http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14489259/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2353457
2006-08-24 11:38:11 · 13 answers · asked by MAK 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
no, i have known since the age of about twelve that pluto does not have the physical and orbital characteristics that fit the pattern set by the major bodies in the solar system. later, with the discovery of hundreds of other bodies similar to pluto, i knew this was inevitable. i feel somewhat vindicated. this does not change anything about the solar system or pluto, but it does change the language to fit observation. correct the mistake of classifying pluto as a planet initially.
the international astronomical union has defined three terms "classical planet", "dwarf planet", and "small solar system body". any round body orbiting the sun with a bunch of other similar bodies with similar orbits is a dwarf planet. most seem unaware of the new term classical planet.
2006-08-24 11:40:51 · answer #1 · answered by warm soapy water 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The inane questions and some of the answers indicate that people in general have got little concept of the physical nature of the Solar System. Most people would have known practically nothing about Pluto, except that it shared its name with a Disney cartoon character.
So, why is everybody so upset. It's really a joke.
It aint a planet. If it remained a planet, we would have to start calling hundreds, perhaps thousands of other objects planets, as they are discovered in the outer regions of the planetary system.
For goodness sake grow up everybody. You're so dammed juvenile.
2006-08-24 19:09:29 · answer #2 · answered by nick s 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not shocked, they've been saying for a long time that either it should not be considered a planet, or a lot of other objects out there should also be planets.
It's a shame that the definition changes it after all these years, but I think a solid definition was needed.
2006-08-24 19:13:54 · answer #3 · answered by Ken H 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I'm not surprised. It's been a topic of discussion among astronomers for years. Pluto was very small for a planet and it's orbit didn't always "qualify" as the orbit of a planet.
2006-08-24 18:40:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I have always known there were questions on it's planet status. It would have been funnier if the planets ended at Uranus rather than Neptune.
2006-08-24 18:42:10 · answer #5 · answered by whozethere 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well, no but a side of me reminds me weird things can be called a planet, and more 'planets' will be in our solar system, and maybe weird things will happen. it cna change the way we look at space, the moon might be considered a planet.
2006-08-24 18:40:50 · answer #6 · answered by michael-scalloped strat. 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The onley think i'm shocked is that pluto is NO LONGER a planet !
2006-08-24 18:40:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pluto will be a planet on my mind.
2006-08-24 18:40:32 · answer #8 · answered by I'm so HOT!!!! 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd like to add something to the discussion but I really have nothing. I took astronomy once but all you did was saturn uranus in that class.
2006-08-25 01:08:56 · answer #9 · answered by RunningOnMT 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, its not a planet, it doesnt even conserve angular momentum
2006-08-24 18:40:59 · answer #10 · answered by pj2024 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋