16 Responses

WP_Cloudy
  • piranha031091 Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Pluto is now officialy considered as a “dwarf planet”. They’re just not
    taking the time to say the full word and shortening it to “planet” for
    convenience, or simply because they got the habit to do so.
    So I hardly see how these out of context quotes containing minor language
    abuses can affect a definition based on scientific and rational criterias,
    and that was accepted with an overwhelming majority by an international
    comittee that is considered by all astronomers as THE authority in terms of
    nomenclature, namely the IAU.?

  • iknowsstuff Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    pluto is a planet you cruel bastards !!!!!?

  • Spartwo Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    9 planets till I die(or more,as long as Pluto is included).?

  • al-Bakh'kam Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    ? No rationale given? Just a bunch of out-of context quotes? How, exactly
    does that affect a definition??

  • aserta Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Regardless of talk, regardless of the accepted position, i still think
    Pluto a planet. My only position, the straw i grasp at, so to speak is, the
    fact that Pluto has satellites, in my mind, qualify it as a planet, rather
    than a dwarf planet. It is by no means a determining, accepted, standard,
    of course but, like i said, i believe it’s an important element in the
    explanation of what a planet IS.

    There are, of course planets without satellites, so what i’m saying, if i’m
    saying anything, is that what would otherwise, yes, fit the bill of a dwarf
    planet, an object with satellites of such significance should not be
    qualified as a dwarf planet. No. It should be a planet.

    I cannot express how eager i am to find out more about Pluto. Of my
    opinion, it’s one of the most important parts of our Solar system. In a
    way, one of it’s last great mysteries. It’s peculiarities, it’s oddities
    are most extraordinaire. I truly believe that the things that the future,
    no doubt, will reveal will be most outstanding.?

  • Alexander Zapata Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    They should come up with a model that classifies objects not by historical
    categories (i.e. the labels: Planet, Star, commet ) but by their features (
    Ex: composition,size, orbit ). Pluto Science Conference sounds comical.?

  • Ghost Boy Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    I think you made an error, it says that the Pluto Science Conference
    occurred on July 2014¯\(º_o)/¯?

  • sakeneden Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    It is a planet! A DWARF planet?

  • Mike Jon Williams Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Apart from its discovery and later its reclassification.. It had no
    relevance to people. I don’t get why this is even a discussion. ?

  • Pats1273 Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    In the words of Neil Degrasse Tyson, “Its a dwarf planet, get over it.”

    If we include Pluto as a planet, there are numbers of other small objects
    that must be included as well. ?

  • treejoe4 Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    There are bigger issues?

  • TumiliuM Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    I like Pluto. =D?

  • PizzaKingOfCake Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Just because they are saying planet dose not mean that they think its a
    planet, if i was talking about Makemake or Ceres i would call them planets
    but that doesn’t mean i think they are planets and that doesn’t mean that
    someone can take what i have said and say “look he obviously thinks its a
    planet and not a dwarf planet because he didn’t specifically go out of his
    way and say dwarf planet, he only said planet.”?

  • kapwns Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    let it go people, it’s not a planet. why can’t you be happy enough with a
    “dwarf planet”??

  • Dan Frederiksen Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Hmm, I just had a thought. Could a water planet exist somewhere? just a
    ball of water so dark that we don’t see it? or ice as it were. or would it
    always have some albedo. has the gravitational landscape of our solar
    system been accounted for.?

  • Dan Frederiksen Says:
    April 18th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    No reason not to call it a planet but it’s a classic case of a discrete
    concept where sharp limits don’t exist so in some cases you will have to
    start to qualify a body’s planetness to a degree rather than an absolute.
    It doesn’t help to create a new class of dwarf planet or planetoid, the
    boundary problem will always remain.
    But I figure that if it orbits a star and it’s visibly a ball then it’s a
    planet. Vesta for instance is not a ball but pronounced asteroid like in
    shape whereas Ceres might just be round enough to be called a planet so
    that pair will narrow the limits but Pluto is 10 times as massive as Ceres
    and is easily a planet. Absolutely no reason to question it just because it
    orbits far out. Stupid bureaucratic nitwits.?

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.