posted
You know, we are by no means bound by their definition of "planet." Just because they've decided to change the name doesn't mean its name has changed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that's just stupid. I agreed with changing it's status as a planet, but I can't believe this. There is nothing wrong with it having a name. And did I read wrong, or did they call Pluto an asteroid? I'm pretty sure it doesn't count as one.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm gonna go ahead and still call that hunk of rock out there past Neptune Pluto. I'm also gonna consider it a planet. Hey, I'm already wrong about a lot of things, I have no problems with this being one of them.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think this number means that Pluto has to be called 134340, at all. I think that, like many objects in this world such as groceries and university students, things in the astronomical world that aren't blatently large require numbers.
I have lots of numbers attached to me, and I still use my good ol' fashioned name. I think it's just a cateloguing thing that Pluto, because of its new designation, now requires to fall in line with the other numbered things in the solar system, including Eris and Ceres.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
