All right, that title was a little harsh, but I think you get the point. It’s not that I don’t love Pluto, Pluto is a fine little planet… dwarf planet… hold on, plutoid. It holds a certain charm and mystique, plus we have the mother of all NASA missions (New Horizons) gliding its way to the outer icy reaches of the Solar System — the Kuiper Belt to be precise — to take a look at Pluto, up close, for the first time. I can’t wait for 2015 when the spacecraft starts taking snapshots, it will be awesome.
But what of the small planety-thingy’s status? Is it still a planetary outcast, destined for a life on Cosmic Skid Row? Or is Pluto about to get the mother of all reprieves and be re-classified as a planet? Does it really matter?
The reason why I ask is that the whole “demotion” thing was seen as bad news. I actually saw it as an exciting development in Solar System exploration (but hoped it wouldn’t tarnish the little rock’s popularity all the same). In actuality, Pluto is 27% less massive than the recently discovered dwarf planet Eris, so how could Pluto still be called a planet? Should Eris be classified as a planet, then? In light of new dwarf planet discoveries, Pluto became a rounding error and had to be re-classified. The International Astronomical Union drew up some planetary rules and found that Pluto didn’t have the gravitational clout to clear its own orbit and so was re-classified as a dwarf planet in 2006.
Suddenly, Pluto had “fans” that took the re-classification personally and got angry at the IAU for throwing Pluto out of the planetary club. Their reason? Only 4% of IAU members were present for the re-classification vote, they saw it as a personal slight against the “9th planet.” Even the nutty state of Illinois was FURIOUS and reinstated Pluto as a planet… (just in the state of Illinois).
We’ve heard this emotional story of planetary bullying over and over, so I won’t go over the details again. The whole Pluto story has been widely covered, many people pointing the finger at the evil IAU 4%, some have even gone as far as saying this is evidence that there is a growing rift between the public and scientists (let’s take national votes on scientific decisions! That would be fun). But what does it really matter? Really.
Is the Pluto re-classification a breech of our human rights? How about planetary rights? Is it indicative of the number of idiot scientists who voted in the 2006 IAU poll? Is this an indicator of poor scientific thinking? Could a war be sparked over this atrocity? Was it really a ‘bad’ decision?
Just so my opinion is known, I don’t care what Pluto is called. If NASA decided to explode Pluto as part of a Kuiper belt clearing project, then yes, I might be a bit annoyed; I’d even start a blog titled “Save Pluto.” But calling Pluto a dwarf planet (or the rather cute plutino) really doesn’t bother me. It’s a consequence of scientific endeavour, despite the perceived “controversy.” As the legendary astronomer Patrick Moore said, “…you can call it whatever you like!” Pluto is still Pluto.
However, it looks like Pluto might be re-classified again… big yawn.
This time, heavy hitter Alan Stern, Principal Investigator for the New Horizons mission, weighed in with his opinion on the matter. “Any definition that allows a planet in one location but not another is unworkable. Take Earth. Move it to Pluto’s orbit, and it will be instantly disqualified as a planet,” Stern said.
This implies that if Earth was moved to the Kuiper belt, as things move a lot more sluggishly out there, a planet with the gravitational pull of the Earth couldn’t clear its orbit, therefore the “must clear its own orbit” criteria is a bad location-based definition for a planet. (I would argue that there’s every possibility that Earth could clear it’s own orbit at that distance given enough time, but what would I know, I’m no planetary physicist, but everyone seems to have an opinion about Pluto, so there’s mine.)
This analogy is a bit like saying a car driven down a country lane is a car. But a car driven on a freeway is a bike.
There is the counter argument to this case; if there was something as big as Mars, or even Earth, it may have tunnelled out a path through the Kuiper belt, thereby clearing its orbit. Alas, there appears to be no solid consensus as to the nature of this littered volume of space (at least until 2015), hence all the fuss.
Now there’s some big noise that the IAU will reconvene and discuss the Pluto hoopla again, giving a vague glimmer of hope to pro-planet plutonites that the 2006 decision will be overthrown. Alas, I very much doubt that as, quite frankly, there are more pressing (and more interesting) matters to discuss such as: what the hell hit Jupiter?! We should re-classify Jupiter as ‘the inner Solar System’s gaseous protector’!
Source: New Scientist
astroengine.com 
Actually, what I find more interesting in that New Scientist article is Mark Sykes' point about us being “in the midst of a conceptual revolution […], shaking off the last vestiges of the mythological view of planets as special objects in the sky – and the idea that there has to be a small number of them because they're special.”I believe the focus of the whole controversy lies exactly here. Planets are *not* special. Rather, they are extremely common throughout the Universe… unless you only call “planets” to those in our own solar system, which is probably the nuttiest (and rather telling) aspect in IAU's definition.So yes, I do believe this definition is bad science: it tries to hide this fundamental fact about the universe we live in, maintaining the rather false fiction about the rarity and specialness (is this a word?) of planetary status. To say there are only 8 planets in the whole universe is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.So I'm very much in accordance with Stern and Sykes.Ah, and did you notice that I didn't even mention Pluto? Right: Pluto is quite irrelevant in all this. It's a planet, not because it's special enough to merit that status, but because planets are not special objects at all. Which doesn't make them any less fascinating.So, instead of trying to come up with strange criteria with bizarre consequences in order to keep planets special, we should define them simply and universally. The roundness criterion (or rather, the hidrostatic equilibrium criterion) seems to be both simple enough to be usable and pretty much universal. So there: problem solved.
Fair points Jorge, makes sense. I was actually more fascinated with the response this subject always gets, rather than the definition itself.While there may be controversy centered around the IAU definition of a planet, I think the re-classification of Pluto is symptomatic of the continuing discoveries being made by our increasingly advanced observational capabilities. As we learn more about the bodies in the Solar System, the term “planet” will become less and less important. The IAU could have made the opposite decision and said “all bodies that are round are now planets, and we'll have various sub-classes in order of mass.” I actually quite like the idea of having some kind of planetary Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, based on composition and mass rather than stellar characteristics, perhaps (simplistic idea, but it appeals to my organizational side).But I think with any decision like this, there's going to be a huge amount of resistance as it changes the view of our Solar System. I don't really think the IAU took this decision lightly either, but the organization (well, 4% of it in any case) is often painted as a bunch of renegades. My point is, whether Pluto is called a planet, dwarf planet, plutoid or whatever, I don't think a re-classification is a “demotion,” it's a development. I don't think the decision should be reversed because of a public outcry. If science makes the case (as suggested in the NS article), then a reversal of the 2006 decision should be considered, but until then, the Pluto controversy is just a lot of noise.Thanks for your response, always a great discussion!Cheers, Ian
Yes, the whole debate has been quite often quite silly. Not always, though. Some very relevant points came up and, silliness aside, I believe at least some people really have been getting to know better how this whole planetary system thing works and what kinds of objects exist out there. There is a lot of noise, yes, but I don't agree that it's all just that.I also don't understand why would resistance be that inevitable. In all areas of science, as new knowledge pours in, curricula and public understanding of how stuff works changes, usually quite smoothly. In nutrition, for instance, one day we need saturated fats, the next it's bad for you, the next we need them again, and there's no outcry that I have noticed. Why would planetary science be any different? That is to say that I very much doubt that it just came down to changes in the view of our Solar System. In my view, the outcry happened mostly because people felt that the definition the IAU came up with didn't make any sense. Reports from Prague, describing a sort of “highjacking” of the meeting also didn't help. Had they come up with something more sensible, and reached in a more mature fashion, the reaction would have been a lot less vocal, I think.Still, I do agree that any change to the current definition should be based pretty much exclusively on scientific knowledge and developments. In my view, the plethora of extrasolar planets alone is enough to toss it to the trash can. But I don't believe it'll happen until we have good resolution pictures of dwarf planets with very planetary geologies, i.e., until we have results from New Horizons and Dawn. Only then, perhaps, will we be able to reach a sort of consensus on the notion of planet and, yes, the subdivision of that broad category of celestial objects into subcategories. In the long run, I think that the creation of a sort of planetary H-R diagram is the only way to go.
kool ppl keep talkin about more im intrested!!!!
keep going
I second Jorge Candeias' statement. Some of us do care because we believe 424 IAU members made a hasty, highly flawed decision. Stern and fellow astronomer Dr. Hal Levison have actually done the calculations of placing Earth in Pluto's orbit and concluded decisively that it would not.Pluto did not stop being a planet because 424 astronomers made a controversial decision and adopted a vague, unusable planet definition. The requirement that an object “clear its orbit” was concocted specifically to exclude Pluto and keep the number of planets in our solar system low. The IAU definition makes no sense in stating that dwarf planets are not planets at all, a departure from the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to this definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another location is essentially useless.The IAU should take responsibility for the highly flawed definition adopted by only four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in 2006. However, the IAU should not be viewed as the sole authority on the definition of planet. Many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU. Should they not have a say in this matter? Something does not become fact simply because a tiny group that calls itself an authority says so. It is significant that hundreds of planetary scientists led by New Horizons Principal Investgator Alan Stern immediately signed a formal petition opposing the IAU definition.There are other venues through which a planet definition can be determined, such as last year's Great Planet Debate at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. Audio and video proceedings from this far more balanced conference, which I was fortunate to attend, can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ . You can also read more about this issue on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com .
To me, it's not the 4%. It's that the IAU had two committees formed for the express purpose of coming up with a definition, and at the last minute, ignored the results. The “Cleared the orbit” bit would mean that a Jupiter found where Eris is wouldn't be a planet.One of the suggested definitions for “binary planet” is where the center of orbit of the two bodies does not lie within either body. That works for Pluto/Charon. But it doesn't work for the Earth/Moon. At the moment, the center lies within the Earth. But it's not far from the surface. In a few millions of years, it will lie outside the Earth's surface. So it was Earth with a Moon, but it will be a double planet? That's very odd.IMO, Titan is a planet. Why? Well, there's evidence that it was captured by Saturn. Which means that it once was free roaming. It was a planet then, why not now?I'm with Alan on this one.The lesson from the Jupiter strike isn't that Jupiter protects us. Dynamic studies suggest that Jupiter sends bullets straight at us from time to time. The lesson should be that asteroid strikes happen, and they will happen to us. Given that asteroid strikes are preventable, we should put some real effort into preventing them. IMO, that means a bit more than the gross income of a single McDonald's franchise. The dinosaurs failed in this task. This is not an example that i'm willing to follow.
The “Cleared the orbit” bit would mean that a Jupiter found where Eris is wouldn't be a planet.An object with that much gravitational force could easily clear a path for itself in the Kuiper Belt. So if Pluto had the same mass as Jupiter, it would be a planet.
Really, there's only one point in all of this that still puzzles me. Why shouldn't a “dwarf planet” simply be a sub-class of “planet”…?Just my $0.02
> Really, there's only one point in all of this that still puzzles me. Why shouldn't a “dwarf planet” simply be a sub-class of “planet”…?Because when the term “Minor Planet” was coined in 1850, it meant “not a planet”. Declassifying Ceres to the status of “Minor Planet” was exactly the same as declassifying Pluto. And, Pluto got a minor planet number.IMO, the new definition only allows Jupiter to be a planet. It's the “gravitational bully” of everything orbiting the Sun. So, Earth needs a minor planet number. I have a candidate. Zero. It isn't taken, it's non-negative, and it pretty much sums up my opinion of the current definition.Keep going. There's no intelligent life here.
Pluto should never have gotten a minor planet number, and that number should be rescinded. The term “minor planet” was created to describe the asteroids. It doesn't mean “not a planet,” but using it to describe spherical bodies just blurs the distinction between those in hydrostatic equilibrium and those shaped by chemical bonds. It turns out Ceres' demotion was premature. Astronomers in 1850 could not resolve Ceres into a disk and didn't know it is round. Now we do know this and know that it is very different from shapeless asteroids. Neither Ceres nor Pluto should have been demoted. For reference, view the discussion of minor planets in Dr. David Weintraub's book “Is Pluto A Planet?”Jupiter in Pluto's orbit may be large enough and have a strong enough gravitational pull to clear that orbit, but Earth in Pluto's orbit would most certainly not clear that orbit. Dr. Alan Stern and Dr. Hal Levison calculated this based on orbital dynamics and came to this conclusion.I totally agree with the idea of classifying dwarf planets as a subclass of planets. That makes the most sense, so why is it so hard for the IAU to do this?
I agree with you on the fact that it is good news that Pluto was reclassified. It does indeed show how massive our planet system is and how much there still is to learn. As a teacher, I find it much easier to teach the solar system now. Eight major planets and then the kuiper belt and the minor planets. Furthermore, Pluto does not “act” like a “normal” planet. It crosses orbit with Neptune and can be considered a “double planet” because of the characteristics it has in common with its satellite. It also is nothing like the outer planets that are large and gassy. It would be a travesty if this decision was reversed. It makes sense the way it is! I like to refer to Jupiter as “the uncle Ben” of planets. It is large and gassy and protects us.-Much like my uncle Ben!
The main point I really wanted to make was why is there such a fuss over a classification? Pluto is obviously dear to many people's hearts, which is great, but the terminology of “dwarf planet” shouldn't be seen as a slur, or a thoughtless renaming. Pluto has a very strange orbit when compared with the other planets of the Solar System, but it's orbit isn't particularly strange for a TNO or KBO. It's a shame Pluto was caught in the crosshairs, but it was always in a precarious position.When discovered in 1930, it was designated “a planet” as we had little understanding of the other objects we'd find wondering around in the icy wastes. It turned out that Pluto was actually very small and carried the term “planet” very awkwardly, especially when Eris popped up.Perhaps this was an inevitable reclassification? It may be flawed, it may need adjustment, but it's up to science to muddle through and open it for debate with the IAU.
The decision should be open to a broader group of scientists than just the IAU. There are many astronomers who do not belong to the IAU. There are also many amateur astronomers who are as well versed as professionals in the subject (an amateur astronomer discovered the spot on Jupiter showing the recent comet impact).Pluto's eccentric orbit alone should not disqualify it from being considered a planet. Many exoplanets have been discovered to have highly eccentric orbits, and keep in mind, a good number of these bodies are larger than Jupiter. In one exoplanet system, two gas giants are in a 3:2 orbital resonance, the same as Neptune and Pluto. Neither one could be considered to have “cleared its orbit.” In another case, a large exoplanet was discovered with a very comet-like orbit around its star. There have also been multi-planet systems discovered in which each of the planets orbits on a different plane.Eris's discovery should not have had an impact on the classification of Pluto. Being in hydrostatic equilibrium, Eris is a planet, as is Pluto. Most of this controversy was contrived by people who wanted to artificially keep the number of planets in our solar system low.
Thanks for this inspirative post 🙂
I found the whole debate alternately interesting and bizarre. I think the IAU erred and over reached in their descision. Not because I disagree but because they failed to realize they had lost control of the terminology to the general public. I also agree that the definition flew in the face of common English. The only modifier you can add before planet that makes it not a type of planet is non-. In this area the decision was confusing to say the least.The clearing orbit criteria was poorly phrased (dominated was better) but once past that it is an interesting argument. But as been pointed out it doesn't translate well and Stern is right that such a definition shouldn't be dependant on location. Others have pointed out that you could make a related argument that Pluto is more of a planet using Hill spheres. Again, having exo-planets not also being planets also flies in the face of common language sense.I don't think the IAU should change their opinon until they have a much more consitent position. It would probably be better to loosen the definition of planet, and strengthen the definition of planetary sub-types. That allows people to choose their precision in a simple and straight forward manner. It also avoids all the linguistic and semantic gymnastics that currently exist. In conjunction, teaching guidance would be helpful. Even if we reveresed the decison, we shouldn't be teaching Pluto the old way. We should still teach it the new way.There was a very good series of articles on planetary criteria over at Astroprof's site. You can search there or find it from http://mangsbatpage.433rd.com/2009/04/last-plan…
If Pluto had an opinion, I think it would be along the line of who cares. After all any press is good press and lonely little and oftne ignored Pluto has had a pretty good run lately.
I urge you to reconsider the way you are teaching the solar system, as it reflects only one viewpoint in an ongoing debate. Spherical objects in the Kuiper Belt such as Pluto and Eris are NOT the same as the majority of other KBOs, which are shaped by chemical bonds as opposed to by their own gravity. Most KBOs are not geologically differentiated, as Pluto and Eris are.The issue is not what is easier to teach, but what stimulates the most thinking and learning. You can find a good lesson on planet definition that won NASA awards here: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topna… . This activity gives students the chance to look at both sides of this ongoing debate and come to their own conclusions, in other words to study and discuss the issue exactly the way scientists would.
Laurele,Thank you for the resource. I may change it to make it better for my 6th graders.I already use this example to discuss Scientific debates. I seldom, if ever, share my opinion in the classroom. However, my students know exactly where I stand on this issue. I stand on the side of truth and have since the early 90's before this became much of a debate. Allow me to rephrase my statement from my previous post: To me as a professional learning facilitator it is not what is “easier” to teach but what is more logical and less abstract for a 6th grader to understand. There are many ways to “stimulate the most thinking and learning.” Pluto is not a major planet, nor should it ever have been considered one. The fact that the IAU went back and finally got it right should be enough to agree. Pluto deserves its new rank and should always remain there. The many, many reasons why are too many to list here. However, this does a fair job of explaining the truth http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/10/why-plu… The above site skims over the fact that Pluto was given its status hastily and without much deliberation. It was pushed through so that America could have a discovery. It's real easy..you can say it with me: My, Very, Excellent, Mother, Just, Served, Us, Nachos!
Sorry, even though I'm also an actress, your last line is one I cannot say because it is not what I believe. The IAU did not get it right. They created a much too narrow definition of planet. Compared to Jupiter, Earth could be considered to not be a “major planet.” We have discovered gas giant exoplanets that do not “clear their orbits,” exoplanets in the same star system that all orbit on different planes, etc. The criterion requiring an object to “clear its orbit” to be cosidered a planet is not truth but one interpretation. It is no more valid than the broader criteria of hydrostatic equililbrium and orbiting a star. Instead of thinking in terms of “major” versus “minor” planets, why not think of subcategories of planets–terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, super Earths, hot Jupiters, etc.I've read the article on Universe Today, and I've also commented on it. The writer was for Pluto being a planet before he was against it. Many professional astronomers have rejected the IAU definition and share my conviction that Pluto does deserve to be reclassified as a planet. Visit the site of the Great Planet Debate, a conference held in August 2008 at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab at which both sides were discussed and given equal validity. This conference was held in response to the IAU decision. Audio and video transcripts can be found here: http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ . I had the good fortune to attend this three-day event and even do a presentation about why planet definition is important.I worry that your description of your opinion as “the truth” might intimidate sixth graders who disagree with your position from voicing their views publicly. Please make it clear that students do not have to agree with you as long as they present a coherent, logical argument.Personally, I have found that kids can understand abstract concepts a lot more than we give them credit for. My nephew, now six, understood at four-and-a-half that some people view Pluto as a planet and others do not. He understands that I view any object that is round and orbits the sun as a planet but that others disagree. Kids are perfectly capable of undertanding the idea of an ongoing debate, and lessons such as the one recommended by NASA help them conduct the same debate that scientists are having.For more on the pro-Pluto as a planet site, feel free to visit my Pluto blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com . I am not a writer, amateur astronomer, and astronomy student at Swinburne University.
Oh, one of the favorite things about actually sharing my opinion in the classroom is when I child articulates a stellar rebuttal. Indeed they are capable of understanding this debate. However, making sense of an abstract idea is made easier by having the major planets all fit into one category because they are alike. This is one of my favorite debates and topics. I am glad to know that there are still some folks out there that are going to fight for that cute, little planet…oops….minor satellite! Maybe one day one of my students will lead the way to redefine the word planet.
Sorry, but I have to take issue with the notion that major planets are alike. What does that mean?The Earth has a solid surface; Jupiter does not. In this, every single dwarf planet is more “alike” the Earth than Jupiter.The Earth has an atmosphere; Mercury does not. Pluto, on the other hand, has one.The Earth has a low-eccentricity orbit, almost circular; so does Ceres, a dwarf planet. HD 17156 b, a planet more than three times as massive as Jupiter, has a very high-eccentricity orbit, more eccentric, in fact, than any of our solar system's planetary orbits, including all current dwarf planets. Such examples abound. The eccentricity in the orbit in Pluto, by the way, is only a little larger than that of Mercury: 0.249 vs. 0.206, despite being frequently used as an example of its “oddballness”.The Earth has liquid water covering large parts of its surface. We are still to find another planet where this is true, although we did find subsurface oceans in places such as Europa or Enceladus. Which aren't even planets, dwarf or otherwise, but moons.Speaking of moons, the Earth has one; Venus doesn't. Pluto has one big one and two small ones, and Eris is also accompanied by Dysnomia. In fact, much like the larger planets, moons are a frequent occurrence amongst the dwarfs. But, like Venus, Ceres is moonless.So what's alike about the planets? Apart from being massive enough for their gravity to determine their shape, that is.
When I say “alike” I mean that the inner planets are classified as terrestrial because they are rocky and somewhat Earth like. The outer planets are Jovian or Jupiter like because they are large and gassy. Just a simple way to classify the inner and outer planets. Very good points. However, the problem with Pluto's orbit is that it crosses over another planets orbit. This, in our solar system, is very odd.
Yes, Pluto is in resonance with Neptune, which is something so far unique among all the 300+ planets discovered. Pluto and the other plutinos show a 2:3 resonance with Neptune. But I'll bet you that sooner or later a similar situation will be discovered somewhere else, with much larger objects, and I have no fear of losing the bet. After all, amongst the currently known planetary systems there are already cases of orbital resonances, like in the case of Gliese 876, which has two Jupiter-sized planets in a 1:2 resonance with one another, and theoretical studies have shown that such situations are both possible, even if not very likely with massive planets, and stable for long periods of time.In fact, there's already one system that, wereas isn't exactly in the situation of Pluto and Neptune, it very, very close: the two planets of HD 45364, one 65% as massive as Jupiter, the other 19% as massive as Jupiter, have such eccentricities that their orbital paths almost touch. With two Jupiters. It's only a matter of time before overlapping orbits are discovered elsewhere too.
Oops, I meant to say I AM a writer, amateur astronomer, and astronomy student. That's what comes of posting after midnight!
I too was hearthened by the reclassification, since it shows that the subject is alive. There is nothing odd with that, but it may have been unfortunate to change the public perception. OTOH it makes it clear that Pluto is a different beast.[Re the car analogy I believe it fails, as most analogies do – they are risky businesses. The clearing condition (which AFAIU is well defined in the paper it's based on) is a natural consequence of considering populations stemming from a process instead of traits such as roundness or mass. This type of consideration has long since been proved the best in biology. So the “analogous analogy” here would be replicators, which fulfill the definitions of evolution. (As “populations that shows hereditary changes over time”.) Now the different environments make the original replicators, perhaps surface bound RNA parasites on metabolic chains, surely different from todays enclosed cells. Just as the car driven down the country lane in early 1900 was markedly different from the car driven down the freeway today.Similarly one can consider species differing or not dependent on the environment. For example, a geographical barrier may AFAIU make sufficiently different populations to be considered different species, while removing the barrier may actually result in crossbreeding.]
I too was hearthened by the reclassification, since it shows that the subject is alive. There is nothing odd with that, but it may have been unfortunate to change the public perception. OTOH it makes it clear that Pluto is a different beast.[Re the car analogy I believe it fails, as most analogies do – they are risky businesses. The clearing condition (which AFAIU is well defined in the paper it's based on) is a natural consequence of considering populations stemming from a process instead of traits such as roundness or mass. This type of consideration has long since been proved the best in biology. So the “analogous analogy” here would be replicators, which fulfill the definitions of evolution. (As “populations that shows hereditary changes over time”.) Now the different environments make the original replicators, perhaps surface bound RNA parasites on metabolic chains, surely different from todays enclosed cells. Just as the car driven down the country lane in early 1900 was markedly different from the car driven down the freeway today.Similarly one can consider species differing or not dependent on the environment. For example, a geographical barrier may AFAIU make sufficiently different populations to be considered different species, while removing the barrier may actually result in crossbreeding.]
who cares let pluto be what ever it can be
so can i have some reasons why pluto should be a planet again?? please
The title was really a little harsh. Because of the distance and and the size of Pluto makes it hard for people to appreciate it's existence. I also bet it will be awesome, it will probably just need a closer look to appreciate its beauty.-Contributor: Pregnancy Miracle Thoughts
There is something Orwellian and clueless about the demotion of Pluto. Not to mention tactless and devoid of diplomatic nuance. Apparently, the IAU reclassified Pluto because it wanted to reassign the study of Pluto to a committee studying the minor planets. Is that a good reason to attempt to alter everyone else's reality. Because these buffoons want to remain comfortable in their soft chairs?I've already seen children's book speak cheerfully and Orwellianly about the “eight planets”. There are eight planet. There have always been eight planets. I suppose next we'll find out that we have always been at war with Antartica. Maybe these people need a little art in their live.The Ex-Queen Among the AstronomersThey serve revolving saucer eyes,dishes of stars; they wait uponhuge lenses hung aloft to framethe slow procession of the skies.They calculate, adjust, record,watch transists, measure distances.They carry pocket telescopesto spy through when they walk abroad.Spectra possess their eyes; they faceupwards, alert for meteorites,cherishing little glassy worlds:receptacles for outer space.But she, exile, expelled, ex-queen,swishes among the men of sciencewaiting for cloudy skies, for nightswhen constellations can't be seen.She wears the rings he let her keep;she walks as she was taught to walkfor his approval, years ago.His bitter features taunt her sleep.And so when these have laid asidetheir telescopes, when lids are closedbetween machine and sky, she seeksterrestrial bodies to bestride.She plucks this one or that amongthe astronomers, and is becomehis canopy, his occulation;she sucks at earlobe, p *** s, tonguemouthing the tubes of flesh; her haircrackles, her eyes are comet-sparks.She brings the distant briefly closeabove his dreamy abstract stare.Fleur Adcock
This is really a scientific visit for me so far in this weekend. I’m really appreciate this segment because whatever you discussed here about
Pluto. Thanks mate.
This is really a scientific visit for me so far in this
weekend. I’m really appreciating this segment because whatever you discussed
here about Pluto. Thanks mate.