A Chrissy present for AV

[AV1611VET]

Ooh, that argument fails for you since Pluto is still a "dwarf planet". Planets that have cleared their orbit of debris do not need a qualifier.

I gave you a link to a thread I started ... (maybe I should bump it).

If you don't want to read that link, fine; but I'm not going to go get her information and post it here every time someone makes a point.

But I'll do this one you made, then I'm done replying here.

If you don't want to research it yourself, suit yourself; but please don't expect me to do it for you.

From Laurele's posts about Pluto being a dwarf planet:

"The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless."

I'll bump the thread for you, so you can investigate before you communicate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you a link to a thread I started ... (maybe I should bump it).

If you don't want to read that link, fine; but I'm not going to go get her information and post it here every time someone makes a point.

But I'll do this one you made, then I'm done replying here.

If you don't want to research it yourself, suit yourself; but please don't expect me to do it for you.

From Laurele's posts about Pluto being a dwarf planet:

"The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless."

I'll bump the thread for you, so you can investigate before you communicate.

Nice strawman. The argument is not hat a planet in one position is not a planet in another. The reason that Pluto is not a planet is because it did not and cannot clear its orbit of debris. That was the deciding factor. You should check out the article that I linked. Let me save you the trouble:

If Pluto was where Mercury is it would barely clear its orbit. The problem is that Mercury would have eaten up Pluto as it formed. There would have been too much mass to make such a small planet at that distance from the Sun.