Serious This just in: Pluto is (officially) a planet again!

Glad that they put their senses together. It is small, but it has characteristics of a planet! Dwarf planet is just, a stupid name to give it, because it sounds like it ISNT a planet!
 
The reason we need a definition is there is no line when something becomes a planet. If it just has to orbit the sun, then every asteroid would be classified as a planet. If it has to be spherical, then what do we scientifically classify as spherical enough? Would Ceres be a planet? Now why can't people settle down and just think logically. Some people seem to act as though making a more clear definition of a planet is taking away their childhood, so stop acting so defensively.
And keep in mind, if you actually read the article, Pluto has not been reclassified, there was a public debate where the public was asked to vote in favour of a side and they voted to the planet side.
This means nothing.
 
Your logic is not my logic, your truth is to me nothing but nonsensical make-belief. To me, Pluto was, is and will be a planet, no matter what some old (or young) human in some academy, lab or observatory says about it.

Again, you're trying to use nonsensical changes to good definitions in order to defend a nonsensical change of a good definition. I'm not sure about how solid a ground that can be to stand on, really.

Keep on evangelizing about true science, though. I will not stop you nor read your holy words anymore.
 
Pluto is a type of planet, I'm not denying that. But you still seem to be defending the classification of one of millions of lifeless lumps of rock. I don't understand why people have such an attachment, why can't you just allow an attempt at classification? I'm not saying that calling it a dwarf planet is the perfect solution, but if we are to find the correct way we have to be open to change and we have to let go of our selfish feelings like thinking that a planet gives a **** about what we call it.
If the definition of a planet fitted Pluto or was changed to fit pluto, I have no problem with that, but to think that scientific systems have any bearing on what people think with no reasoning behind, this is not acceptable.
Remember, there is no change in classification, and the article was just click bait, so Pluto is still a dwarf planet by definition, and just because your logic doesn't want a planet to be different does not change anything.
 
Last edited:
bounding star said:
...Pluto has not been reclassified, there was a public debate where the public was asked to vote...
Click to expand...

Your argument is solid everywhere but on this point. While this was a "public" debate, it was a debate held at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, so I imagine the audience was a largely scientific and academic one. It wouldn't have been a random selection of people. That being said, it would make sense that the people who would attend an "Is Pluto A Planet" debate may mostly be people who are dissatisfied with the fact that it's up for debate in the first place. Anyway, these are the kind of people who might be in charge of such a thing as reclassification, so I don't think it was click bait entirely.

In the big picture, though, you're right - This is really an issue of semantics. The further we go out into space, the more planets we'll find, and we'll need terms of classification like "dwarf", "gas giant", etc, and all these classifications still fall within the larger category of "planet." I think the problem is that somewhere along the line someone felt like "dwarf planet" meant "NOT a planet," which sparked this whole debate. I mean, someone could say that Jupiter isn't technically a "planet" because it is a "gas giant" and get a whole new round of people up in arms about it.
 
Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. A VOTE DOES NOT DECIDE SCIENCE. SCIENCE IS SCIENCE. THERE IS NO "VOTING" IN SCIENCE. SCIENCE EVOLVES BASED ON NEW FOUND FACTS. NOT A VOTE ON EXISTING FACTS. SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IF IT WAS, WE'D BE IN A STONE AGE.

628x471.jpg
 
Last edited:
Razor Knight said:
Some of Jupiter's satellites are larger than the Earth too, does that mean that the Earth should also be called a "satellite"?
Click to expand...

i think your getting a bit mixed up. only one of jupiters moons is larger than a planet, that being ganymede. its larger than mercury who is the smallest of the 8 original planets with a volume of 6.083x10 km3, or 0.056 earths. ganymede on the other hand has a volume of 7.6x10 km3 and in diameter is 8% larger than mercury so that is 1 out of 2 of the moons i know of that are larger than a planet (the other being titan which is larger than mercury in volume) so there you have it, only 2 moons are larger than a normal planet in our solar system but are nowhere near as large as earth
 
Welp, Sailor Pluto will be happy again! I'm surprised it took this long for it to be re-classified.
 
Scientists: Gais ders a buncha other plutos so pluto not plant no more k.

Scientists: JK GAIS PLOOTo is plnet agin leES HAVE A PRTY.

....Really though, I know there are many, many qualities that affect the classification of a planet, and it's interesting to see that my favorite distant space ball is a planet again.
 
What even defines a planet anyway? Is it like any measurement system with arbitrary-but-standardized units, or is there some threshold in mass that a celestial body needs before it makes a gravity well capable of trapping dissidents retaining atmosphere or something?
 
hamstar said:
What even defines a planet anyway? Is it like any measurement system with arbitrary-but-standardized units, or is there some threshold in mass that a celestial body needs before it makes a gravity well capable of trapping dissidents retaining atmosphere or something?
Click to expand...
It's actually flawed, Earth and Saturn have nothing in common yet both of them are planets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom