Pluto...a planet again?

[Mamiamato24]

Hi!

So here have been some discussions over the few days deciding if Pluto should be reintroduced as a planet.

It was originally rejected as it didn't meet the third criteria of a planet (that it must be larger than its surrounding celestial bodies), but now people are arguing that a dwarf planet is still a small planet, so why shouldn't it be?

What do you guys think?
Would you like it to be reclassified or should it stay as a dwarf planet?

Links (for reference):
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/03/pluto-planet-again/
http://www.inquisitr.com/1517766/is-pluto-a-planet-once-again/

~Mamiamato24

 

[SirCumstances]

Finally, yes. I remember when they decided Pluto wasn't a planet and I was in first or second (?) grade, and I had my mind set that Pluto was absolutely, 100% a planet. Looks like I was right

 

[Avesu]

Haha, very interesting. Personally I didn't care that much, Earth is my favorite planet!

 

[ALL1DO1SW1N]

Weird to think about, space and the universe has always interested me. But it's no longer a dwarf planet in our solar system? Interesting.

 

[Zietra]

Notice my little loner in the right corner<3

 

[Danny]

Notice my little loner in the right corner<3

xD

 

[Col_StaR]

I like to imagine this turn of events as an inspirational movie. After getting laughed out of the solar system party for his size by jock-strapped gas-giant Jupiter, nerdy loner planet Pluto reaches the lowest point of his life. But after finding inspiration from close friends/satellites (Charon, Styx, Nix, Kerberos, and Hydra), Pluto gets pumped and starts working out at the gym as part of an epic celestial work-out montage. Then he comes back to the solar system party 8 years later, proves himself as part of the system, and even gets the girl-planet in the end (I guess it could be Venus or whatever).

 

[BitoBain]

The only problem with Pluto is that if we choose to count it as a planet, then we will have to count hundreds of other planets just like it. It has other bodies very similar to it in the Asteroid Belt, as well as the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. All belts contain small celestial bodies smaller than our moon that travel in crowded orbits.

Pluto was simply the first of these dwarf planets to be seen. When Pluto was discovered in the 1930's, the definition of a planet was that it must simply be a round, visible object that didn't emit light itself and didn't orbit another planet. However, after finding other bodies such as Ceres, Eris, Makemake, Haumea, and others, the scientific community voted not to count these objects as true planets, as they didn't usually travel in well-defined or clear orbits, they were tiny, they were vastly affected in their orbits by other celestial bodies, and they weren't very different from the debris they traveled through constantly.

I have heard some say that we need simply change the definition of a planet, to match that of a river, in which there are major and minor rivers. Pluto could be comparable to the Eerie river in New England, and the original eight planets would be comparable to the Nile, Amazon, Yellow, Mississippi, Ganges, Tigris, and Euphrates Rivers.

The modern requirements to be a planet are:

• Must be round
• Must be large enough to clear its own path
• Must be in elliptical/circular orbit around a star

Dwarf planets have awkward paths, heavily affected by their own moons, or by other bodies such as Mars or Neptune. They certainly aren't large enough to clear their own paths.

But oh well, it would be interesting if the scientific community changed its mind about this. The school children would rejoice at the return of their favorite little planet, while the students studying astronomy at colleges would groan.