It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip Pluto of its status as a planet.
the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the ruling, calling it "embarrassing".
for some reason i am wondering what people will think in 1 or 2 thousand years time when they come across writings or pictures we made today which depict pluto as a planet
The problem now is that if you read the deinfition strictly, Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are all dwarf planets as all three have hundreds or even thousands of asteroids that share similar orbits.
Originally posted by engineer2005
Actually, Pluto has three moons (Charon, Nix, and Hydra). Pluto also has an atmosphere. Although it is a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), it is the second largest known KBO behind 2003UB313. I really don't see why people have trouble with Pluto being a planet, even if that would open the door to a hundred planets. I liked the first proposal for the definition of "planet" as it was short and simple while acknowledgeing that the KBOs are different by referring to KBO planets as "plutons." I don't see the problem with a hundred planets, as everyone would know that 90+ of them are plutons. The problem now is that if you read the deinfition strictly, Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are all dwarf planets as all three have hundreds or even thousands of asteroids that share similar orbits. Does this mean that these three planets do not meet condiiton (c) of the new defintion, which is: "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"? Thats right folks, if you read the defintion of planet strictly, we are all now inhabitants of a dwarf planet.
I think the important thing to remember is that before this there was no scientific definition of what a planet is. Science is a process, this is definition 0.1, its still in beta testing.