"All of these distinguishing characteristics for plutons are scientifically interesting in that they suggest a different origin from the classical planets."
Absolute crap. Their evolution may be different, but their is no reason to believe they did not form from the same primordial cloud as the "classical planets" in the same fashion. The term classical planets is also silly. There is no need for that term and it's inaccurate to include Uranus and Neptune in it. The categories terrestrial planets, gas giants, and plutons or ice dwarfs make sense. The comment above is just a political candy for the Pluto is not a planet crowd.
Overall, I'm pretty happy. It went the way I thought it should except for some minor details about wording and the surprise of Charon which I can live with.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to re: Pluton
Disagree With This Part
The whole thread (39 posts)
- Solar system just got bigger
- No, it didn't...
- re: Solar system just got bigger
- Well That Means 3 Visits to Unexplored Planets and a Possible One Are Already Underway
- Cosmic police alert!... Cosmic police alert!
- There goes the neighborhood!! (n/t)
- Puts an odd spin on the sometimes whacky theories...
- re: Time to send a probe to Ceres!:-)
- I think they're working too hard on this.
- re: It's portrait
- Burn the IAU! Heritics! All of them. (n/t)
- re: A discussion from BA
- The Simple Definition
- re: Solar system just got bigger
- Why is Charon going to be a planet?
- Official - "Planets are Round"
