Talk:Pluto

I think that it is well worth including an account of the discarded specular reflection theory as an illustration of the point that although scientists have many neat ideas, the neat ideas that actually work are a painfully small minority. -- Alan Peakall 12:45 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

This sentence is silly:

There is mounting evidence that Pluto may in fact be a member of the Kuiper Belt, only one of a large number of distant icy bodies.

...because the definition of the Kuiper belt, "an area of the solar system extending outwards from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to 50 AU," clearly inclueds Pluto.

Perhaps the sentence should read:

There is mounting demand among astronomers that Pluto should no longer be classified as a planet but only a member of the Kuiper Belt.

--Uncle Ed 18:22 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Or maybe:

There is mounting evidence that Pluto should no longer be classified as a planet, but only a member of the Kuiper Belt.

otherwise these pesky astronomers seem to be demanding on a whim! -- Tarquin 19:10 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

However, there is no real reason not to also call Pluto a planet, since the definition of "planet" is "whatever IAU points to and calls a planet". The debate has never been over whether to "demote" Pluto, but rather whether to add a category which it falls into. I think that the existing wording is just fine. Bryan

"Pluto orbits in a 3/2 resonance with Neptune." -- what does that mean? resonance doesn't seem to be about orbits and planets. -- Tarquin 11:02 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)