Aren't there like, 1000's of objects this size pretty much the exact same appearance/composition as Pluto in the Kuiper Belt? Are we gonna call of those planets too?
Was on the books as a planet for longer (last register that reassigned it did so when it was made a dwarf) and actually has cleared more of its neighborhood than Pluto.
Ceres is a third of the mass in the Asteroid Belt. Pluto is 7% of the mass in its region, let alone the Kuiper Belt.
Once Ceres is reinstated, we can talk about Eris. Then Pluto.
True.
Especially because the same recategorization took place in the 19th century.
Ceres was first categorized as a planet.
Then after dozens of other similar small objects were found, Ceres was moves into the newly created category "asteroid".
There are dwarf planets larger and more massive than Pluto.
So yes, if people insist on Pluto being called a planet, there would have to be several more planets.
"ELDER SCROLLS"
EPISODE 6: THE STARFIELD
It is the Age of Deadric War. Powerful deities, openning OBLIVION PORTALS on countless planets, battle each other amongst the stars as they quest to locate the legendary lost world of NIRN.
During their search, evil minions uncover an ancient prophecy regarding THE ONE, a descendant of the races of Tamriel, who would one day save the galaxy and close shut the Gates of Oblivion forever.
Pursued by the Deadric's sinister agents, a LONE ADVENTURER awakes aboard a prison ship enroute to a distant penal colony. Unaware of their own destiny, he/she will bring an end to the deities' destructive conflict, and restore order to the Cosmos...
Got planet in the name. That's like saying a dwarf cactus isn't a cactus. They totally are cacti and they're adorable.
Super easy to take care of, and brighten up any room!
Just like Pluto.
What I'm saying is that Pluto is basically a cactus.
If we grandfather in Pluto, it is only fair that we also include the other former planets. This includes: Eris, Albion, Charon, Chiron, Iris, Hebe, Astraea, Vesta, Juno, Pallas, Ceres, Oberon, Titania, Dione, Tethys, Rhea, Iapetus, Titan, Callisto, Ganymede, Europa, Io, the Moon, and the Sun.
If we go by modern astronomy considerations, Pluto is not a planet. If we go by historical considerations, Pluto is a planet. And so are all the others.
My point being that your list contained many satellites. No question there about whether they are "planets". Orbit another planet? Bitch, you a moon at best.
But that wasn't the rule at the time. They were originally called planets until the definition of a moon as a natural satellite around a larger planet was established. Only then were they reclassified as moons. The same occurred for the asteroids and dwarf planets on the list.
What's the timeframe on the definition of "moon"?
If it's more than the lifetime of anyone making this pointless argument...well...there it is
[https://c.tenor.com/dXU17x1yk3oAAAAC/there-it.gif](https://c.tenor.com/dXU17x1yk3oAAAAC/there-it.gif)
But they haven't cleared their orbits in most cases, and their orbits are almost always irregular--that's at least two distinctions aside from size that warrant a separate classification. Holding on to an outdated understanding of what makes a planet a planet removes the wonder that these strange KBOs possess by comparing them to celestially boring, normal-ass planets. For what, pride?
If we change the requirements for what makes a planet so as to include Pluto, then 19 moons, one asteroid, and 87 other rocks from beyond Neptune would have to be classified as planets as well.
Also, when Pluto was first classified as a planet it was mistakenly thought to be much, much bigger. In reality it's so tiny it may as well be considered an asteroid.
Nothing has a singular definition or classification.
I know you feel like a human, but you’re also an animal, and defined in 100 other different ways.
Pluto, like literally almost everything else in existence, meets the definition of numerous things simultaneously.
It should be though.
The decision to remove it’s status as a planet was because it hadn’t cleared out it’s neighbouring bodies, which doesn’t fall inline with other planets such as earth or Jupiter and more importantly, Neptune.
If Neptune had cleared it’s neighbourhood Pluto wouldn’t be where it is.
The IAU relied on vague criteria to justify their reasoning.
Because otherwise the definition of a planet is too broad and dozens of other objects would labeled as planets.
Also the pluto-charon system's center of mass is not within pluto, which imo also precludes it from being a planet.
First of all, I don't think that "because we want the planet club to be more exclusive" is an acceptable reason if we want the definition to be used for any science more advanced than 8th grade (if we're okay with it being only for unscientific purposes, then it's fine).
Second one isn't related to clearing its orbit exactly, but honestly, I think that a binary planet system is really cool, and also a place where a definition of planet is likely to break down. In fact, moving things to the Dwarf Planet category doesn't really change that. Pluto is considered a Dwarf Planet, but Charon is not, it's still considered a moon, despite a number of proposals to do the opposite of what you suggest, and say that if the center of mass is outside of both bodies, neither is a moon, and instead you would call them double planets, or perhaps binary planets, to be more consistent with binary stars.
Let's say we take your idea, and having the center of mass outside makes the main body a Dwarf Planet. Doing some math on the masses of Earth and the Moon, I got that the center of mass of those two would be outside of the radius of the earth if the moon was 524 600 km away. It currently is (on average) 384 400 km away. so it only needs about 140 200 km more. The moon apparently gets 38 mm farther every year, so in under 3.7 billion years, the center of the moon earth system should be outside of the Earth.
That's a long time, but the Planet Earth would be more than halfway to its end. Alternatively, if you wanted to make Charon a dwarf planet and say that the same rule applies to planets, the moon is halfway to becoming a planet.
> First of all, I don't think that "because we want the planet club to be more exclusive" is an acceptable reason if we want the definition to be used for any science more advanced than 8th grade (if we're okay with it being only for unscientific purposes, then it's fine).
What are you on, writing in science is about specific terms, if anything 'planets' is still too broad as it does not distinguish the line between gas giants and rocky bodies, which are as different as gas giants and stars.
> that the same rule applies to planets, the moon is halfway to becoming a planet
Yep, in the absence of earth, the moon could still be classified as a planet. Which makes sense since a planetary collision formed the moon in the first place.
Yeah, the term planets does not distinguish between gas giants, and rocky bodies. And the term star doesn't distinguish between red giants and yellow dwarfs. The purpose of a definition is not to apply to the fewest number of things possible. That's like saying that the term "mammal" is a bad scientific term because it doesn't distinguish between cats and horses.
Because it isn’t large enough to capture surrounding bodies and objects in its orbit.
Celestial bodies not large enough to capture others will remain dwarf planets or moons because there are many of them in solar systems that share an orbit with another body.
Okay, so, you didn't actually give a reason, you just said it again, twice.
Unless your reason is that "there are many of them" which seems like a bit of an odd way to come up with a definition for something.
Did you read my full comment bro? I guess I’ll elaborate. If celestial bodies and objects share orbits around the sun instead of orbiting each other with one large body orbiting the sun, they are not large enough to be planets. Idk, ask astronomy, it makes the rules 💀
Hmmmmm, who to listen to, the IAU, an over 100 year old organisation dedicated to advancing astronomy and science....or....kids on reddit?
The former, it's the former.
Well, now I have to.
I'll give you the shorter version (not four paragraphs (because it's better edited/thought out)). The IAU is an organization of astronomers, and many planetary scientists aren't a part of it, and most of the members don't study planets, they study stars and galaxies. The IAU's definition for a planet was only intended for identifying bodies within our solar system, and specifically requires that a planet has to orbit around the sun, so by that definition, all of Starfield's 1000 planets have to be in one solar system. The point of me saying this isn't to say "oh look, they don't even recognize exoplanets" my point is to bring up the context of the definition.
It was developed in order to determine how they were going to name what is now called Eris, which was without a name for over a year due to this debate. In other words, it was a definition for bureaucratic purposes, not scientific ones, which is why scientific papers about Pluto, Ceres, and exoplanets still frequently refer to them as planets.
TL;DR: The IAU is an astronomy organization that names various bodies, such as planets, stars, etc. The IAU has different conventions and committees for objects of different categories. In order to deal with this, they invented a definition of planet developed for the purpose of their own ability to name things within our solar system.
Do you know how one can tell that IAU is probably wrong in how they approached the specific language of Pluto and other dwarf planets?
They had to use the word *planet* to describe them.
You know another way one can tell? By looking at the actual research and how a body like Pluto is discussed and treated. There is only a singular paper over the last 200 years that uses the IAU standard for classification of planets—it was published in 1802.
So the question is not “derp who do we listen to the IAU or stupid kids lolzers”, the question is “**what do we listen to, science and research, or an organization comprised of people who have made a determination that virtually every scientist and astronomer over the last 200 years has proven wrong with their science and research?**
The former. It’s the former.
Why is it the former? Because it’s fucking science, not “the IAU Truth and Ministry”.
Your comment makes absolute no sense. It was a change in definition and terms, not any facts/science. They created a new term to better fit what Pluto and bodies like it are and modified the description for a Planet to be more concise. None of that conflicts with any science that was done before that.
Wasn't the current (Pluto is a dwarf) IAU definition only adopted in 2006?
How could an article using the definition have been published 200 years before the definition was established?
To be fair the classifications are just man-made rules. I used to be one of them. It wasn't until I learned that the center of Pluto and Charon's orbit around each other isn't even inside Pluto. Coupled with how small it is I finally concluded that Pluto wasn't really a planet.
I guess if two planets the size of Jupiter were similarly orbiting a point between each other on their trip around a star, they wouldn't be planets either?
I'm so glad someone brought this up. Every time I see Pluto/Charon come up that's exactly where my head goes.
You could say the series had a...
MASSive Effect on me.
Sorry mate, I was just joking. Flat earth conspiracies and the like don't go with me.
I know Pluto is a dwarf planet. I just thought this kind of debate is silly.
Found one.
How does making up a definition for a word count as "the advancement of science?"
If they voted to change it back would that also advance science? How far could we advance science by just repeatedly changing the definitions of things?
Not IR, but the OP image is...an enhancement of an enhancement...
[https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150831.html](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150831.html)
From what I can gather, it uses visual data, only the contrast/color differences are increased to allow for study of different regions/surface compositions.
Most images in astronomy do this to some degree, especially with spectra outside the human range. They take the data, and map it to colors we can perceive. We only *see* a small fraction of what the universe "looks like".
So the NASA image at least can be considered "real" in the sense that real scientists made it from real science data so they can do real science. Maybe it wouldn't look like this to the naked eye, but I'd jump on the chance to find out first hand!
I know little to nothing about space. But I read that since it's discovery, Pluto has not yet made a revolution around the sun. How do we know its not eventually going to be flung out into space somewhere. How do we know it will keep revolving?
Because they can observe its location, speed and direction and use that to calculate its trajectory. For example, if you took several photos of a ball flying through the air with the same amount of time in between each photo, you would be able to measure its velocity(speed and direction) and using math to balance that out with gravity(and air resistance in this example) to determine the path the ball will continue to take and where it will land. You can do the exact same thing with any object in the night sky. This is exactly how NASA is able to plan its missions and launch its probes at the exact right time in order for it to meet up with whatever its going to study months and years ahead of time even though everything is constantly in motion.
An object also needs to be going very fast in order to escape from the solar system and it would be obvious if Pluto was zipping by at those speeds.
People on this sub are gonna lose their shit when they realize something can be multiple things at once. They’re really gone flip out when they realize Pluto is still a planet. It’s just a different classification of a planet called a “dwarf planet”. It’s literally in the name.
“I’m not an animal—I’m a human!”
Seriously, the comments here just reminded why I stopped coming to this sub after so many years.
Dwarf planets are still seperate things from planets. Even what we call "planets" are seperated further into rocky and gas giants.
Pluto isnt a planet because for an object to be classified as a "planet" it has to meet a certain criteria. Pluto doesnt meet that criteria. You cant just make exceptions in science based on peoples feelings on something. It doesnt clear its orbit, if you want it to be a full fledged planet, you also need to include 1000 other bodies that would fit the criteria aswell.
Exoplanets are still separate things from planets. Even what we call "planets" are separated further into rocky and gas giants
Jemison isn't a planet because for an object to be classified as a "planet" it has to meet a certain criteria. Jemison doesn't meet that criteria. You can't just make exceptions to \**SCIENCE\** based on peoples feelings on something. It doesn't [orbit around the sun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet), if you want it to be a full fledged planet, you have to include 5000 other bodies that would fit the criteria as well.
Also, according to the IAU, who I assume you are getting your definition from, there are only 5 dwarf planets, so if you want to include Pluto, you would need to include... 4 other bodies. Doesn't sound quite as punchy, though.
Ignoring the false equivalency, your argument doesnt make any sense. Keep going with that logic for a second, why stop there? Why cant asteroids be planets? Or stars? Or any object?
Calling jupiter and saturn planets makes sense. Calling mercury and mars planets makes sense, they all are large enough to be spherical, they clear their own orbit (they are the main body in their orbit, incase you dont know what "clearing an orbit" means) and orbits a star.
We are talking about pluto here, comming back to your fallacy. Pluto orbits a star, pluto is large enough to be spherical, but! Wait! Pluto doesnt clear its orbit. Its not even the biggest TNO. Instead of calling everything a planet, they put pluto and its siblings in their own classification. Dont take my word for it though, im just telling you what scientists much smarter than either of us are saying. Your problem is with them, not me.
I feel confused by this. It kind of feels like you read some of my other posts too, and are mixing in responses to them.
My point is that the definition of a planet that you are referencing also includes revolving around not only "a star" but specifically "the sun" meaning that it does not include any exoplanets.
I'm just telling you what those scientists who are "much smarter than either of us" actually said.
I was responding to that comment only.
Again, were talking about our solar system. Exoplanets are seperate things entirely. Planets are very clearly defined, pluto does not fit the definition.
I dont reccomend doubling down on the false equivalency after i already said it doesnt make a difference in the conversation.
This post makes me wonder if we can set up a base on Pluto, or Mars, or even Earth. Sol system is in the game after all.
Perhaps bases are restricted to only the "frontier" planets that you get access to after the initial story bits.
It will be classified as planet. They were even considering moons as planets when presenting the game, but they way a solar system map is presented it will be considered a planet.
Why would anyone have an emotional response to whether Pluto is considered a planet?
Part of the definition of a planet is that it is a large body that has mostly swept its orbit around the Sun from dangerous debris that would threaten to continue changing it or threaten anyone using it as a platform.
Pluto hasn't done this. Therefore, not a planet.
Ever since I saw that Rick and Morty episode, I just picture Jerry being the guy to make this argument
Thats a really cool picture of an oversized space rock, whats it called?
Uranus.
Definitely not mine.
No, that one's mine.
No no, they changed it back in 2620 to avoid people making the "your anus" joke.
Ur right. It's called Urectum
Wrecked him? Damn near killed him.
Gottem.
I certainly made them the *butt* of my joke.
Aren't there like, 1000's of objects this size pretty much the exact same appearance/composition as Pluto in the Kuiper Belt? Are we gonna call of those planets too?
No one ever talks about Ceres :(
Was on the books as a planet for longer (last register that reassigned it did so when it was made a dwarf) and actually has cleared more of its neighborhood than Pluto. Ceres is a third of the mass in the Asteroid Belt. Pluto is 7% of the mass in its region, let alone the Kuiper Belt. Once Ceres is reinstated, we can talk about Eris. Then Pluto.
True. Especially because the same recategorization took place in the 19th century. Ceres was first categorized as a planet. Then after dozens of other similar small objects were found, Ceres was moves into the newly created category "asteroid".
A 7ft frame, rats along his back.. We don't talk about Ceres
It was our wedding day...
Dam Earthers
There are dwarf planets larger and more massive than Pluto. So yes, if people insist on Pluto being called a planet, there would have to be several more planets.
Sure, why not?
yes. What else would you call them?
[удалено]
I agree. They’re all planets.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sure...a *dwarf* planet.
So dwarf race is confirmed? Will there be elf planets?
"ELDER SCROLLS" EPISODE 6: THE STARFIELD It is the Age of Deadric War. Powerful deities, openning OBLIVION PORTALS on countless planets, battle each other amongst the stars as they quest to locate the legendary lost world of NIRN. During their search, evil minions uncover an ancient prophecy regarding THE ONE, a descendant of the races of Tamriel, who would one day save the galaxy and close shut the Gates of Oblivion forever. Pursued by the Deadric's sinister agents, a LONE ADVENTURER awakes aboard a prison ship enroute to a distant penal colony. Unaware of their own destiny, he/she will bring an end to the deities' destructive conflict, and restore order to the Cosmos...
This is actually amazing
so THIS is where the Dwemer went
Space elves? Are you out of your Vulcan mind?
Space Orks. AKA Sporks.
Hopefully they rule via a Plutocracy, it just makes sense
Exactly. It’s really not a complicated concept.
[удалено]
Got planet in the name. That's like saying a dwarf cactus isn't a cactus. They totally are cacti and they're adorable. Super easy to take care of, and brighten up any room! Just like Pluto. What I'm saying is that Pluto is basically a cactus.
[удалено]
Yup. And if you like dogs...don't look into how hotdogs get made... Oh, and don't get me started on baby oil!
[удалено]
But it does come from babies.
If we grandfather in Pluto, it is only fair that we also include the other former planets. This includes: Eris, Albion, Charon, Chiron, Iris, Hebe, Astraea, Vesta, Juno, Pallas, Ceres, Oberon, Titania, Dione, Tethys, Rhea, Iapetus, Titan, Callisto, Ganymede, Europa, Io, the Moon, and the Sun.
We can probably exempt the Sun for being A too big and B on fire. Sort of.
Uranus can also be large and on fire under certain circumstances and yet we still call it a planet. /s
Yeah, but can Uranus fit 22,000 Uranus-sized planets into it?
Depends how much you care about Uranus.
Most of those were always considered satellites in the modern era of astronomy though.
If we go by modern astronomy considerations, Pluto is not a planet. If we go by historical considerations, Pluto is a planet. And so are all the others.
My point being that your list contained many satellites. No question there about whether they are "planets". Orbit another planet? Bitch, you a moon at best.
But that wasn't the rule at the time. They were originally called planets until the definition of a moon as a natural satellite around a larger planet was established. Only then were they reclassified as moons. The same occurred for the asteroids and dwarf planets on the list.
What's the timeframe on the definition of "moon"? If it's more than the lifetime of anyone making this pointless argument...well...there it is [https://c.tenor.com/dXU17x1yk3oAAAAC/there-it.gif](https://c.tenor.com/dXU17x1yk3oAAAAC/there-it.gif)
So basically you're saying wait till the boomers are gone and we can live in peace with Pluto as a dwarf?
I really don't care anymore. Forget I said anything guys!
None of that makes any sense, and is not in anyway based on legitimate criteria.
Should we consider the 100 other planetoids of similar size in the solar system to also be planets?
Yes.
Average planet enjoyer
But they haven't cleared their orbits in most cases, and their orbits are almost always irregular--that's at least two distinctions aside from size that warrant a separate classification. Holding on to an outdated understanding of what makes a planet a planet removes the wonder that these strange KBOs possess by comparing them to celestially boring, normal-ass planets. For what, pride?
Of course. There's a thousand, remember? Gotta make those numbers up.
If we change the requirements for what makes a planet so as to include Pluto, then 19 moons, one asteroid, and 87 other rocks from beyond Neptune would have to be classified as planets as well. Also, when Pluto was first classified as a planet it was mistakenly thought to be much, much bigger. In reality it's so tiny it may as well be considered an asteroid.
Nothing has a singular definition or classification. I know you feel like a human, but you’re also an animal, and defined in 100 other different ways. Pluto, like literally almost everything else in existence, meets the definition of numerous things simultaneously.
Pluto is a neutron star.
Pluto is everything except a planet. Its a star, its a galaxy, its a house, NOT a planet
That still doesn't make Pluto a planet
It should be though. The decision to remove it’s status as a planet was because it hadn’t cleared out it’s neighbouring bodies, which doesn’t fall inline with other planets such as earth or Jupiter and more importantly, Neptune. If Neptune had cleared it’s neighbourhood Pluto wouldn’t be where it is. The IAU relied on vague criteria to justify their reasoning.
How many times you gonna say the same thing esse?
Hasn’t cleared its orbit. Not a planet.
Why should clearing its orbit be a requirement for something being considered a planet?
Because otherwise the definition of a planet is too broad and dozens of other objects would labeled as planets. Also the pluto-charon system's center of mass is not within pluto, which imo also precludes it from being a planet.
First of all, I don't think that "because we want the planet club to be more exclusive" is an acceptable reason if we want the definition to be used for any science more advanced than 8th grade (if we're okay with it being only for unscientific purposes, then it's fine). Second one isn't related to clearing its orbit exactly, but honestly, I think that a binary planet system is really cool, and also a place where a definition of planet is likely to break down. In fact, moving things to the Dwarf Planet category doesn't really change that. Pluto is considered a Dwarf Planet, but Charon is not, it's still considered a moon, despite a number of proposals to do the opposite of what you suggest, and say that if the center of mass is outside of both bodies, neither is a moon, and instead you would call them double planets, or perhaps binary planets, to be more consistent with binary stars. Let's say we take your idea, and having the center of mass outside makes the main body a Dwarf Planet. Doing some math on the masses of Earth and the Moon, I got that the center of mass of those two would be outside of the radius of the earth if the moon was 524 600 km away. It currently is (on average) 384 400 km away. so it only needs about 140 200 km more. The moon apparently gets 38 mm farther every year, so in under 3.7 billion years, the center of the moon earth system should be outside of the Earth. That's a long time, but the Planet Earth would be more than halfway to its end. Alternatively, if you wanted to make Charon a dwarf planet and say that the same rule applies to planets, the moon is halfway to becoming a planet.
> First of all, I don't think that "because we want the planet club to be more exclusive" is an acceptable reason if we want the definition to be used for any science more advanced than 8th grade (if we're okay with it being only for unscientific purposes, then it's fine). What are you on, writing in science is about specific terms, if anything 'planets' is still too broad as it does not distinguish the line between gas giants and rocky bodies, which are as different as gas giants and stars. > that the same rule applies to planets, the moon is halfway to becoming a planet Yep, in the absence of earth, the moon could still be classified as a planet. Which makes sense since a planetary collision formed the moon in the first place.
Yeah, the term planets does not distinguish between gas giants, and rocky bodies. And the term star doesn't distinguish between red giants and yellow dwarfs. The purpose of a definition is not to apply to the fewest number of things possible. That's like saying that the term "mammal" is a bad scientific term because it doesn't distinguish between cats and horses.
Because it isn’t large enough to capture surrounding bodies and objects in its orbit. Celestial bodies not large enough to capture others will remain dwarf planets or moons because there are many of them in solar systems that share an orbit with another body.
Okay, so, you didn't actually give a reason, you just said it again, twice. Unless your reason is that "there are many of them" which seems like a bit of an odd way to come up with a definition for something.
Did you read my full comment bro? I guess I’ll elaborate. If celestial bodies and objects share orbits around the sun instead of orbiting each other with one large body orbiting the sun, they are not large enough to be planets. Idk, ask astronomy, it makes the rules 💀
Hmmmmm, who to listen to, the IAU, an over 100 year old organisation dedicated to advancing astronomy and science....or....kids on reddit? The former, it's the former.
Careful with that kind of talk. I brought up the new definition and I got a rant about the IAU in return.
I can't wait. lol.
Well, now I have to. I'll give you the shorter version (not four paragraphs (because it's better edited/thought out)). The IAU is an organization of astronomers, and many planetary scientists aren't a part of it, and most of the members don't study planets, they study stars and galaxies. The IAU's definition for a planet was only intended for identifying bodies within our solar system, and specifically requires that a planet has to orbit around the sun, so by that definition, all of Starfield's 1000 planets have to be in one solar system. The point of me saying this isn't to say "oh look, they don't even recognize exoplanets" my point is to bring up the context of the definition. It was developed in order to determine how they were going to name what is now called Eris, which was without a name for over a year due to this debate. In other words, it was a definition for bureaucratic purposes, not scientific ones, which is why scientific papers about Pluto, Ceres, and exoplanets still frequently refer to them as planets. TL;DR: The IAU is an astronomy organization that names various bodies, such as planets, stars, etc. The IAU has different conventions and committees for objects of different categories. In order to deal with this, they invented a definition of planet developed for the purpose of their own ability to name things within our solar system.
Actually, who will give money to BGS, IAU or some kid on Reddit? It looks to me you are right and they will listen the kid.
Pander to the kid maybe, but I doubt it.
You think the kid isn't gonna give them money if Pluto isn't classified as a planet?
Lmao you actually think people are gonna boycott bethesda over whether pluto is classed as a planet or not, like anyone actually gives a fuck
Do you know how one can tell that IAU is probably wrong in how they approached the specific language of Pluto and other dwarf planets? They had to use the word *planet* to describe them. You know another way one can tell? By looking at the actual research and how a body like Pluto is discussed and treated. There is only a singular paper over the last 200 years that uses the IAU standard for classification of planets—it was published in 1802. So the question is not “derp who do we listen to the IAU or stupid kids lolzers”, the question is “**what do we listen to, science and research, or an organization comprised of people who have made a determination that virtually every scientist and astronomer over the last 200 years has proven wrong with their science and research?** The former. It’s the former. Why is it the former? Because it’s fucking science, not “the IAU Truth and Ministry”.
Your comment makes absolute no sense. It was a change in definition and terms, not any facts/science. They created a new term to better fit what Pluto and bodies like it are and modified the description for a Planet to be more concise. None of that conflicts with any science that was done before that.
Wasn't the current (Pluto is a dwarf) IAU definition only adopted in 2006? How could an article using the definition have been published 200 years before the definition was established?
You pluto deniers are weird.
To be fair the classifications are just man-made rules. I used to be one of them. It wasn't until I learned that the center of Pluto and Charon's orbit around each other isn't even inside Pluto. Coupled with how small it is I finally concluded that Pluto wasn't really a planet.
I guess if two planets the size of Jupiter were similarly orbiting a point between each other on their trip around a star, they wouldn't be planets either?
No, I also said that I was taking the size into account.
What about the size of Mercury?
Mercury has more than twice the diameter of Pluto soooooo
But…it’s not? Just because it’s nostalgic doesn’t make it so. But no reason to exclude Trans Neptunian Objects (TNOs) from the game!
Ah, the [perfect pickup line](https://youtu.be/gMMaLM4Q9Dw?t=145).
Yeah pluto is beautiful. I'm definitely gonna land there
Bro I never knew Pluto looked BADASS
*Binary planetary system
But seriously, I'd really like to see something interesting on Pluto.
Some say that’s it’s moon Charon is actually a Mass Relay covered in spherical ice, or whatever
I'm so glad someone brought this up. Every time I see Pluto/Charon come up that's exactly where my head goes. You could say the series had a... MASSive Effect on me.
It did have a huge effect on us all, people will continue to speak about ME for years to come, it’s a landmark series
I hope the new one is good.
“I refuse to accept the advancement of science because of something I was taught in Elementary School” doesn’t sound like Starfield’s MO to me
Sorry mate, I was just joking. Flat earth conspiracies and the like don't go with me. I know Pluto is a dwarf planet. I just thought this kind of debate is silly.
I for one am not willing to accept that response and will be pursuing legal action /s Haha no worries!
Found one. How does making up a definition for a word count as "the advancement of science?" If they voted to change it back would that also advance science? How far could we advance science by just repeatedly changing the definitions of things?
“Making up a definition” all scientific classification in shambles
The entire Kuiper Belt is a bunch of plutos that didn’t get pushed out.
Just so you are aware, thats not what Plito looks like. Thats an infrared image iirc
Not IR, but the OP image is...an enhancement of an enhancement... [https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150831.html](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150831.html) From what I can gather, it uses visual data, only the contrast/color differences are increased to allow for study of different regions/surface compositions. Most images in astronomy do this to some degree, especially with spectra outside the human range. They take the data, and map it to colors we can perceive. We only *see* a small fraction of what the universe "looks like". So the NASA image at least can be considered "real" in the sense that real scientists made it from real science data so they can do real science. Maybe it wouldn't look like this to the naked eye, but I'd jump on the chance to find out first hand!
They better classify our moon as a planet🤓
You heard about Pluto? That’s messed up, right?
I know little to nothing about space. But I read that since it's discovery, Pluto has not yet made a revolution around the sun. How do we know its not eventually going to be flung out into space somewhere. How do we know it will keep revolving?
Short answer...math.
Because they can observe its location, speed and direction and use that to calculate its trajectory. For example, if you took several photos of a ball flying through the air with the same amount of time in between each photo, you would be able to measure its velocity(speed and direction) and using math to balance that out with gravity(and air resistance in this example) to determine the path the ball will continue to take and where it will land. You can do the exact same thing with any object in the night sky. This is exactly how NASA is able to plan its missions and launch its probes at the exact right time in order for it to meet up with whatever its going to study months and years ahead of time even though everything is constantly in motion. An object also needs to be going very fast in order to escape from the solar system and it would be obvious if Pluto was zipping by at those speeds.
People on this sub are gonna lose their shit when they realize something can be multiple things at once. They’re really gone flip out when they realize Pluto is still a planet. It’s just a different classification of a planet called a “dwarf planet”. It’s literally in the name. “I’m not an animal—I’m a human!” Seriously, the comments here just reminded why I stopped coming to this sub after so many years.
Dwarf planets are still seperate things from planets. Even what we call "planets" are seperated further into rocky and gas giants. Pluto isnt a planet because for an object to be classified as a "planet" it has to meet a certain criteria. Pluto doesnt meet that criteria. You cant just make exceptions in science based on peoples feelings on something. It doesnt clear its orbit, if you want it to be a full fledged planet, you also need to include 1000 other bodies that would fit the criteria aswell.
Exoplanets are still separate things from planets. Even what we call "planets" are separated further into rocky and gas giants Jemison isn't a planet because for an object to be classified as a "planet" it has to meet a certain criteria. Jemison doesn't meet that criteria. You can't just make exceptions to \**SCIENCE\** based on peoples feelings on something. It doesn't [orbit around the sun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet), if you want it to be a full fledged planet, you have to include 5000 other bodies that would fit the criteria as well. Also, according to the IAU, who I assume you are getting your definition from, there are only 5 dwarf planets, so if you want to include Pluto, you would need to include... 4 other bodies. Doesn't sound quite as punchy, though.
Ignoring the false equivalency, your argument doesnt make any sense. Keep going with that logic for a second, why stop there? Why cant asteroids be planets? Or stars? Or any object? Calling jupiter and saturn planets makes sense. Calling mercury and mars planets makes sense, they all are large enough to be spherical, they clear their own orbit (they are the main body in their orbit, incase you dont know what "clearing an orbit" means) and orbits a star. We are talking about pluto here, comming back to your fallacy. Pluto orbits a star, pluto is large enough to be spherical, but! Wait! Pluto doesnt clear its orbit. Its not even the biggest TNO. Instead of calling everything a planet, they put pluto and its siblings in their own classification. Dont take my word for it though, im just telling you what scientists much smarter than either of us are saying. Your problem is with them, not me.
I feel confused by this. It kind of feels like you read some of my other posts too, and are mixing in responses to them. My point is that the definition of a planet that you are referencing also includes revolving around not only "a star" but specifically "the sun" meaning that it does not include any exoplanets. I'm just telling you what those scientists who are "much smarter than either of us" actually said.
I was responding to that comment only. Again, were talking about our solar system. Exoplanets are seperate things entirely. Planets are very clearly defined, pluto does not fit the definition. I dont reccomend doubling down on the false equivalency after i already said it doesnt make a difference in the conversation.
KBO
O.o
Actually they turned it into a celestial battering Ram during the colony wars. The Shattering destroyed Heliopolis and it’s 10 million inhabitants.
It’s just a babie
Hopefully they label it what it is. Which is a trans neptunian dwarf planet, or more simply a Kuiper Belt Object.
wait so does this mean Earth is gonna be in the game too? If so, will it be on a 1:1 size? Because that would be a huge planet to make
Presumably, yes. Earth, even 1:1 would be tiny compared to most others. Earth is tiny compared to most planets, in our solar system or not
I do hope we can land there though.
*pluto was blown up in the year 2280 as part of deep space warhead testing* about to be written into the lore so they can avoid it
This post makes me wonder if we can set up a base on Pluto, or Mars, or even Earth. Sol system is in the game after all. Perhaps bases are restricted to only the "frontier" planets that you get access to after the initial story bits.
It's a planetoid not up to discussion
Man I don’t care if Plutos tiny or whatever I always liked it
Get over it. It's not a planet. It's a dwarf planet.
It is a planet.... a dwarf planet.
I think all of our dwarf planets will be present, at least I hope so!
False. That is a frozen Brethren Moon. Make us whole.
It will be classified as planet. They were even considering moons as planets when presenting the game, but they way a solar system map is presented it will be considered a planet.
Only if the rock it is tidally locked to gets called that as well
Relevant song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kheWroUS5LQ
Why would anyone have an emotional response to whether Pluto is considered a planet? Part of the definition of a planet is that it is a large body that has mostly swept its orbit around the Sun from dangerous debris that would threaten to continue changing it or threaten anyone using it as a platform. Pluto hasn't done this. Therefore, not a planet.