i think they have to demote Pluto because pluto is the start of many more minor planets beyond. So if Pluto stays as a planet, then other small rocks discovered out there have to be classified as a planet as well. Then we have 1001 planets in the end... that would be too confusing, haha
I don't mind to have 1001 planets, if there are 1001 object that meet the planet definition. But I think it'll be quite difficult to have a new object in our solar system that can meet the 3rd condition.
Have a nice day.
Yang Weixing "The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance."
I don't care what the IAU say, Pluto's always gonna be a planet to me! I mean, like only 400 astronomers voted.. 400! out of a thousand or so, 400 hundred voted on Pluto's definition! It seems unfair. I guess they're all getting tired of this subject and it is science afterall... sigh...It's gonna take a while to say 8 planets instead of 9.=(
Hi,
I also keep wondering why the 3rd condition "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" kick Pluto out of the Planetary status.
Most of the article I found said that because Pluto oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune’s, but Pluto orbit actually didn't cross Neptune's orbit... it's just look so. But even if this is the case, shouldn't Neptune also be kick out of the Planetary status, because Neptune also didn't "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"??
Unless the 3rd condition "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" also mean that it need to be a dominance object in that region... Then that's make sense.
Have a nice day.
Yang Weixing "The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance."
Pluto was called a planet due to early atronomy's limited knowledge.Many of us though that is a planet. As the discovery of the kuiper belt and the Oort's cloud, many Plutos' llookalike object may be in as many as millions.Sooner or later we will need to re-classify our solar system. Our solar system is unique and always must be.To be part of the planet in our solar system. The size and orbit of an planet must be realistically clear and simple.Pluto's orbit does make it complicated. My 2cents
Maybe the term "planets" was wrong from the start. The Greek astronomers called them "wanderers" because they see the planets move across the night sky.. Pluto's motion is hardly observable at all even with amateur telescopes.
I guess the term "planet" should just be scrapped and we should all stick with "satelites of a star"
Interestingly, astrologers consider Pluto to be a heavenly body that represents transformation and renewals. Very apt, considering what is happening now... sort of a self-fufilling prophesy of its own fate being re-classified into a new category.
Many people tend to want to want to change sometime because its cool to change it. Pluto has historical been defined as a planet...not wrongly but under different standards.
Now they intentionally change the definition so they can have their way it.
I think this is wrong. They talk about "correcting" a wrong. There is no right or wrong answer here. Just preferences.
The amazing thing is out of 2700 members, only 400+ voted.
There has been news on those who oppose the demotion of Pluto and stayed away from the vote in protest but what they actually did is let a minority group have their way. In fact there is already an appeal on this.
Regardless, Pluto belongs to everyone, not the astronomers and as far as I can see, many non-astronomers want Pluto to remain.
Otherwise what a waste of resources to throw away all the old books, kill more trees and print new ones just to change "nine" to "eight"....
rich
The Boldly Go Where No Meade Has Gone Before Captain, RSS Enterprise NCC1701R United Federation of the Planets
Science is constantly evolving, and new information is always being added. What is true today may not be tomorrow. However, I believe mistakes of the past should remain unless it is a fundamental misconception or hinders progress for the future. If Pluto was misidentified as a planet in the past, so be it! Will it cause the science of astronomy to be advanced backwards significantly if it is still called a planet? We could always set a rule that henceforth all objects to qualify for a planet should have the new criteria, but we do well to leave non-significant past mistakes alone.
To me, there are still 9 planets in our solar system, whatever the books may say...
[80% Steve, 20% Alfred] ------- Probability of Clear Skies = (Age of newest equipment in days) / [(Number of observers) * (Total Aperture of all telescopes present in mm)]
But I think it'll be quite difficult to have a new object in our solar system that can meet the 3rd condition.
"The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance." 
