Because human dwarfs are considered as humans and why Pluto is not considered as a planet ??? . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .
Because it still orbits the Sun and it has an atmosphere! It's stupid to say it isn't because it hasn't cleared it's orbit as Neptune hasn't either. Plus, including it would allow children to learn about the smaller planets. A definition of a Planet is a body orbiting a star; Pluto does so.
And NASA ruined it.
The definition of a planet is man-made, and could be altered so that Pluto remains one of the nine planets that revolve around the sun. Scientific nomenclature is just that, and there does not seem to be a need to leave the definition as is to exclude what has always been considered a planet.
Since scientists continue to argue over whether or not Pluto is a planet, I do think that deciding it is not a planet without physical evidence is a mistake. The New Horizons rover is projected to be the first spacecraft to study Pluto and is not expected to arrive at the planet until 2015. We should have waited until then to make a definitive decision.
When I was growing up, Pluto was a planet. Far away, and cold as ice, we always remembered Pluto as the farthest out planet. Then, one day, I'm suddenly reading that they decided it isn't a planet, and I couldn't believe it. It's our there in orbit, and we've been calling it a planet forever. Let's just leave it be, and keep Pluto as a planet.
The scientist argument that Pluto is not a planet because it lacks some qualities that other planets have is flawed because Pluto is even less like the other heavenly bodies we have to choose from. It is not a comet, it is not a moon or anything else we recognize. It is more like a planet than anything else scientist have come up with before and I felt they jumped the gun on removing Pluto's planetary status. They should have at least waited until they had something else they could classify Pluto as with confidence before claiming it is no longer a planet. Otherwise we will have the scientist voting to change Pluto's status again in another decade or two.
The International Astronomical Union has more than 10,000 members, but only 237 members were involved in the vote to change Pluto's status from planet to dwarf planet. Obviously 237 is not a majority of 10,000, and this makes the vote invalid. Since the vote and status change of Pluto, there have been hundred of astronomers involved in protests and petition activities to get Pluto re-instated as a planet. In the meantime, many of them still refer to Pluto as our ninth planet.
While on an emotional level, I dearly miss Pluto's planetary status, I also believe sentimentality should not impede the work of scientific classification. Granted, there is also scientific dispute about the appropriateness of the definition that has excluded Pluto. In particular, the requirement that an astronomical object have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. Some say other planets, including Earth, do not measure up to the new standard. Yet unlike with strictly empirical questions, with regard to matters of classification, the scientific consensus of the relevant decision-makers ought to win the day. If countervailing arguments are adequately persuasive, the relevant governing body can surely be prompted to reconsider its current judgment. Until then, Pluto ought to remain its current, non-planet status.
The definition of planet is very subjective. The most basic definition of planet is a body orbiting a star. Now what is Pluto? A (smaller) body orbiting the sun. If Pluto isn't a planet, then is mercury a planet? Mercury is very oblong and also very small as well. The diameter of mercury is 3031 miles while the diameter of Pluto is 2100. A rather large fraction smaller, but relatively, not so much.
Pluto's demotion to plutoid status, rather than planetary status, reflects the will of many of the best scientific minds. The decision came as a result of the vast differences between Pluto and other planets -- Pluto has an irregular orbit, is non-spherical, and is much smaller than other planets. Further, it is likely that a number of objects in the Kuiper Belt are as large as Pluto -- at least one has already been sighted. Rather than labeling every object of this size a planet, a more stringent definition of what a planet is ensures better classification of astral objects.
Clearly Pluto has the same size as many other objects and didn't match the characteristic need to be classed a planet. There are objects such as Eris that are bigger or of similar size to Pluto yet they are not classed as a planet. For our generation to move on and expand we need to except the new ideas given if they are clearly supported by scientific evidence.
Everything that orbits a Star is not a planet. For instance we do not deem the moon as a planet as it is one of Earth's satellites. Just like Earth (A true planet) has satellites as does the sun that are a very large distance out. Pluto is a dwarf planet along with the asteroids and other dwarf planets in the Kuiper Belt. (Plutos true home) Pluto is too un-unique and too distanced from the larger planets that orbit the sun. Therefore I believe this planet is no longer considered apart of our Solar System. Nice try Pluto :'(
Pluto is not a planet. It doesn't meet the definition of a planet! Also, most of the people who I have asked so far have said, "no". I don't see the problem. The IAU have made their decision, deal with it. I don't get the fuss, it's just a sphere of rock and ice!
I am starting to lose my patience when I see that a majority do not understand why Pluto's planetary status was removed. People stopped calling Pluto a planet because there are small, icy bodies near Pluto, with some even bigger than Pluto. Pluto and these other bodies were grouped together to form the Kuiper belt, much like all the asteroids use to be considered solitary planets and then were tied together to make the asteroid belt because they all shared similar properties.
All 3 criteria needed to be classed as a planet:
a) Must be large enough to form a "spherical" or rounded shape under it's own gravity
b) Must orbit a star
c) Must have cleared it's path of all debris
Pluto fails as a planet as it does not have a cleared path - unless you think that Pluto and Charon and the many other rocks in it's orbital path should be classed as planets too.
Science progresses, things are reclassified, understanding is improved, the end.
Pluto is a rock. No feelings nor is it aware that is was a planet or that it no longer is a planet. Everyone thinks that it matters based on 'it's a rightful planet' but it's not. Nothing makes it a planet as the terms of what a planet is has been reclassified. Move on, it was 5 years ago.
This is the new classification which excludes Pluto, Ceres, and over 40 other objects which could be considered planets (should pluto still be considered).
For matters of consistency they decided on this exclusion probably because they didnt want to bother changing our solar systems member list every year they found new objects.
I quite like the classification, it makes sense to me. Since Pluto nor Ceres (which is bigger) cannot change their shape due to being smaller than the crticial mass required to change their own shape; it works perfectly fine.
I'm guessing most people don't understand WHY Pluto was removed. In 2004, several other planetoids were discovered out past Pluto (and one in the asteroid belt). And Pluto is not even the biggest of them (Eris is larger than Pluto). Through better science, we have understood that there is a fundamental difference between the normal planets and these "dwarf planets" and as such, they have been reclassified to reflect that difference.
Should we choose ignorance of these differences, then we would have to acknowledge a 17 planet solar system, with an added planet between Mars and Jupiter (Ceres). The old fashioned "nine planet system" cannot exist anymore.
If we don't have a regular system of classifying anything, let alone rocky/gaseous orbiting heavenly bodies, then things would get complicated fairly quickly. A simple, regular definition, like the one the IAU has posited, makes for a better system to "I want Pluto being a planet simply because I want it to be!"
Plus, the nostalgia argument is just nostalgia.