Some one, some where on Pluto is pointing at Earth and saying "That used to be a Planet."

t's my understanding that definitions for fundamental classifications in Science are necessarily strict. It seems that many fans are understandably upset that Koala Bears may not technically be "bears since they bearly meet the koalafications :P

Is it politically correct to refer to Pluto as a dwarf planet? Shouldn't we say that it's dimensionally disadvantaged?
Any members of LQ from Pluto? What do you think?

Hilarious.
Plutorphans, anyone?

Weeell, being small is not necessarily a disadvantage, so I can imagine Plutians (Plutonians? Persons from Pluto? Plurals?) objecting to that term. If 'dwarf' has negative connotations, how about simply 'smaller than the average planet'? Or better still, 'Bijou ball of boulders'?

Oh man, after seeing the photos,hell yes! pluto is a planet!

With no outside gravitational forces pulling on Plutos mass to cause this.

This mission is finding out it has active Volcanic activity. No one in the scientific community has any idea why yet.

Let me submit my theory. Pluto is getting irate over discussions like these.

Sounds to me like that piece of rock is alive. Orbits the sun instead of a planet. Does not exhibit the properties of a asteroid or comet orbiting through our solar system. Hence a planet.

Glad to see my gut can be vindicated as a source of belief assumptions.
Just like religion.

It is my understanding that scientific definitions are necessarily theoretical, always subject to change if new evidence arises. Like volcanic activity, for example.

the IAU settled this
pluto is a KBO that is ALSO a minor body

like Ceres is a now a minor body and not just an Asteroid

John, respectfully, saying "The IAU settled this." is a bit like saying "Climate change is settled science." Science is never settled, of course.

The controversy about the IAU's decision is that approximately 5% of their members actually voted on this, and the overwhelming majority of those people had no particular expertise in planetary astronomy (most were astro-physicists, expert in galactic astronomy and solar astronomy and most of the rest were expert in cosmology). It's a field much more related to geology than to, say, the nature of dark matter surrounding our galaxy.

Pluto is a planetoid

Once other Kuiper Belt objects are finally surveyed, it may be worth reconsidering a reclassification. Since Pluto seems to be on a small side and part of a belt, yet has many plantary features, perhaps dwarf planets can be reclassified as plnaet-class objects rather than as minor bodies (so be designated as Pluto, not "4579283475928 (arbitrary number) Pluto".

Also, anyone know if Pluto has fully melted and if it has a differentiated core?

It's still a Planet to me. I say we try not to anger them after this newest pic was just released.

New picture of Pluto

IIRC there was only a minority of members present during the vote.

<rant>And then there's another reason they gave for "demoting" Pluto that was "think of the children", as they didn't think the children growing up would be able to keep up with the names of all the newest planetoids being discovered. So by that logic (I forget who said it) "should we stop naming stars as well then ?". I think it's just laziness on the part of the IAU members myself.</rant>

There can be no "new evidence" when what we are discussing are the criteria for classification, since it has no bearing on reality beyond accounting. "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". In the areas where we are discussing and exploring the nature of things of course those are subject to change but generally only in minute ways compared to the whole body of knowledge. Kepler and Newton still work within their frame of reference. GPS, for example, requires Einstein. Einstein did not negate all that went before.

Discovering volcanic activity in unexpected conditions doesn't change how it behaves under conditions with which we are familiar. The new evidence only expands on it.