To some people, the “planet” PLUTO represents our HIGHER MIND. And maybe because it is the 9th “planet” it can also link with the 9th Step of the Mayan Calendar.
However, Pluto is no longer a planet!
How do you feel about that?
A Facebook group was set up to contnue to honour Pluto as a planet.
You might like to check them out and even sign up.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=2207893888
They say, “This is a group dedicated to the kids who were taught that Pluto was the 9th planet from the Sun!!!!
Pluto, we salute you. (February 18, 1930 – August 24, 2006)
If any members feel like it, please invite all of your friends! This group has the potential to be one of the biggest groups on facebook, and I want to see… (read more)”
The site has close to 2 million members
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Pluto IS still a planet, and I urge you to drop the “1930-2006″ line, as it represents only one side of an ongoing debate. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their 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. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity–a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned.
Thanks so much Laurel for your comments.
I agree 100% with the points you raise. That’s is why all are encouraged to join the Facebook group in an attempt to get the decision overturned.
The so-called “1930 – 2006 line” was inserted, not because we agree with the decision, but to make it clear what has been done.
I trust that you too have joined the Facebook group. There is power in numbers.
Thanks again for your comment
All the best
Kashonia
(Robert’s VA)