is a possibility.
Overall I think Niko did a great job on his review, no fluff or off-topic information. However there’s just one thing he could improve on in the future. This review could have been longer to add additional information and detail. Adding more information could provide a better understanding. However as is it's very good. Good Job!
Niko’s review of "Planet-asteroid-dwarf-planet Ceres Subject of Changing Labels" by Rodger B. Culver shed light on the celestial bodies known as dwarf planets. He begins his review with some background information or rather a little history on the dwarf planet Pluto. In doing so, Niko was able to bring the entirety of his review into the context needed to understand it. Another good aspect of his review is that he provided a visual aid, which would be helpful in further understanding the topic. I also liked how he states how he tried to reach out to the author; he even critiques the authors work. Niko disagrees with some of the author’s disputed points which makes the paper seem more like a review than a simple summarization of the article itself.
ReplyDeleteThe article presented a couple new ideas to me, but since my planet presentation was on Pluto and dwarf planets it’s hard to say if there were any more ideas that would have been learned had I not done that. I did not know that Pluto was demoted to an asteroid prior to being classified as a dwarf planet. I believed Pluto was still considered the ninth planet in our solar system till the demotion. Scientific definitions must be less straightforward than I initially believed. The other idea I learned was that Ceres, a celestial object located within the asteroid belt, is almost too minimal in size to be considered a dwarf planet. If Ceres is considered too small to be a dwarf planet, then it would have to be demoted- which is a possibility.
Overall I think Niko did a great job on his review, no fluff or off-topic information. However there’s just one thing he could improve on in the future. This review could have been longer to add additional information and detail. Adding more information could provide a better understanding. However as is it's very good. Good Job!