Pluto is a Planet!

Yep! Agreed.
Except for the Trans-Neptunians which aren't spherical.
And Nibiru. If planet 10 exists, the name shouldn't encourage the fruitcakes.

Remember those comets which smashed into Jupiter?
Jupiter hasn't "cleared out its orbit"
Ergo, Jupiter is not a planet.

I go with the "spherical but too small to be a star" definition. However, if there are multiple bodies which fit that definition but are gravitationally bound, only the most massive one gets to be a "planet". That eliminates moons and Trojans. Should serve unambiguously until someone finds an extra-Solar binary (like Pluto and Charon, but too equal in mass to be sure which is which.)

You know what? I want to see the IAU do this, just to piss off students who are learning the solar system.

Pluto is a dog. Now fuck off.

Attached: 1483468548444.png (680x640, 643K)

You must be qualified to say what is and isn't a planet. Do you have the qualifications?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exceptional_asteroids

Pluto is about 1,476 miles wide.
Ceres, the largest asteroid, is about 588 miles wide.
Mercury is 3,031 miles wide.

Is Mercury is a planet and Pluto isn't a planet, going by diameter and orbit, then what diameter is the cut off point if the orbit is correct?

Attached: 1490979759989.png (1332x1856, 315K)

Is it is hydrostatic equilibrium (collapsed into a spheroid)?
Is it orbiting a star?
Is it dominant over all other objects crossing its orbit?

If yes to all three then it's a planet.

If no to #1 it's an asteroid/comet/space debris.

If no to #2 it's a moon.

If no to #3 it's a dwarf planet.

If Pluto orbited between Uranus and Neptune it would be a planet. However it crosses orbits with Neptune, which is thousands of times more massive and has forced Pluto into a resonance orbit. Therefore Pluto fails #3 and is a dwarf planet.
Ceres orbits the sun between Mars and Jupiter but has not forced the asteroid so the asteroid belt into resonances with it, meaning it is not dominant in its orbit and is not a planet.

Simple. Stop arguing from emotion, Pluto exists no matter what we call it, it's a dwarf planet because those objects are distinct from planets.

Do you think space gives a flying fuck what a few irrelevant microbes in some fancy building say?

When the time comes that we do start colonising other worlds and even other systems it'll all be consigned to the history books anyway.

This definition is made up. Use a different definition, and Pluto is a planet.

'Omuamua is a planet

>planet makemake
did some hawaiian faggot point at it and go "MMMMMMM makemake au i kela"

This definition doesn't work and must be changed. Even the IAU admits that it's a flawed definition and in the future they'll need to change it.

The problem is that we've discovered too much about our own solar system from studying other solar systems to let this definition alone.

Case in point. Our solar system, like other solar systems we have discovered since the IAU made that list of claims is dominated by 1 member: Jupiter. All planets are in resonance with IT with Saturn pulling just enough to prevent Jupiter from entering the inner solar system to become a 'Hot Jupiter'. Solar systems are not designed like clockwork but like billiard balls with planets flying about changing orbits, ejecting members, and throwing debris about like a Chimpanzee on a poo flinging tantrum.

Earth is not special and unique in its orbit. It has not cleared its orbit, Jupiter cleared its orbit. By the IAU's own definitions the only two planets in the solar system are Jupiter and maybe a case can be made for Saturn.

>Pluto is a Planet!

>Pluto is a dog.

Attached: Mickey Mouse & Pluto.png (524x497, 99K)

Attached: Pluto.jpg (1600x900, 86K)

it's a heart shape

>sci fag denies races
>sci fag goes estrogen crazy
sci fag is not a sci

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you hated science.

But most importantly, it's real.

There you go :-)

>However it crosses orbits with Neptune, which is thousands of times more massive and has forced Pluto into a resonance orbit.

LMAO and thus neptune hasn't cleared it's orbital space either, every 228 years pluto fucks with it for 20

>Remember those comets which smashed into Jupiter?
That comet was crossing Jupiter's orbit. By that logic every comet crossing a planet's orbit would invalidate the planet, which would be dumb.

Clearing the orbit doesn't mean removing every single piece of rock from it, either. It's removing competition.

yep it's an ignorant new definition - probably juvenile assholes arguing for dominance

Pluto rounds out from it's own gravity and orbits the sun, even on it's own 17 degree offset plane...

Ignorance is the new science

it's not really ... clear....which way one - should go

Attached: HUBBLE NON PLANET.png (760x462, 282K)

Yet the barycenter of Pluto and Charon is outside of Pluto, and that's part of the reason why Pluto isn't considered as clearing it's orbit.

Could be better off calling it a binary dwarf planet.

This has nothing to do with hating science. Scientists do not have monopoly on defining language, and I'm not denying any scientific discoveries. You guys are so entitled, I am in my full right to say Pluto is a planet and you have no basis to say I'm wrong.
Pluto did not change when the new definition of planet was made, Pluto is still the same it has always been, and if you want to, you can include what Pluto is and was in your definition of the word "planet", and no one can tell you you're wrong.

the sun-vs-planets barycenter spends much of its time outside the sun, except for the times when jupiter and saturn are at opposite sides canceling each other out

>I go with the "spherical but too small to be a star" definition. However, if there are multiple bodies which fit that definition but are gravitationally bound, only the most massive one gets to be a "planet". That eliminates moons and Trojans. Should serve unambiguously until someone finds an extra-Solar binary (like Pluto and Charon, but too equal in mass to be sure which is which.)

here

I accept that amendment. Don't worry about the issues of potential double planets. If we find any, we can just call them that, and neither is a moon.

OK. et me know when it becomes a problem. It seems like an issue that would not last long.

>Words can only man one thing.

>This definition is made up.
They all are.

By definition.

Dumbest post I've seen today.

Scientific definitions are as open to modification as any other. When the IAU revised the definition of "planet" and Pluto as excluded, di they "hate science" too?

I don't see "did the planet clear it's orbit" as one of the requirements for being a planet. You just made up a requirement and then added it to a list and then called that list stupid because of the item you added.

>Scientists do not have monopoly on defining language
>You can't say I'm wrong when I tell you osmosis is the process by which steam turns into liquid water. It is my personal definition of the word.

it's the 4th line of the wikipedia article on planets

Unfortunately the lines preceding it are not in the post you replied to.

If Charon was a bit smaller that issue would be null. Another rather foolish maneuver.
Not to mention there are five known natural satellites, not just charon.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, and stupid.

>ouch! he's injured, medic ! medic !

yes, they most likely hated the disgusting dispute board and time spent there - and the planet defenders certainly did and do

>Earth is not special and unique in its orbit. It has not cleared its orbit, Jupiter cleared its orbit. By the IAU's own definitions the only two planets in the solar system are Jupiter and maybe a case can be made for Saturn.

LMMFAO - "modern science" the place where retards dwell.

Kudos to you.

(1) A planet is a celestial body that
(a)is in orbit around the Sun,
(b)has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape,
and
(c)has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

LOL exact quote - clearing the neighborhood... LMMFAO

another big blabbermouth dumb lazy fuck

The previous theory that Pluto was a planet was disproven. This is how science works - new data comes in and is interpreted in the light of new understanding. Claiming that Pluto is a planet is no different from denying plate tectonics.

>I accept that amendment. Don't worry about the issues of potential double planets. If we find any, we can just call them that, and neither is a moon.

Maybe we have to call the smaller of the two a planesat, the larger a planet, which would eliminate "moon" which is essentially called a "satellite" anyway already.

A planesat is the smaller object that has rounded from it's own gravity - it's still a fuzzy unsatisfactory conundrum.

Pluto is a planet with 5 moons (satellites) on it's own orbit of the sun with a 17% offset from the normalized solar system orbiting plane - they really fucked it up

plate tectonics is all fucked up with exaggerations.

>gravitationally bound

Then you run into the defintion of what does gravitationally bound mean. Does being in resonance count? No, the best solution is to define planets specifically as the classical 8, and simply refer to extrasolar planets in some different way. Perhaps "sub-nuclear planet-like bodies"

Pluto is dually(mutually) tidally locked with Charon.
Thus both their planetary faces face each other from the same point all the time - the revolution of Pluto coincides with Charon's

I'd call that a special case, however, the claim is it takes a long time to occur - that they were out of sink for millions of years- so then again not a special case...just an indicator of long age or long ago formation, etc

So I'd have to discard mutually tidally locked as part of the answer for is it a planet.

>The previous theory that Pluto was a planet was disproven. This is how science works

No actually it wasn't, what we have is a political answer, or mere retardation of the committee in a group think nightmare

for idiots, "it's science" is always the answer, the appeal to an authority

oh boy...
" Despite its massive size, the Kuiper Belt wasn't discovered until 1992 by Dave Jewitt and Jane Luu. "

yeah whatever....

Attached: oort cloud kuiper belt pluto planet nine.jpg (1631x1400, 375K)

just think, 2 trillion objects surrounding our solar system and hubble "peers through them" - prior to 1992 those 2 trillion objects were not discovered...

LMAO - what a mess

" Where is the Oort Cloud located

It is believed that the Oort Cloud occupies an enormous space starting between 2,000-5,000 AU from the Sun and stretching out to as far as 50,000 AU – around 7.5 trillion kilometres. This is about a quarter of the distance to the nearest star, Proxima Centauri. "

ALSO : Astronomers are now hunting in the Kuiper Belt for a so-called "Planet Nine," a hypothetical world in the Kuiper Belt, after evidence of its existence was unveiled on Jan. 20, 2016. It is thought to be about 10 times the mass of Earth and 5,000 times the mass of Pluto. :

So, when this gigantic object (some have said binary) is finally located by our blind scientific elite, it won't be a planet, it "didn't clear the neighborhood"

IDIOTS - what about the asteroid belt in our inner solar system - OH NEVER MIND THAT DOESN'T COUNT...
stupid fuckers, you just want to crack em upside their dumb noggins

what are you going to do when planet 9, many times the size of earth is clearly pinpointed and "discovered" ?

Why would Pluto be required to clear the kuiper belt when it's not on the same plane ? Why isn't the inner asteroid belt counted ?

Too much foolishness has gone on. It's some political consideration for disabled dwarfs or some crap - who knows why they went bonkers - if they hadn't there wouldn't be any controversy

neptune is 30 au, pluto 39 away - the whole idiot scheme is a joke

Time to grow up fucktards
Your superiors on scientific committees and bodies have a propensity to fuck it all up
Consensus is not science, declarations ill considered need to be beaten down and changed

The difference between your definitions in theirs, is that a planet can't part of an asteroid field and can't have an equatorial orbit.

In the case of Pluto, in addition to not even being the largest object in the kuiper asteroid belt, it also is in double orbit with Charon - which mean it's technically a moon to boot.

Kids in the early 1800's used to have to memorize 17 planets, because we didn't there was an asteroid belt there. Oddly, they didn't get buthurt about this.

If everything in the asteroid belts is a planet, then you're looking at tens of thousands of planets, with a half dozen new ones being discovered every year.

Attached: so all these are planets.webm (1920x1080, 2.91M)

>Kids in the early 1800's used to have to memorize 17 planets
LMAO
NO
not discovered, u poor billy goat

Luckily the Sun is a star, not a planet or planetoid, so it doesn't matter.

Yes, but the other four are tiny and aren't competition in the orbit.

Right now there are particles floating in front of your eyes.
Not the air molecules, bits of dust and dead skin.

What do you mean you can't see them?

>Why isn't the inner asteroid belt counted ?
There are no planets orbiting the Sun inside the asteroid belt that applies to.
Also no one is saying Pluto has to clear the entire Kupier belt.

>Yes, but the other four are tiny and aren't competition in the orbit.
LOL
but they are competition, they have a gravitational pull, they are in orbit,and none of them have anything revolving around, so we know who the DOM is... u fool.

Are you that weird motherfucker who started sperging out in the thread about terraforming Mars? You have a similar typing style.

Everything has a gravitational pull.
Those clearly orbit Pluto, while Pluto and Charon orbit each other.

Why isn't Charon classified as a dwarf planet?

>Not the air molecules, bits of dust and dead skin.
>What do you mean you can't see them?

The blind is open the sunlight is present, I see them, you dumb ass.

>There are no planets orbiting the Sun inside the asteroid belt
LMAO - MORON !

Attached: asteroid belt.png (600x600, 346K)

all of those pairs you refer to orbit each other, YOU IDIOT
none of them holds a fixed position
some moron brought up barycenter earlier as an excuse, look into it shit for brains, thanks

any more morons want to blabber out a stupidty that has to be corrected, feel free, please

>Luckily the Sun is a star, not a planet or planetoid, so it doesn't matter.

The case is still retarded, two larger planets (bigger than jupiter even) could have the same situational effect with barycenters outside their mass
It's god damned ridiculous

And why would they not qualify for a binary planetary system?

>hubble
what is this, the 90s?

that's not what the governing body did, is it - that's another argument, they fucked up period

kkaaaa wote " (1) A planet
1
is a celestial body that
(a)
is in orbit aroun
d the Sun,
(b)
has suffici
ent mass for its self-gravity
to overcome rigid body forces
so that it assumes a hydrostati
c equilibrium (nearly round) shape,
and
(c)
has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. ":

just the non shoop versions, for the deceived sheep, it's another universe that never existed and still doesn't even though it does

which is real son...do you need shorn ?

Attached: hubble is pathetic.png (546x347, 245K)

It should be.
They should be a dwarf binary pair.

Why are you posting something supporting my statement?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood
ARBITRARY - a poor definition, STUPID
The IAU's definition does not attach specific numbers or equations to this term, but all the planets have cleared their neighbourhoods to a much greater extent "

>not cleared, only better
>are the non planets racist?is that the problem?
there now i'm on the tard level with the authority and their sheep

Attached: racist planets.png (1199x870, 550K)

morons deserve to be called such

"If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there"

how is it you have your DWARF ?
is it perversion, fantasy, tossing issues, arbitrary need to make put downs ?

Both Pluto and Charon go globe, so does the moon...

DWARF is another gigantic brainfart from the retards running things

>Pluto is a Planet!
Yes.

>And so is Ceres, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Sedna, etc.
Fuck you.

Planet is a social construct, and anyone who disagrees with my statements above should be beaten unconcious.

Attached: download (15).jpg (1280x720, 118K)

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Rick’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they’re not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick’s existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon’s genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them

yo momma is a planet, change my mind!

yo mamma is a planet kekekekek

you're objectively wrong

Attached: 129cc074cc98e4b0f5b954d87ba6c3b9b.jpg (591x471, 83K)

It's literally a matter of definition

Attached: otOh5Td.jpg (1049x765, 240K)

Ceres was discovered in 1801, and was considered a planet. A half dozen more were discovered soon after, and also considered planets, including Juno, Vesta, and Astraea. By 1845 we had 17 planets.

By 1868 we had over a hundred - then we discovered Neptune, and decided "fuck that noise". So, for over 150 years, planets and asteroids have been mutually exclusive. If you're part of an asteroid belt, you are not a proper planet - you're a dwarf planet at best.

There are over 300,000 asteroids now, most of which go by numbers rather than names.

Attached: ogYNh__nxzW-DjlTSlTiF0VbCnaPs7lo7JI1VT72Px8.jpg (945x680, 69K)

the average separation between Neptune/Pluto is much greater than Jupiter's separation from Mars. Jupiter hasn't cleared its neighborhood. Look at all those trojans and hildas objects

So rogue planets are moons?

Most of which are bound to it, rather than the asteroid belt, and most of them have non-solar equatorial orbits, unlike proper planets.

See the angle Pluto is taking here? One of these things is not like the others.

Attached: asteroidbelt_map.gif (509x465, 65K)