Pluto No Longer A Planet

Yes folks. You heard it here first. Oh, what's that? You didn't hear it here first? My bad. This is such big news though, it has forced me to post two days in a row. Here's my take on the "controversy":

Ever since grade school, I've had a problem with Pluto as a planet. I think it all started in the second grade. We were learning about the planets one week and we had to take a test at week's end. One of the questions on the test was to name all the planets. Well, guess what planet I forgot to name? That's right, Pluto. I was so pissed, that one question fucked me over. I could have gotten 100%, but nooooooooo. I forgot Pluto. But NOW, now that Pluto is no longer a planet, I get the last laugh. You know what. Getting the last laugh isn't enough. I should march down to my elementary school, punch my second grade teacher in her ovaries, and demand my grade to be changed. I deserved that 100%, and if it wasn't for some wannabe planet, I would have gotten it right then and there. An injustice was committed and I shall have my revenge. Oh yes, I shall have my revenge....

In all seriousness though, I agree with the decision. In high school, my favorite class was astronomy. Mr. Toll, that was my astromony teacher's name, was also one of my favorite teachers. He gave us a list of reasons why Pluto shouldn't be considered a planet. Well, being since astronomy was my favorite class, I kept all my notes from high school. I'd like to repost the reasons he gave the class, partly because it brings back memories, and partly because I find it interesting. Here are the reasons he gave us:

Reason one: It should be large like the other gas giants, but it's small.
Reason two: It should be gas like the other gas giants, but it's solid.
Reason three: Pluto's orbit is very eccentric, it is more similar to an asteroid than a planet.
Reason four: It does not orbit on the same plane of the solar system as the rest of the planets.
Reason five: It does not follow Bode's Law.

The thing I like about astronomy, and science in general, is that it's self correcting. It's ever changing, always working towards the correct answer. It is never perfect, and probably never will be, but it isn't afraid to change. This is where science greatly difers with people. People are afraid to change. People are nostalgic. People like tradition. People remember learning about Pluto in grade school, and there is a sort of attachment to it. Take John Gibson for instance.

"But no, you can't unmake Pluto as a planet.

Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?"

Imagine this guy, or a guy like him, when it was finally acknowledged that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

"But no, you can't unmake the Earth as the center of the universe.

Long ago I learned the Earth was the center of the universe and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?"

Or how about back when just about everybody thought the Earth was flat? How would a guy like this react when people finally accepted that the Earth was round?

"But no, you can't unmake the Earth as flat.

Long ago I learned the Earth was flat and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?"

According to his logic, we shouldn't unlearn anything we learn. Everything we've ever learned is the truth and will always be the truth. Not even new information can change it. Well, John Gibson. If that journalism thing doesn't work out for you, I think you have a future in the Bush administration. ZING!

One question still remains though. Why should we change now? Well, as I've illustrated, new information is always a good reason for change. Better technology has allowed us to discover that Pluto isn't as unique as we thought it was. Back when it was discovered in 1930, we obviously didn't have the technology that we do today. We thought Pluto was unique, a one of a kind "planet." Come to find out though, it isn't so unique. There are probably hundreds of "planets" like it beyond Neptune. Should we really have hundreds of planets in the solar system? (Planets like 2003 UB 313, which is basically just a bigger version of Pluto.) Should seniority be given to Pluto because it's been around for 70+ years? Is Walt Disney rolling over in his grave? How about the guy who discovered Pluto, Clyde Tombaugh? How you answer these questions is up to you.

Oh, you say you want my personal opinions? Well tough shit, I'm going to give them to you anyway. Eight is enough, no seniority should be given, and yes to both Walt and Clyde rolling over in their respect graves.

I've rambled on for far too long, it's time for me to go. If you made it this far, thank you for taking the time out of your day. I hope you were at least somewhat entertained or intrigued. If not, see my disclaimer. Once you've read it, you can't unread it.