I bet they do, they collect it and do experiments with it!

Clearing its orbit hmmm, without defining that it is not very helpful. The gas some of these scientist pass could clear a room.

Compartmentalization does that to them...too much brain work and not enough Mind work makes professors miss the obvious.

Too bad that those Profs aren't as smart as us.

My main problem with the classification as a dwarf planet is that somehow a subclass of planet is no longer considered to be a planet. If they do not want Pluto to be a planet, then do not classify it as a type of planet.

My thought exactly...our moon, under that definition, would be a planet.

From the article: "Instead, Metzger recommends classifying a planet based on if it is large enough that its gravity allows it to become spherical in shape." But this would allow our moon and dozens of others in our solar system to qualify as planets. I would add "orbiting a star" to the list of qualifications.

Pluto is a planet. Only planets are globular. You can describe a planet without classifying it. A small planet is a description of a planet. A dwarf planet is a classification but does not describe what a dwarf is. The planet Mercury is small but completely globular.Scientists love pretension which often leads more to confusion rather than clarification.

They took it off the list as a planet and replaced it with Ceres which has no where the diversity that Pluto has...plus, Pluto has moons.

If they go with: enough gravity to make it spherical then both will be planets, if they go with diversity then only Pluto wins out between the two.

As far as being Dwarf...it's more than big enough to be a Gulch!...laughing

Does classifying planets as rocky planets, gas giant planets, and dwarf planets somehow remove them from the concept of planet? If Pluto is not a planet, then do not claim that it is a planet by qualifying it as a dwarf planet.

Of course Pluto is a planet. It has all the characteristics of a planet, even though it is so far out it should be a frozen, icy rock. But it isn't. It's filled with a myriad of interesting stuff. Besides, I love dogs.

Theoelectrically, one....but it depends on what size pin your talking about too!...laughing

....how many Plutos (planet or dog) can be placed on the head of a pin?...

They are, little by little but you'll never hear it on the lamestream news.

Is there some federal funding for a planet that isn't available for a non-planet, or vice versa?
There is no rational reason that the label makes any difference at all.
Scientists, quit arguing over irrelevance and get to work disproving the idiotic theory of global warming, you lazy bums!

Me an old dino shares the same affection that was nurtured during my elementary school childhood while that "when you wish upon a star" Disneyland show was on TV at first in beautiful black and white. .

That's funny, but for old folk like me...that's how we thought of the planet and the disney dog. We always had an affection for the planet Pluto.

Clearing it's orbit was an 1802 suggestion but: “It’s a sloppy definition,” Metzger says of the IAU’s definition. “They didn’t say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit.”
[The meaning is taken as: the largest or strongest, gravitational force in its orbit]