Current Events > Do you believe that pluto is a planet?

(+) Yeah! (+)

eh ?

sure why not

I feel as though that whole "Pluto is not a planet" episode was intended to artificially limit the number of planets in the solar system because it would have included Ceres, among some others, and that would have "confused" people. What was that, around 2005-6 or so iirc?

to me something is a planet if it's rounded by its own gravity, not orbiting another planet (that'd make it a moon), and not going through nuclear fusion (that'd make it a star).

now is that what the supposed experts think? no.

but you know what? my definition still makes more sense than theirs.

yes yes i do

with my entire heart and soul

with every fiber of my being

Just make every large object in the solar system a planet and teach about the historical planets or whatever in school. Seems pretty simple.

No, Pluto is the room outside

It's a dwarf planet. There's similarly sized objects in Pluto's neighborhood

i propose that the sneering category "dwarf planet" be eliminated entirely, and all planets simply get divided into two groups: big planets and little planets.

this solution should satisfy all

toreysback posted...

i propose that the sneering category "dwarf planet" be eliminated entirely, and all planets simply get divided into two groups: big planets and little planets.

this solution should satisfy all

What about flat planets?

psaw that's only the earth

i guess they either learn to love their appearance, or else they discreetly invest in planet falsies

CommonGrackle posted...

I feel as though that whole "Pluto is not a planet" episode was intended to artificially limit the number of planets in the solar system because it would have included Ceres, among some others, and that would have "confused" people. What was that, around 2005-6 or so iirc?

to me something is a planet if it's rounded by its own gravity, not orbiting another planet (that'd make it a moon), and not going through nuclear fusion (that'd make it a star).

now is that what the supposed experts think? no.

but you know what? my definition still makes more sense than theirs.

What part of a planet needing to be big enough to clear out its own orbit of other competing items does not make any sense to you?

Ar0ge posted...

What part of a planet needing to be big enough to clear out its own orbit of other competing items does not make any sense to you?

What happens if we discover a star with tons of dual-orbiting planets bigger than any planet in our solar system? That definition is far from perfect.

since it is admittedly arbitrary, it would seem that intelligent scientists could create a definition that would include pluto, and a few of its friends, but then close off those 100s of others who, tbqh, are just golddigger wannabe planets trying to cash in on pluto's hard work and stellar reputation

toreysback posted...

since it is admittedly arbitrary, it would seem that intelligent scientists could create a definition that would include pluto, and a few of its friends, but then close off those 100s of others who, tbqh, are just golddigger wannabe planets trying to cash in on pluto's hard work and stellar reputation

That sounds psychotic.

toreysback posted...

since it is admittedly arbitrary, it would seem that intelligent scientists could create a definition that would include pluto, and a few of its friends, but then close off those 100s of others who, tbqh, are just golddigger wannabe planets trying to cash in on pluto's hard work and stellar reputation

Lol not sure if pun intended but fun anyway

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


we have a problem here. pluto belongs to everyone, yet a tiny (in number, not in size - i certainly would never refer to them as dwarf scientists) cadre of self-appointed elitists want to control how we label it.

DeadBankerDream posted...

That sounds psychotic.

no u

ThyCorndog posted...

It's a dwarf planet. There's similarly sized objects in Pluto's neighborhood

This.

May as well make Eris, Sedna, and the others planets as well.

No, Pluto thinks it's all cool and special being a little ball of rock hanging out near Uranus. In fact, fuck Pluto. I hope it blows up.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/6/0/AANZVmAAC0_w.jpg

Literally smaller than our moon.

Solar_Crimson posted...

This.

May as well make Eris, Sedna, and the others planets as well.

eris is cool by me - eh pretty big and doesn't afraid of anything

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Is Captain Planet a planet?
Checkmate.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


sneezy isn't a planet
grumpy isn't a planet

why does dwarf have to be there?

hell in canonical disney, pluto is a fuckin dog...but not a dwarf dog...pluto is bigger than mickey for chrissake

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


and most significantly, "the power is ours"

so "we" get to determine what is a planet and what isn't

/end topic

No pretty sure Pluto is a cartoon dog.

Smiffwilm posted...

No pretty sure Pluto is a cartoon dog.

pluto is both a planet and a cartoon dog

maybe pedo schrodinger can help us define when it is which

Pluto is cooler than a regular planet. It has spinning moons. Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, orbit each other.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Don't you sass me

Ceres is a planet.

Nah. Though truth be told, the entire concept of "planets" is outdated once you move past the idea of them just being fast moving stars to the naked eye. Once we started discovering shitloads of other orbiting objects too big to be mere comets and asteroids, there was a need to have a differentiation between what we want selectively limited to the category of mainline planets and these other things. If Pluto is allowed in as a planet, then that probably opens up the gates for at least a half dozen other objects, which defeats the entire point of keeping the specific "planet" designation in existence as a easily memorable special thing.

If anything, we should further split things up as their own things to have terrestrial planets, gas giants, and ice giants be counted separately and not lumped in together.

every happy planet is alike; every unhappy planet is unhappy in its own way

By definition, it isn't.

But I believe the definition is stupid, unnecessary and driven by people being overly precious about the term, and far more objects should be considered planets.

I always thought it was weird that it swapped places with Neptune

It's some sort of living organism mimicking a planet

HA4e posted...

It's some sort of living organism mimicking a planet

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/2/AANZVmAAC1H6.jpg

pluto isnt a planet because it doesn't make the criteria to be a Jovian planet. it's not a gas giant, so it can't be compared to jupiter, saturn, uranus or neptune.

p

Theres rocks larger than Pluto that arent counted as planets so why should Pluto be counted?

also, this has got nothing to do with belief, just like evolution and gravity have nothing to do with belief

Scroopy Noopers did nothing wrong

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Theres rocks larger than Pluto that arent counted as planets so why should Pluto be counted?

Then perhaps some of them should be. And maybe that's the whole point of this.

Pluto probably shouldn't be treated as the metric for this. This whole mess got going with Eris being dismissed as a possible planet due to size, right up until observations suggested it may be larger than Pluto.

Even now, people are debating the validity of Mercury.