This Story is Archived
Astronomers Say Pluto is Not a Planet »
Posted by: Neophile 2 years agoLeading astronomers approved historic new planet guidelines Thursday — downsizing Earth's neighborhood from nine principal heavenly bodies to eight by demoting distant Pluto.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 55
-
-
Blindjustice4u
Aug. 24, 2006, 11:23 a.m.WHAT?!?!?! So what if pluto doesn't follow along a uniform orbit as the other planets do? Shouldn't this be a lesson in individuality?? Tell my little cousin, who gets bullied everyday, pluto isn't good enough to be a planet anymore because he's too small or because hes not enough like the other planets.
-
RobertL
Aug. 24, 2006, 11:29 a.m.It seems strange that an object revolving around a sun can have it's classification changed to not being a planet while an object that revolves around a planet can be considered a planet. I refer to the several moons of Jupiter and Saturn that because of their physical size are potential planets even though they don't revolve around a normal center such as a sun. Pluto may not be a true planet but who gave these scientist the right to determine what a minimum size for a planet is?? All these objects are essetially satelites of something, so why not just classify everything as satelites?
-
-
PaganGodess
Aug. 24, 2006, 12:11 p.m.Astrologers everwhere are thinking OH CRAP! What does this do the the birth sign and charts? Hmmmmm . . . . .
-
poundit
Aug. 24, 2006, 12:27 p.m.blindjustice
your way off base, does your little cousin worship pluto? first off its not even close too a bully cituation, its more like finding out that dwarf down the street isnt really a human after all but instead hes a mutated ant eater
-
-
Peyoan
Aug. 24, 2006, 12:44 p.m.You are all wrong. Pluto is the closest and largest of a large group of objects called the Neptunian or Kuiper Belt objects. The real issue is not the size of pluto or it's orbit, its a wide range of classifications including it's orbit, it's makeup, and other properties. Charon, "Pluto's Moon", and Pluto orbit each other nearly equally, and with the discovery of another half-dozen Kuiper belt objects, a choice had to be made. Do we keep the very vague definition of planet and go from 9 planets to 17 planets? It has been known and obvious to many for years that Pluto is not a true planet. They attempted to reclassify it nearly 40 years ago and got a lot of hate mail from idiots like you who think because they were taught one way, it should stay that way (not unlike people at one point thought the earth was flat or the center of the universe, because that is what they were taught!). 8 Planets is better than dozens for simple minds anyways...
-
The_Alienist
Aug. 24, 2006, 12:44 p.m.Great, so what does that mean for the space probe New Horizons?? Is it a complete waste of time and money, or will it give us information that changes this and confirms that Pluto really is a planet?? I guess we will find out in 2015...............
-
AquaCarb
Aug. 24, 2006, 12:55 p.m.I'm sure Disney had something to do with this. Mickey was complaining that if Pluto was a planet why couldn't he be one too? Then Mini complained that Mickey's ego was just way to big, and finally Walt said enough is enough.
-
Peyoan
Aug. 24, 2006, 12:56 p.m.Terming an object a planet is nothing more than symantics. There is no mystical aura that defines one thing one way, and another in a different light. These are human made terms to help group objects. The classification does not diminish the value of information of such objects. Look at Europa or other satellites of Jupiter or Saturn, these are the most fascinating and unique objects that hold potential for life and mystery but they are not "planets".
The problem comes when we get hung up on tradition regardless of reason (ie: use of the british system vs metric). We get stuck in our ways. The Pluto cut was nothing personal, it just made sense to have better classification for it (there was a better was to define a planet, but they argued so much the adopted version was the one that was least different). If the definition was not changed, by 2050 we'd have a list 2 dozen long of planetary bodies.
-
david_nwpa
Aug. 24, 2006, 1:08 p.m.The reclassification of Pluto although fascinating is little more than a side note in science books. Peyoan is right, although I would have thought Ganymede or Io would also have a shot at having life, even if it isn't carbon-based life.
-
-
-
joeblowe
Aug. 24, 2006, 1:34 p.m.I want to redefine planets too. Any planet I live on is a planet. Any other solar system body is just an ornament. So, now there's only ONE plant (Earth, or "Dirt" if you want the translation...) and 7 or 11 or maybe even MORE ornaments. They're really only there to pretty up the neighborhood. See how simple I just made it? You are welcome.
-
BlackSpiral
Aug. 24, 2006, 1:51 p.m.That is entirely stupid, its classified as a dwarf planet because it has an oblong orbit? Fine, then any planet with visible rings is no longer a planet, because its atmospheric variations exceed the standard planetary globe shape. This whole issue is stupid. They fricken classified it as a dwarf planet, but not a planet. It is still planet that orbits our sun, but can't be considered in our solar system of planets. Makes a ton of sense. I wouldn't be so upset if I didn't spend all my fricken life thinking there were 9 planets only to find out one is no longer a planet, its just too small. If that is the case, then primordial dwarfs are too small to be human!
-
BlackSpiral
Aug. 24, 2006, 1:54 p.m.People born under Pluto are no longer people, because pluto is no longer an important enough astrological body!
-
researcher
Aug. 24, 2006, 1:56 p.m.It does bug me about using the word "dwarf" this could kick in possible problems with astronomers and their possible use of slang to describe a celestial body.
-
-
PaganGodess
Aug. 24, 2006, 2:09 p.m.BlackSpiral: hehehehehehe = ]
researcher: {{It does bug me about using the word "dwarf" this could kick in possible problems with astronomers and their possible use of slang to describe a celestial body.}}
I think you're absolutely right! This is grounds for a lawsuit agaist the discrimination of planets based on size!
-
-
-
hecuba
Aug. 24, 2006, 2:39 p.m.I'm not an astronomer, but I watch them on T.V. And I'm not clear on why there seems to be such a rush to judgement on poor wandering Pluto. It seems to me that since we have already paid quite a few bucks for the New Horizons probe, we should wait and see once we actually have the facts. I mean 2015 is only a nanno second away in astronomical terms....
-
-
capn_caveman
Aug. 24, 2006, 3:08 p.m.Hehehe... funny bumper sticker already made about this: http://www.cafepress.com/keepplutoaplane.71612518
The first 25 comments are shown. Show all 55 comments »
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
Also submitted:
