Too small to count as a planet. Now you can remember it thusly: My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nothing because we're disobidient little shits who don't deserve food of clothing.
What are they calling it then? It seems a bit large to be an asteroid, and too far away from any other planets to be a moon. Are we just turning a blind eye to it's existence?
Here is a national geographic article on why Pluto isnt a planet anymore. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060824-pluto-planet.html
haha, when we rename things like planets it always serves to remind how irrelevant the label is in the face of the universe.. like we think redefining pluto MEANS something
er, ok, i fallow that as a nemonic as far as nothing/neptune, but what are b,w,d,l,s,w,d,d,f,o(?),and c? do we now have 11 "too small to be a planet" objects orbiting our sun out beyone the orbit of neptune? and when did size start having anything to do with being a planet? i'm not a great enthusiest of distinctions that are totaly arbitrary. like the absurdity of differentiating nominclature between objects in our own solar system or on our own planet, from the same sorts of objects in other solar systems or on other planets whether in our own solar system or some other. if it circles a sun, as far as i'm concerned it's a planet, or whatever else you want to call all objects that circle a sun, even if it's a single molicule of dust. if it circles another planet rather then a sun, it's a moon (or satalite, which means the same thing, even if we tend to use the latter term for artifacts rather then natural objects, a distinction not quite universaly aggreed upon, though at least a little less arbitrary then that between a planet and an asteroid), again even if it has no more mass then a single sub atomic particle of dust. i do recall however that this is not an entirely new debate. such arbitrary silliness is NOT, however, the sort of thing i can get nostelgic about. superstrings can be visualized as vorticies in 'the aether' too. and ghaud knows, arguments can probably still be made for phlogistrons too. a flat earth is pretty much out now that humans and robots have both orbited and photographed it's obviously oblate spheroid hanging there in space, but other then that, how data is interpreted as a mater of perspective, will continue as long as do those who cherish that perspective. untill they and it, expire of aging and come to be forgotten. somewhere, if only in fantasy, there is a universe where there is a surface, like the surface of our earth, which is not that of a sperical object in space with solar systems like atoms in gas scattered through it, but rather continues as a surface forever throught all of that universe and thus it is possible to ride a train through it for ever. no oceans to get in the way. plunty of lakes and rivers instead though. just forrest and mountains and mountains and forrest for ever and ever and all kinds of people who look like creatures and creatures who look like people, unlimited in their divesity by even the immaginations of themselves, their 'gods' or anyone else. pluto not a planet. if anything, the only thing this proves is the silliness of names, and the pretence that by naming something, we somehow increase our understanding of it. =^^= .../\...
pluto is such a cool name.....i hope everyone there isnt bummed out about this abrupt n arbritary change of status .....what if your anus was suddenly degraded ?
they are the cabrachuppas the anthisis of chupacabras / the tables were turned and the goats did the chewing ....
