Dwarf planets are different than just space debris, true, but there are traits that undeniably separate them from true planets.

the difference in them being dwarf planets and astroid belt/space debris is that they "have sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2,"<br /> <br /> Space debris etc isn't round like pluto and other dwarf planets are.

They look awfully like planets and behave almost exactly like planets, yet still have asteroid belt qualities. ;)

Why do they call them dwarf planets if they're not planets then?

Agreeing with Geist. I don't understand what the big deal is about. When we discover new species/subspecies of animals, people throw parties. When we discover something new about our solar system that makes a (fairly minor) change to the way we learn about it, people throw a fit.<br /> <br /> As for making all of the other dwarf planets planets...that's not really practical. They're <i>not planets</i>; they're something else.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet">Here's</a> the wiki page for the definition of the word "planet." Also, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood">this</a> is what Geist is talking about. To "clear the neighborhood of its orbit," a celestial body must be gravitationally dominant. That means it doesn't share its orbit with other, similarly sized bodies that aren't under it's gravitational influence. Since Pluto's orbit is shared with many other, similarly sized pieces of rock, ice, etc. it has not cleared its orbit of other celestial bodies.<br /> <br /> That makes it a dwarf planet. Not a planet.

"It doesn't clear the mass of its own orbit, so it is a drawf planet."<br /> <br /> What exactly does "clear the mass of its own orbit" mean? And what has Pluto not cleared to be classified as a Dwarf?

---

I learned that Pluto was a planet as a child, but I'm flexible and I can accept that Pluto is not a planet.<br /> <br /> http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf<br /> <br /> By this definition of what is a planet and is not, Pluto is not a planet. It doesn't clear the mass of its own orbit, so it is a drawf planet.<br /> <br /> I really don't understand why anyone would be against this. It is what it is, what is there to be upset about? We've simply learned something new and updated a classification. It's better that, if we learn new things, accept them rather than remain willfully ignorant.

Pluto follows the solar system better than the other pieces of junk although it is far. There is an asteroid belt beyond Pluto, but scientists claimed that there is a planet beyond Pluto but before the second asteroid belt. It would have been caught later on, before it passed the planet farther than Pluto.

I belive it an the other "Dwarf planets" should be classified as planets. <br /> Jive- Well,thats like saying, "We have too many breeds of dog to keep up with lets keep 8 and consider the rest of them wolves." Just because there are alot of somthing doesn't mean they arn't what they are.

Does Pluto rotate along a mostly stable axis? I know it's orbit is kind of weird but who's to say plants always rotate on on orbits that match each other increasing in orbit size the further out you go.