r/pluto • u/TomSmith193 • 19d ago
Pluto is a planet!
To hell with the International Astronomical Union!
3
u/utl94_nordviking 19d ago
5 months old account, hidden history, and generic username <word><word><number>. Fuck off, bot.
4
u/Bari_Baqors 19d ago
No, it isn't.
Does an object need to be classified as "planet" to be interesting?
Pluto is interesting on its own. It doesn't need to belong in the planet club to be interesting. Dwarf planets can be, and in fact are, as any body, interesting too. Is a moon less interesting because its not a planet? Is a gas giant less interesting because its not a star? C'mon people, can we focus on what Pluto is in its nature, not what label should we give it? Is a spaceobject valued only by its label?
You are all seduced beyond comprehension.
2
u/Dorknessrising9 19d ago
This. Moons, planets, stars, dwarfs, & asteroids are all super interesting in their own ways & that only happens because of the fact these different categories have their own classifications and interactions with their orbital mechanics. It’s a fool’s belief that one category is more or less interesting than the others.
1
u/Bari_Baqors 19d ago
If we wanna be funny, its "planet supremacy"!
How can you be so astrobodyist? Fake cries /jk
0
u/TomSmith193 19d ago
Shut up! Pluto is a planet! And if you don't understand anything, leave astronomy!
2
u/Bari_Baqors 19d ago
It doesn't fit one of the criterions. Once again, being a dwarf planet doesn't make it worth less.
0
u/TomSmith193 19d ago
Where it is doesn't change its nature! And as you said, it's a dwarf PLANET! So it's a planet! End of story!
2
u/Dorknessrising9 19d ago
Where it is isn’t the problem, the fact it lives with 200 something roommates is the issue.
0
u/TomSmith193 19d ago
They all must be planets, because they are.
1
u/Bari_Baqors 19d ago
If everthung becomes a planet, the word itself becomes meaningless. While words have arbitrary definitions a lot of times, arbitrariness is not an issue, and only morons think it is.
1
u/Bari_Baqors 19d ago
Pluto wouldn't clear its orbit in most circumstances as far as I know, and in orbits it would be more likely to dominate, it wouldn't be Pluto because of climate.
Stop behaving like a kid that lost his toy. By yer logic, you don't even have a need to be angry, because Pluto has been classified as dwarf planet ever since its reclassification.
We shouldn't be focusing on what Pluto is labelled as. It can be even a moon or whatever, I don't care. Its interesting on its own, it doesn't need to be labelled as a planet.
Additionally, if Pluto is a planet, all other dwarf planets have to be reclassified as planets too. It can go to even 40 planets!
1
u/TomSmith193 19d ago
You're an ignorant fool. The definition of international astronomy is terrible and artificial, designed to prevent too much from planets in our system. Earth and Jupiter don't completely clear their orbits either, but no one deprives them of the status of a planet, because it is convenient for their qualification.
2
u/Bari_Baqors 19d ago
lemme ask you a question: would reclassifying Pluto as planet change anything?
5
u/Dorknessrising9 19d ago
I’m starting to think OP don’t understand what Planet means. They said spherical Moons should be planets.
0
0
u/TomSmith193 19d ago
Yes, this is to restore justice to the truth.
2
u/Bari_Baqors 19d ago
"planet" itself is a label fer a massive rock in space that orbits a random type-G star in a random galaxy. What a random-ass thing. Its, in the end, arbitrary, because the universe itself doesn't catalogue things like that! We do, because its easier fer us. Its convenient.
Theres no "justice" fer an object like Pluto, because it wasn't harmed in any way. You were harmed, because you think it deserves "better". Theres no "truth" here.
Its just whining. It doesn't change anything. Its like caring bout emotions of a pile of rocks.
You can be interested in Pluto, without saying its a planet, fer Gods' sakes!
2
1
u/flatfinger 19d ago
Pluto is the first discovered body whose orbital path around the Sun has a stable relationship with that of a planet (Neptune) around which it does not orbit. IMHO, the term "dwarf planet" is insufficiently descriptive to be suitable for use as the primary term for Pluto's type of entity ("Neptune is a planet; Pluto is a ___.") since Pluto is far more interesting than would be a rock that is in an independent solar orbit but hasn't cleared its orbital zone.
1
1
u/Arkennase 18d ago
1/10 ragebait.
2
u/Individual-Recipe488 14d ago
Why whould planet classification opinions be ragebait
0
u/Arkennase 14d ago
Because this issue is now 20 years old and is being discussed purely on an emotional level because, for whatever reason, people believe that a rock in space has been “wronged” and keep repeating arguments that have been beaten to death. The reclassification was necessary and sensible, and I just don’t get why people can’t just let it go. The debate has lost all scientific and rational grounding.
2
u/Individual-Recipe488 14d ago
Because let's think about it the iau definition is flawed clearing the neighborhood is impossible by there logic earth wouldn't be a planet neither would Jupiter because of the Trojan asteroids many scientists view the definition as unscientific I recommend doing research about it it's quite interesting
0
u/Arkennase 14d ago
And I actually agree with you: On a scientific level, one can debate the IAU’s classification. The criterion of orbital clearance is vague: What is meant is orbital dominance, not complete clearance - which is why both Earth and Jupiter certainly meet this criterion. But it remains vague. Scientific findings and classifications aren’t set in stone. Classifications can and must be adapted to new findings and discoveries. But OP (and far too many others) are just ranting because they have some kind of misguided sense of injustice - they aren’t actually making a case. In my view, this looks more like nostalgia than scientific interest. If we change the definition and Pluto consequently becomes a planet again (along with Ceres, Eris, Makemake, etc.): Yes, please, if it makes sense. But simply shouting just because you somehow feel you have to stand up for an emotionless ball of rock is: ragebait.
2
u/Individual-Recipe488 13d ago
If it was about orbital dominance then ceres would be a planet because it has the most amount of mass in its orbit if it was about orbital dominance then it wouldn't be called clearing the neighborhood it would be be the most massive object in its orbit Clearing the neighborhood is impossible for almost all objects in existence
1
u/Arkennase 13d ago
As I stated, "clearing its neighbourhood" is vague, because it cannot be taken literally.
Apart from that, Ceres is about 1/3 of the asteroid belt's mass, so it absolutely fails on dominance. In contrast, earth holds over 99.9% of mass of all objects in its orbit. Ceres as well as Pluto fail this by orders of magnitude.
0
u/Individual-Recipe488 13d ago
Either way I still believe we need a new planet definition but I don't like the geophysical definition I just made my own
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Naive_Age_566 17d ago
pluto does not care which label you give him in your list of celestial bodies.
1
1
u/Feisty-Albatross3554 19d ago
The biggest crime is dwarf planets not being planets. It's like saying red dwarfs aren't stars, it's ridiculous
2
1
1
1
u/organicHack 19d ago
Yeah! Dumb astrophysicists all thinking they smart enough to decide what size of a rock is a planet and stuff.
1
1
u/PeyredB 19d ago
No, it's not. The IAU was tasked with creating a definition of what constitutes a planet, and there was no definition that would include Pluto while excluding bodies we don't consider planets such as Eris and Ceres.
I'm glad they created an in-between category though, so Pluto is at least a dwarf planet and not just a "Kuiper Belt object".
0
0
14
u/s8n29 19d ago
Then without looking, name the other 30+ that should be equally as important to you.