2007-01-02 01:14:54 · 11 answers · asked by Cman 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
absolutely. The thing is too small.
2007-01-02 01:23:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. But not merely because Pluto is smaller than initially thought. But because with the discovery of similiar objects, some even larger than Pluto, and with them occupying unplanet-like orbits that don't adhere to the uniform orbit distance from the sun rules like the other planets do, you can't call these nerw bodies planets, so since pluto is one of those bodies that falls into that category but just happened to be discovered at a relatively early date, is no reason it should maintain its status as a planet.
So, rather than name these other objects planets also, it was easier to just strip pluto of the "full fledged planet" label
2007-01-02 01:26:47 · answer #2 · answered by Lane 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so, because it is quite smaller when compared to the other planets in the solar system. But then again, what defines a planet? Is there really a definitive answer...
2007-01-02 01:17:11 · answer #3 · answered by angel_of_thought 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our moon is bigger than Pluto. If Pluto were to remain a planet our moon should become one also.
2007-01-02 01:17:32 · answer #4 · answered by Jon S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
depends on the definition of a planet ... and whether or not Pluto meets the prerequisite for it .
2007-01-02 01:15:50 · answer #5 · answered by pbear i 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope
2007-01-02 01:18:11 · answer #6 · answered by taknev 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the reasons they did it.....yes.
2007-01-02 01:16:44 · answer #7 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
2007-01-02 01:16:31 · answer #8 · answered by Carol B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-01-02 01:17:44 · answer #9 · answered by Suntoosoon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-01-02 01:16:58 · answer #10 · answered by matzaballboy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋