Pluto may lose its "planetary" status

This debate on whether Pluto is a planet or isn't has been going on almost since it was found. "Is it big enough?" That's the main question. To me, it doesn't matter that we have twenty-some-odd objects just as big or bigger (including Xena and Sedna). Pluto has been a planet. It should remain a planet. Changing its title confuses people. Besides, we don't have to add planets to the solar system if we just say the solar system cuts off at Pluto.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

No, but I think it's a better decision. And besides, the only reason this would make things more "scientifically accurate" is by making their devised scale match that of the objects in the solar system. Something tells me that it would be easier just for them to change their scale.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Kyndig

You react like the decision has something to do with emotional attachment. "Planet" is a technical classification, either an object is one or it is not and unfortunately believing something does not make it so.

And what's to stop them from changing that technical classification?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Dullenplain

Likely Proserpine if we're sticking to the Roman names standard.

If they were sticking to Roman anything, we wouldn't have Xena. On top of that, why are they not using gods? They're using Persephone, Charon, and Ceres. Sure they're mythological figures, but none of them are gods. What about Juno, Minerva, Bacchus, and Vulcan? Okay, maybe naming a planet Vulcan isn't the smartest of ideas...

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

What. Ceres is just as much a god as Venus is.

I was thinking of someone else. My mistake.

Quote:

Besides, Ceres has been Ceres for over two hundred years; giving it a new name now would just be silly.

Juno already has an asteroid named for her, like Ceres, but it's not quite big enough for anyone to start considering it a planet yet. Minerva also has one, but it's named "Pallas" instead. =p

I was unaware of these asteroids. However, I do find it silly that the only goddess to be given a planet isn't the queen (that'd be too easy) it's the symbol of Valentine's Day and that the rest get to be asteroids.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Yamamanama

There are reasons for the names. Mercury because it moves across the sky the quickest, Venus because it's bright and gold, Mars because it's the color of blood and rusted iron, Jupiter because it's big and second-brightest (well, depending on where it is), Saturn because it's slow, Uranus because it's a sky blue, Neptune because its a deep ocean blue, and Pluto because it's cold and far away and dead.

What does a planet being bright and gold have to do with it being called Venus. Is it a correlation with beauty?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Considering the other names it has been given by other peoples, and how many of them relate to beauty, it's a reasonable conclusion.

Also, it's Cupid who is the symbol of Valentine's Day, not Venus. Venus was actually a goddess of some importance; Julius Caesar's clan claimed descent from Venus, for instance.

I know Cupid is generally considered the symbol of Valentine's Day. Maybe it's just me, I relate her to the day as well since she's the goddess of love and beauty.

Many Romans claimed to descend from Venus, not just Caesar. It was attributed to descendants of Aeneas.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by agreatguy6

My
Very
Esoteric
Mother
Can
Jump &
Skip
Until
Night
Pretends to
Calm
Xtraneously.

No sense whatsoever, but I can't come up with anything that starts with X.

I'd change it to:
Nifty
Pianists
Collect
Xylophones

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by guyinrubbersuit

You can learn a lot from you own and not from school textbooks, which are often biased and only cover part of the picture.

I'm really hoping you just mean science books. And even those you can learn from, possibly later using them as a springboard to finding new ideas or disproving old one.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Kishin

Of course they can be. It's just a matter of defining what the word planet means. I wouldn't mind, for example, anything the size of, say, bigger than Pluto in our solar system to be given the title of planet. They all orbit the sun (some also circle around other planets but that's not a point here). This would bring at least 50 new planets into the system, so it wouldn't be the best possible alternative, in the end.

I wouldn't say that moons orbit the Sun. They orbit planets, which in turn orbit the Sun. And I'd put the classification that anything orbiting a planet can't be a planet. It'd be different if it were a dual orbit, like if both planets orbit around each other.

How ya doing, buddy?

Does Pluto have an atmosphere? I mean, given that they'd established Charon is a satellite, I can see why it couldn't be a planet. Part of the definition of a planet, if I remember correctly, is that it has to have atmosphere. Thus, these asteroids and moons that people may have wanted to become planets due to their size just don't fit the criteria.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.