Monday, June 8, 2009


I extremely believe that Pluto should in fact be a planet. This "criteria" established by certain scientists is entirely subjective, there is no reason to have certain rules that make pluto not a planet. Why not just work the opposite way and use this criteria for a sub classification of planets. Like "Super" Planets or "These are Deffinetely Planets" Planets. I think that sure science is always changing, but it's seems a little ridiculous that scientist need to downsize Pluto, don't they have better things to do? Like solve our polution problems, or find water on other planets? In conclusion why not let tradition win once in a while?


  1. You are completely right. Pluto is still a planet. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with 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 the IAU 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 is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. I am a writer and amateur astronomer and proud to be one of these people. You can read more about why Pluto is a planet and worldwide efforts to overturn the demotion on my Pluto Blog at

  2. And what of the many objects in our solar system who can meet every criteria which Pluto can save for happening to be discovered later? If Pluto was in Earth's orbit, it would be a moon, or would collide with the earth and become a part of it. The IAU's definition does not hinge around where an object is, merely its effects on the objects around it, and in this respect Pluto is remarkably insignificant. It is not large enough for Charon to orbit it, rather the two bodies orbit each other, and shares few characteristics with the other planets. Any reasonable definition written to include Pluto would also have to include many other stellar objects, and thus dilute and virtually nullify the definition of planet. As for sub-classifications, while it is possible to parse the planets into rocky and gaseous, Pluto clearly belongs in another grouping due to its dis-similarity to the other planets. If the definition of a truck included Semis, dump-trucks, pick-up trucks, and the Toyota Prius by tradition, the Prius should be expelled, unless you also wish to include every sedan, coup, and compact.