Supersize the McPlanets!

Posted: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:02 PM by Alan Boyle

NASA

A NASA graphic depicts planets and other solar-system objects (not drawn to scale).

How many planets do you want with your Happy Meal? At McDonald's restaurants in Britain, they're serving up a solar system with nine planets - which has thrown some hot sauce (plus a dash of hilarity) on a cosmic conundrum.

The planetary faux pas came to light last week in The Register, a British-based tech Web site that published what it said was the "fairly damning evidence of Ronald McDonald's opinion on the matter."

McDonald's UK made a deal with Planet Cook, a venture that tries to get kids into cooking, to produce a series of planet-themed boxes for the restaurant chain's Happy Meals - you know, the ones that come with a burger or Chicken McNuggets, plus other kid-size nibbles and drinks.

One of the fun facts printed on the box proclaims that "the solar system is made up of all the planets that orbit our sun," and that "there are 9 planets in total." That claim runs counter to the International Astronomical Union's controversial resolution setting the planet count at eight - including Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, but not Pluto.

With its figurative tongue firmly in cheek, The Register accused McDonald's of spreading "U.S. scientific propaganda." (The nationalism angle supposedly enters the picture because Pluto was discovered by an American, Clyde Tombaugh.)

"This is what happens when you get your degree in astronomy from Hamburger University," one commenter joked.

Over the weekend, Britain's Sunday Mirror picked up on the story. The Mirror quoted Cambridge astronomer Paul Murdin as saying that the restaurant chain had "got it wrong."

"It's a shame they didn't check their facts," Murdin said.

Meanwhile, McDonald's told the Mirror merely that "we are aware of the debate about Pluto."

Eight planets, nine, or more?
As someone who has spent the past year researching and writing a book stating the case for Pluto, I'd have to say that Murdin is correct and McDonald's is wrong - but probably not for the reason Murdin has in mind. If you're totally on board with the IAU definition, you might think revising the box to read "there are 8 planets in total" would do the trick. But can anyone honestly say the solar system is made up of four giant planets, four terrestrial planets, and that's it?

I would argue that an eight-planet view of the solar system is only slightly less nonsensical than a nine-planet view. Any perspective that doesn't include Pluto and the other dwarf planets, the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt, the Oort Cloud and all those crazy comets would be woefully incomplete.

One of the saddest things about the Happy Meal misstep is that it could leave kids with the impression that there's nothing more to be discovered in our solar system. That'd be particularly sad for the British: A pilot survey of more than 200 schoolchildren in English schools, published in the February 2007 issue of the journal Space Policy, indicated that discovering a new planet was the top thing kids would want to do if they were space scientists. (The same study rated Pluto as a runner-up behind Mars as the kids' favorite planet in space.)

The nine-planet view of our solar system is gone forever, thanks to the discovery of Eris in 2005. Now it's up to scientists, educators - and yes, even Ronald McDonald - to present a view of the solar system that reflects our widening planetary horizons and inspires the next generation of planet-hunters.

'Three categories of planet'
Coincidentally, yet another perspective on planethood has just popped up in the form of the latest "Astronomy Question of the Week," presented by the German Aerospace Center to celebrate the International Year of Astronomy.

Most of the center's answer reflects the IAU's definition, including the confusing part about a "real" planet having to clear the area around its orbit of small bodies (like Jupiter's Trojan asteroids, for example?). But toward the end, the answer takes a turn toward a more realistic view of our solar system's planetary retinue by dividing it into three categories: the eight classical planets, a slowly growing number of dwarf planets and a large number of irregular planetoids.

If the IAU had gone along with that perspective, as outlined by astronomer/historian Owen Gingerich and his international colleagues, it would have saved astronomers a lot of trouble. And who knows? A "big tent" view of our solar system might yet prevail.

What do you think? Is the planetary discussion basically beating a dead horse, or is the golden age of discovery just getting started? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.

Pre-order your copy of "The Case for Pluto" today, and join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or following b0yle on Twitter.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

We humans like to categorize things. Planets are just a set of alike things in a set. Pluto upon close examination just doesn't fit into the same set as the rest of the planets. It's orbit is wacky and out of plane. It has a similar sized companion (Charon). It's too tiny. Pluto fits in better with the group known as Planetoids, Asteroids or something that got separated from the Ort cloud. Planets got their name from the term wanderer as they moved around in the night sky compared with the stars (which kinda leaves Neptune in a bind).
If you were an interstellar observer and were approaching the Sol system I don't think you would take much notice of Pluto.
If you grew up with the idea of 9 planets and feel threatened by having them reduced to 8, then go ahead and believe there is still 9. But if you want to continue the human need to place things in their correct boxes then 8 is more appropriate.

Ozymandias (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 7:46 PM)

Why focus on the "big-eight"; a "big tent" view of our solar system would be more stimulating for kids' imaginations.

F. P. Doty, Livermore, CA (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 7:48 PM)

Planetoids, Asteroids, Hemorrhoids...I don't care what you call them as long as the next generation can figure out how to make them miss us.

Dr Hu (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 7:49 PM)

The objective is to interest children into science and space. Putting an artificial limit on what they can learn is not helpful. Let them know we have found this much and ask the child, "What do you think you can find?"

Richard L Sharp, Ocala, Florida (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 7:50 PM)

McDonalds may not be right, but by any reasonable definition, the IAU is wrong. Look at all those objects orbiting around the sun: how do you make sense of them? The gas giant planets are obvious, and we've got four of them. For the rest, what makese them planets, and not asteroids? Gravity sufficient to make them round, and cause internal heating to differentiate the interior.

So got four obvious ones there. Pluto's round, and AFAIK we don't yet know enough to say anything about its interiorr. But a couple of the asteroids (Ceres and Vesta, if memory serves) also fit that definition. And why stop there? The larger moons also fit that definition. Titan, Ganymede, Europa, even our Moon: if they didn't go around something else, we'd certainly call them planets.

So it's pretty obvious that the IAU had its answer already decided, and cobbled together a rather inane definition of "planet" simply for the purpose of arriving at an answer which they'd already decided on. It's not much different than the last Iranian election :-)

James, Nevada (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 7:59 PM)

I've always figured things like this: history, science, medicine which aren't spot-on aren't necessarily bad for kids. Now that there's plenty of info available to them, they could be told to investigate <something> and determine if there are mistakes and if they are found to correct them.

The one (major) rule is they cannot search for places where those who only see a negative in anything which isn't perfect and enumerate the errors.

phil, fishers, indiana, usa (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 8:08 PM)

Ah, there are only FOUR planets in this Solar System (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) plus assorted rubble.

Tom K (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 8:21 PM)

Pluto was a planet when I was born, and to me it still is. Whatever they decide concerning newer discoveries; so be it. Why not demote Phobos and Deimos? They're nothing but captured asteroids, too small to even become round, and doomed to crash into mars eventually. Leave the old ones alone.

Thomas of Londonderry (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 8:41 PM)

James of Nevada is absolutely right; it is the IAU that is wrong, and they are compounding their mistake by repeatedly trying to force their controversial definition on everyone. Yes, there are three categories of planets, but the categories are terrestrial planets, gas giants, and dwarf planets. Dwarf planets should not be placed in a class other than planets. They are simply small planets that do not gravitationally dominate their orbits. Pluto does not fit in better with asteroids and planetoids, simply because it is large enough to be rounded by its own gravity, a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium. While I recommend McDonalds add the other four dwarf planets--Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris--to show our complete 13-planet solar system (as of now), I applaud the company for not giving in to IAU propaganda. It's not a matter of McDonald's not checking their facts. They simply made a conscious decision to join the many scientists and lay people who reject the IAU definition. The golden age of discovery IS just getting started, and instead of welcoming the amazing diversity of planets in this and other solar systems, the IAU, or rather, the four percent who voted on this definition, are choosing to close the door on the possibility of new planets. Just how tenuous the IAU position is can be seen from the fact that the organization has done all it can to stifle any further debate on the issue. Their adamant refusal to reopen the planet definition discussion at this year's General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro is the reason large numbers of planetary scientists boycotted that event, and this year's conference had even fewer attendees than did the one in 2006.

On the one hand, the IAU states that its definitions are for internal use only, but on the other, their members protest if anyone rejects their definitions and uses different ones. Which one is it? And why should anyone blindly follow the dictate of a small group of people whose decree makes no sense and has been rejected by many scientists in the same field?

The "big tent" view will prevail because it is makes much more sense and is favored by large numbers of people.

I'm also working on a book about Pluto, and one of my most recent goals is to discover a new planet in the Kuiper Belt. Excitement about more and new planets is alive and well among kids of all ages.

Laurel Kornfeld (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 8:46 PM)

I still say that the IAU definition is illogical on linguistic grounds. The idea of "dwarf planets" is fine with me, but, at least in English, a "dwarf", of any class, is still a member of that class. Therefore, a "dwarf planet", by definition, has to be a planet. That would give us four "giant planets", four "terrestrial (by size) planets", and however many "dwarf planets".

My preferred definition is that a "planet" is round, orbits a star, and is too small for fusion.

How do we prove that an extrasolar planet is a "planet" if we can't even see its neighborhood?

Negav Kalanaga, Grayson, KY (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 8:49 PM)

But lets not forget the most important factor that makes Pluto a planet is the fact that a MOON ORBITS Pluto. Or is this the only twin asteroid with super strength gravitational pull. It also contains an ATMOSPHERE. Did I ever mention that the IAU lists Pluto as a "Minor/dwarf Planet". Wouldn't that still make it a planet or are they trying to mess up the English language as well?

John, Nevada (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 8:51 PM)

If a child picks up a Happy Meal wanting to learn more about the solar system and is dissuaded by the idea that the box is telling them there are only 8 planets, that child needs more imagination and less cheese.

Binkie McFartnuggets (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 8:53 PM)

The epitome of hypocrisy accusing the Americans of scientific nationalism. We all know this debate and subsequent vote was an effort to deny the "new" planetary discoveries made by Americans over the last 80 years. If all round bodies circling the sun were the standard and we would have to include 3 new American discovered planets to the list. That was just too much for this anti-American cabal.

As we discover new planets around other stars and the massive variety of possible obits, sizes, inclinations, distances and compositions are revealed this political nonsense will be overturned.

But until that day we will just have to tell our kids, "sorry, you can never discover a new planet in our solar system because an artificially created unscientific definition pass by minority vote perpetrated by jealous and small minded people posing as scientist won't allow it". (unless of course you eat at McDonalds)

Po Pofla, Billerica, MA (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 8:55 PM)

"Planet" is a category which has been pretty much defined both before and after the IAU revised the definition. In my 1945 World Book Encyclopedia, Pluto is stated to be larger than Earth. If that were true, no one today would doubt that Pluto would be a planet anymore than the Earth is. However, in fact Pluto is not anywhere as big as the Earth, or even the Earth's moon. The larger moons (Titan & Ganymede) are bigger in diameter than Mercury, but not nearly as massive. The eight planets, as presently defined, are clearly the most massive objects orbiting our sun. Within each of their respective orbits, nothing else approaches their size. The closest in size in one orbit is the Earth and the moon. So much so that the Earth and the moon have been called double planets. However, our moon still has only a fraction of the Earth's mass. Science should be based on the best available information, not history.

Dale Harmon, Lewis Center, Ohio (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 9:30 PM)

Dale, in my view the term "planet" is a bit more analogous to the term "mountain" ... We shouldn't be too quick to limit the definition just when we're about to study the mountain ranges, er, planetary systems beyond our own. For example, quite substantial planets have been found in other solar systems in the same orbit-crossing, 3:2 resonance that governs the Neptune-Pluto relationship. (I'm referring to the planetary system HD 45364.) In my book, there are also historical and cultural factors that go into the planet definition, just as there are for major categories of our physical universe ranging from mountains and rivers to stars and galaxies. But to get the full story, I guess you'd have to check out the book. ;-)

Here are a couple of links on the 3:2 planetary pair, plus another pair of "oddballs" detected around a star known as HD 82943:

http://kencroswell.com/HD45364.html

http://www.planetary.org/exoplanets/list.php?exo=HD+45364+b

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0597

http://www.planetary.org/exoplanets/list.php?exo=HD+82943+b

Alan Boyle (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 9:55 PM)

I can understand why places would be upset about McDonald's saying there are 9 planets orbiting our sun, but saying there are only 8 planets is not correct either. There may not be 9 orbiting our sun, but Pluto still exists, so there are still more than 8 planets, right? Happy Meals are supposed to be an educational treat for kids, right? So put two things on them, one that says there are 8 planets orbiting our sun, and one that mentions Pluto. If kids are taught different things or too many details at too young an age, they won't care at all or will just get confused.

Nathan Sokalski, Allentown PA (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 10:18 PM)

McDonald's could really make a killing if they include more than just the original 9...it's all about P.R.

I remember as a kid when restaurants used to sell "collector" glasses with a different person/theme each week. Just think what they could do with the solar system!

Looking forward to reading The Case for Pluto!

Siobhan, Illinois (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 10:25 PM)

You guys are all wet, Pluto is really a Planetoid, which really means "little s**t" in "planet talk."

Boyd J, Boise, Idaho (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 11:11 PM)

Why are we talking about all this solar nonsense. The answer is quite simple actually... McDonalds headquarters is in Oak Brook, IL... If you guys have seen the senate in ILLINOIS still argues that there are 9 planets in our solar system. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/06/is-pluto-a-planet Check that out. I dunno what else to think, I guess science in itself changes daily so... I guess all we can do is say... sure...

Jeff, Chicago (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 11:21 PM)

Way back in 1970, when I was in the 3rd grade, we studied the solar system in school. At the end of the lesson, we had a test. I remember 2 parts of the test. We had to list the plaanets in order of their orbits around the sun an in order from smallest to largest. I listed Pluto as the smallest. At that time, Mercury was considered the smallest planet. I apparently did not like to be wrong, even at that age and told the teacher and my classmates that Pluto really was the smallest planet, that we had just not iscovered that yet.
Two years later it was discovered that Pluto has a moon and really was the smallest planet.
Whatever the IAU says, I will continue to consider Pluto a planet.

Steve, San Marcos, TX (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 11:23 PM)

Since we are categorizing, why don't we simplify the category of "planet". Let's say that a planet is a celestial body capable of supporting ignorant life. That gives the Sol system just one planet. Now, everything is simple.

JP, Augusta, GA (Sent Monday, October 05, 2009 11:33 PM)

When I go to my simulator and see nice, round, atmospheric Pluto and Charon swinging around a common center of gravity, not to mention little Nix and Hydra circling nearby, how can this marvelous system not compare to any other planetary body in our solar system, especially moonless bodies like Mercury and Venus? Pluto may meet the definitions of a dwarf planet, but it deserves an exception, not only because of the numerous ways it differs from a body like Ceres, but because it has a history all its own. Planetary names and categories are only human inventions, and as such, Pluto's rich and historic relationship with mankind, is no less important. It is the reason Pluto remains a planet in the hearts of the public despite attempts to ignore Pluto's history and apply purely scientific standards. And it is the reason why Pluto will always be a full fledged planet to me and to at least one more generation (maybe two) if I have anything to do about it. Viva Pluto Omega - the Last Planet of Sol!

Bob Bickers (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:27 AM)

The important thing about science isn't semantics and arbitary definitions. It's about learning and discovering new things.

The idea whether pluto is a planet or not is a "debate", which seems to fall more along the lines of politics than science.

Mike, M Austin Texas (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:32 AM)

Doesn't matter. Pluto isn't a planet. Just isn't. Sorry.

(John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:45 AM)

Honestly, does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Only the educated with no common sense would argue the point to begin with. Who's to say that by some alien specification we're all not planetoids? I don't know about you, but I won't get my panties in a bunch over it either way.

Ed, Sultan, WA (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:48 AM)

Classical planets, dwarf planets and planetoids makes most sense. "Planet" means wanderer, and that just what they do. Assume dwarf planet covers anything that has sufficient gravity to make it round, and planetoids covers everything smaller from NEAs and the asteroid belt to the Oorts. But every child should forget his or her mnemonic for the nine planets and be taught instead: "Mercury; Venus; Earth; near Earth asteroids and the asteroid belt, including Ceres; Mars; Jupiter; Saturn; Uranus; Neptune; Pluto; other dwarf planets; the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud -- and every planet but mercury and Venus have moons."

Charles A. Gardner (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:51 AM)

Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.. how many more happy meals will McDonalds sell because of this irrelevant subject.

S. Hoff Mesquite, Nv. (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:18 AM)

Wow! This throws a monkey wrench into my world view. How can I live another day without knowing If I can call Pluto a planet or not? And if you think I'm confused think about all the astrologers who now have to redo their charts and predictions. I guess now I'll have to auger the future by "throwing bones."

Robert Hill (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:25 AM)

Sorry to say but the debate about Pluto will never be over as long as I draw breath...You'll have to beat me to make me consider saying it's not a planet, thank you very much...GO MC'D'S

Robert, Poulsbo, Washington (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:35 AM)

Yep, McD's should have done some research! We now know Pluto is one of the icy planetoids on the outer part of our solar system, in which there are more that have since been discovered. In 9 years, when the spaceship NASA sent a while back finally reaches Pluto and those other icy bodies, we'll have some answers.

Matt Fields,Austin, Texas (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:19 AM)

As a brit myself, I can say this. The condescension of the british science community is plain for all to see here in the quotes given. Children arent stupid and if they are, then I question whether science educators themselves are slow witted dullards passing random details partial facts as all encompassing absolutisms, McDonalds is a restaurant and as such creates and markets entertaining and sometimes educational ideas. But why on earth would a serious scientist expect a burger shack to get it right in the first place? You snooty snobs should pull it out of your bum and unify the system of planetary qualities for our understanding and decide once and for all what a planet is. But you cant even do that as one body of minds yerselves. Be thankful that your kids grow up undertsanding theres more than twinkle to the lights in the sky. as for me, I was raised to believe pluto is a planet. I'll stay with it. And since it matters little in my field what I beleive with regards to astral bodies, I'll never suffer for it, except to read a pile of pompous judgemental garbage like this over a bloody happy meal! WHY DONT YOU ALL GO FIND A PLANET TO ARGUE ON!! Buncha self pretentious nerds.......

Doctor Wholittle (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:20 AM)

I think we should drop Pluto and just keep Mickey, Minnie, and Goofy.

Dan R (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:30 AM)

I learned in school that there are 9 planets because that is what I will always believe. I dont understand why the IAU has decided to change things now after all these years of PLUTO being cosidered a planet.

Jeff V, Roysecity, TX (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:32 AM)

This debate will continue until only those of one opinion remain. I spend 8 hours a day working along with some of the greatest space physics scientist in the country. A probe called New Horizons is on its way to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt. When it arrives in 2015, we will learn more about the entity called Pluto and beyond. For now, we are left to our opinions. For more information see:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html
http://lasp.colorado.edu

Rocket Girl, Boulder Colorado (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:35 AM)

The IAU calls Pluto a "dwarf planet". That makes it a planet just as a "blue car" is still a car. So what's all the fuss about? Was the IAU trying to say it isn't a planet? Guess they shouldn't have called it a planet then. Too bad for them.

Dave, Albuquerque, NM (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:41 AM)

"Ah, there are only FOUR planets in this Solar System (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) plus assorted rubble."

Because the mass of everything else in the solar system (except the Sun, of course) doesn't add up to the mass of its largest planet, Isaac Asimov once remarked:

"The solar system consists of Jupiter...plus debris."

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:55 AM)

Baffling... simply baffling.

If we are arguing over defintions, when it comes to astronomy, IAU would be the final arbiter.

Agreed, different people will attach different importance to different things, but ultimately the group that was most qualified to pass judgment did so.

It's not an anti-American conspiracy, it's just some people trying to place a large rock into a metaphorical filing system.

Apparently Pluto just didn't tick enough 'planet' boxes. Big enough? Wobbly? Moons? Atmosphere?

Richard, London, UK (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:29 AM)

This whole debate makes me giggle. If Jupiter had life they would consider us a dwarf planet, or maybe even a planetoid. We consider anything smaller then us inferior. This is a group of people who want to just name things and give really bad definitions. We could break it down even more and say if your moon isn't a certain percentage of the hosts size then it isn't a planet. Well then Mercury and Venus aren't even close to a planet, and what is Earth? its a freak no planet has a moon as big as us so we should be considered "Freak Planet" Because we have a larger then average...... Moon.

You heard it here first people there are now 4 categories. Classical, Dwarf, Planitoid, and Freak... Haha

I think we should just disband the whole IAU definition for planets because they didn't say anything about terrestrial planets that are as big as Saturn which I believe has been found. If its round and flies around a star in an orbit its a planet. Further definition will start taking out classical planets. /shrug

Courtney, Seattle, WA (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:48 AM)

Gotta love Journalist. A couple of people in the U.K. are protesting happy meals with debatable scientific information considered american biased.

God Save the queen! Mother of the Church!

John Doe, Seattle, Wash (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:03 AM)

Never mind what kids are learning from McD's, what are they learning from NASA? Take that graphic. The sun is in at least three locations,the planets are backwards, unless that bright spot in the background is a supernova, or maybe that's flash bounceback, and the moon is far too south.

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:15 AM)

Come on people, lets just see this for what it is. Just another BS newsmedia organization trying to make a name for itself by railing on McDonalds and nothing more.
Is this really important, I don't think so.

Sven-Erik (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:18 AM)

I give a thumbs up to McDonalds for including Pluto, but lets don't forget the others:

Ceres - Now the smallest dwarf planet, which was neglected for nearly 100 years.
Eris - a bit larger than Pluto.
Haumea - the crazy shaped one.
Makemake - I think M&M's ought to cristen this as their official planet for obvious reasons - hint hint.
and Sedna - not officially a dwarf planet yet, but would be the one that goes the furthest out.

I think using the IAU definition as an excuse to limit the solar system to the sun, eight planets, and a bunch of useless "rocks" can hinder the zeal of solar system study in schools and the general public, instead they ought to encourage exploration and open up the flood gates of the exotic worlds in our solar system and beyond. Include fascinating worlds like Io, Europa, Titan, Enceladus, Oberon, Triton, Pluto, and Charon and many others and intruduce these to the public sector. These objects are far more than just "rocks".

When I got interested in planets back in elementary school decades ago, it was not their orbits that got me interested, it was their physical attributes, that is why I think a physical definition of planet is better. But I wouldn't mind seeing two definitions of planet, one based on dynamics (Dominate [or major]planet) and the other on physics (geoplanet, or world).

Concerning exoplanets, those guys need real names! - come on guys, license plate numbers don't have near the appeal as a real name, even if the name is completely made up, like what we see in science fiction, it would be better than a license plate number. Lets bring back the flaming fire of imagination with the study of planets, instead of slamming the lid shut by limiting the solar system to eight and keeping the exoplanets nameless.

Jonathan Bowers, Tyler, Texas (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:44 AM)

Pluto is a planet, it was a planet when i was borne and 45 years later is still a planet (the word planet meaning wanderer.)The change was made so that some pencil pushing geek could tick a box and not have to add planets to the list the change was made in an underhanded way and should be corrected by firing same immediately.

Arthur Miney (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:10 AM)

McDonald's just said there are nine planets in total and that they're aware of the debate about Pluto.

They didn't say Pluto was the 9th planet.

The 9th is Planet Hollywood. They're off in their own little world. :)

John Doe, Seattle, Wash (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:13 AM)

The Hamburglar says there are nine planets. That's good enough for me.

Galeelayo, Anytown, USA (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:13 AM)

Tom K says: "Ah, there are only FOUR planets in this Solar System (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) plus assorted rubble."

I kinda wanna know what planet he's on....

And when the whole Pluto question came up didn't we go from 9 to 10 and then back to 8 or something like that? And should a gas planet count or should it have to have solid mass?

I say stick to 9!

Eddie T Albany NY (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:07 AM)

This is all goofy-
Siriusly speaking, Pluto is a dog.
(Astro-Sniks 'Happy Meal' anyone?)

Alex, Jersey City, NJ (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:36 AM)

Actually, you can ignore my previous post. Pluto is most definitely a planet. It just is. Sorry about my previous faux pas!

[ALAN ADDS: I'm skeptical about this conversion ... more likely a spoof post. But it's funny enough to let it through.]

(John Doe, Seattle, Wash.) (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:52 AM)

The reason I think not including Pluto as a planet is ridiculous? Because it seems based on the need to satisfy someone's sense of hubris. How many more rules are scientists and other bodies (that's you, IAU) going to make up and why should the layman care one whit? This is how you pass your time? Nonsensical linguistic debates? What colossal arrogance and stupidity.

I am in the "include Pluto" camp, by the way, and I see many excellent points on this board, based on both fact and common sense, to do so. Bravo, people!

Jeff (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:21 AM)

The only planets MC D's should worry about are the ones it launches into orbit from their booths every day. Why does it matter and why waste time arguing about "It's not a pond it's a lake."

Jason Abernathy (Sent Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:24 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2090088

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG