Wirehead Studios

Pluto=NOT Planet (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/astronomers-give-pluto-the-boot-as/20060824050509990019?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

I personally agree with this new classification. If a celestial body doesn't have enough mass to not be atracted by other celestial bodies except the Sun, then it can't be considered as one of the main planets. But that's just me (and 2500 scientists).

Personally I think it's the scientific equivalent of moving the goal posts. The term "dwarf planet" is a feeble attempt at consolation. It's either a planet or it isn't. Personally I still think it is, and shouldn't be discriminated against just 'cos it has a weird orbit. Not to mention all the revised textbooks there will have to be on the subject ...

CH-CHING!!!!

Weren't they going to include "Xena", Charon, and Ceres? I mean, the more the merrier, right? Apparently not. Asses.

However, there IS a chance that Pluto and Co. could be pulled into Neptune's gravity and become moons, rare that it is...

well they are called ASStronomers... but i really hope that this was debated on private payroll...

I think if Pluto's orbit were not so eccentric, it would be classified as a planet under the new rules.  Seems to me like the rules need to account for planets with eccentric orbits.  What are they going to do when they discover stars with satelites that do any of the following:

- Interweave their orbits owing to gravitational forces between the satelites being locally stronger than the solar gravity
- Orbit along an entirely different plane from other satelites that orbit that star
- Get "traded" between binary stars

Granted, man hasn't discovered these yet because telescopes can barely see much of anything, but I can assure you that all manner of strange configurations can and do exist out there.  Eventually, if man ever were to explore beyond this solar system, someone will have to account for that, but I suppose I'm being unfair in throwing such long-term thinking into the picture.  Either way, Pluto is a major satelite of the sun, even if it's a small and distant one, that just happens to have an odd orbit.  It has it's own moon.  Well, what about Pluto's moon then?  If Pluto is not a planet, does its moon stop being a moon since Pluto is no longer called a planet?

This is all just semantics anyway, using technical verbage to change the classification of something without any new knowledge about the object in question leading to the change.  Pluto is what it is regardless of what you name it, and will continue doing what it does, regardless of what mankind thinks about it.  I agree with the "moving the goalposts" assertion.  I think it's a rather dumb decision because what does it change in the end except what text books have to print to describe Pluto?

What exactly is a dwarf planet anyway? To me, it still sounds like it's a planet.. (going by wording alone)

And 'Xena' and Ceres are considered dwarf planets.. Charon is yet undetermined because of its relationship with Pluto.

But hey.. "The upper and lower limits to the size and mass of dwarf planets are not specified in IAU resolution 5A. There is, strictly, no upper limit, and an object larger or more massive than Mercury that is considered not to have 'cleared the neighborhood around its orbit' may still be classified as a dwarf planet"

Quite frankly.. I don't think Earth 'cleared the neighborhood around its orbit' and should therefore be classified as a dwarf planet. I mean.. we hear about the 'near Earth' asteroids all the time.

Pluto, live on brother! You're still my favorite planet!

Aye, I find the term "clearing the neighborhood" to be ambiguous and imprecise as well.  I didn't think science was supposed to engage in obfuscation...

http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/con...ontest_id=11570 (http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=11570)

Haha, the one with the Gorn actually has Klingon writing on the signs.

I wonder what the "Flying Plutonians" would say about this... that is, if the map was still in our map pack...

they'd probably just fall off the map a lot of times

Personally, I don't agree with the new classification.  I generally feel that anything that has a moon and orbits around a star is a planet of sorts unless it has star-like qualities to it.

Besides, if Pluto is no longer a planet, there could be catastrophic results.  Where would all of the aliens in cheesy sci-fi movies come from?  Neptune?  Bah!

Pluto not being a planet also rocks the very foundation of magical girl anime.  Sailor Pluto should not and could not have existed if Pluto is not a planet.  That means that magic girl anime as we know it should not exist because the existance of Sailor Moon is invalid.  And all of that bleeds into sentai because of the live action Sailor Moon show.  Hell, even live-action porn movies based on magical girl hentai would be at risk.

Simply put, Pluto not being a planet = MADNESS!

Well I'm already insane, and I don't watch Anime, I guess I'm immune to all of this.  :shifty:

Shit, I forgot about that. And Sailor Pluto is my favorite character from that series, too. Oh well.

Oh poor, poor Pho.  You've forgetton about the up and coming bird porn star, Pluto Dirtybeak!  :D  She starred in the smash hit, "Uranus, Urvagina: It's all cloaca to me"

Well it's not all cloaca to me... I don't think I want to know where that Dirtybeak is going, especially if it's Urvagina, Kain.

(Disclaimer:  I've never seen the show, so perhaps there's something important I don't know here...)

Nah, she can still exist!  It's not like Pluto just disappeared from existence; we (as in the scientific community) just reclassified it as a "dwarf planet."  I mean, there's a character named Sailor Moon, and the Moon isn't, and never was, to my knowledge, considered a planet.  Just my two cents.

Man, this went way off-topic...

Anyway, back on topic - I'd have to disagree with the reclassification.  The "traditional" side of me wants to call Pluto a planet simply because that's what I've been brought up to believe all these years.  I've always considered a "planet" to be any body that orbits around a star and is, more or less, spherical in shape.  Pluto fits both of these descriptions, so I'd call it a "planet."  So, yes, this reclassification does begin to sound a lot like "moving the goalposts."  Then again, my definition conflicts with this new definition...