They say "Pluto's not a planet,"

Do you think that Pluto gives a shit?

Pluto is not gonna quit

'Cause Pluto can take a hit

And Pluto knows what Pluto is

And Pluto knows that Pluto's

Hot shit!

I'm only down with the "Pluto is a planet" crowd, if they rep Ceres and at least one of the others (Eris, Hamuhea, Makemake, or one of the others I forget) too.

So there's no version of the solar system where there's only 9 planets. It's 11+ lads.

Eros na gonya be on dis list no more, pampaw

The more the merrier

If Sol has a ring now, is it married?

At least Pluto is rock solid, looking at you Jupiter and Saturn. Ya'll wish you half the silicate mass!

Uranus is full of farts!

Jupiter's got diamond bones, baby.

Yeah, people don't realise that removing Pluto is the conservative choice when it comes to the list of planets.

It was the only choice if we are expecting elementary students to memorize them all in order.

I can't be the only one who hates this "omg guys Pluto has to be a planet!" meme shit that won't die.

Who fucking cares? Yes, we used to call it one thing, and now we call it something else. Get over it.

My objection to "dwarf planet" is purely a linguistically aesthetic one.

"Dwarf planet" ≠ planet

...implies...

"Dwarf person" ≠ person

...and I feel like the people under 4'10" (147 cm) would object to that distinction.

Also, "planetoid" was a perfectly cromulent word which Star Trek had been using for decades already.

Pluto is still a planet, dwarf planets are still planets just smaller.

Different meanings. "Dwarf person" = a person with dwarfism, but "dwarf planet" ≠ a planet with dwarfism.

In Illinois, we passed a law acknowledging Pluto as a planet because we are the most open and accepting state.

Did you test Pluto to make sure its not just a regularplanet with dwarfism?

There are plenty of linguistically unintuitive artifacts kicking around (a peanut is neither a pea nor a nut, a jellyfish is not a fish, all of the "berries" which aren't berries), but if we're deliberately creating brand new labels in the 21st century, it might have been nice if we'd avoided that kind of oddness, given the opportunity.

Sure, but they're fuzzy, at least the "core" is.

I'd be happy with:

Pluto = planet

Anything smaller than Pluto ≠ planet

Nine planets. Now with clear non-stupid rules.

I think I’m seeing shit

I’ve seen a perfect protostar

I’ve seen a triple quasar

But I’ve never seen a dwarf planet go this hard!

It's kind of a leap to hear "dwarf planet" and think that it's denigrating people with dwarfism in any way.

Thank you. I have a kid I work with that looooves space. To him, dwarf planets and regular planets are equally interesting. When we watch space videos that point out Pluto in some way, he’s just confused. Like a video about the 8 planets ending in a frowning Pluto.

The kid: “Why is Pluto sad?”

Me: “Well, bud, some grown ups are silly. They grew up thinking of Pluto as a planet and they don’t like that its status changed.”

But to him, Pluto has no reason to be “sad.” It’s got Ceres, Makemake, Haumea, and Eris to be friends with! But nobody makes a big deal over them (if they even are aware of their existence at all. This boy has single-handedly educated many of my coworkers about them.)

Point is, grown ups - let it go! Scientific reclassification doesn’t mean Pluto was ejected from the solar system or something. It’s still there and it’s still loved. It just plays with different friends now.

It's not a direct connection, but trying to say a dwarf planet isn't a planet, when it's got the word planet right there, is generating the kind of semantic confusion that, carried forward, would lead to the conclusion that people with dwarfism aren't people. The -oid suffix already conveys "is almost the thing, but not quite," such as in words like humanoid, asteroid, android, and (most importantly) the aforementioned planetoid. Making planetoid the official word for "is in ways like a planet but actually isn't" would have been working with existing etymology, rather than creating needless confusion.

I'd certainly support not using "dwarf" in the names of celestial bodies any more, although it would make the Red Dwarf's name anachronistic.

Pluto ain't gonna quit, impact craters level out after a while, and that mofo has more geologically interesting shit going on than most people realize.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13000

Eros Venus now, sasa?

The arbitrary cutoff size being to ensure continuity of the scientific consensus in popular awareness when I was a child isn't a stupid rule.

Not even when a larger kuiper belt object is found.

Not even, when since mass is the primary means of estimating size until we fly a probe out there, we estimate a smaller but much with much more mass object to be larger and we debate a 10th planet yet again.

Hey, if we find something bigger than Pluto, then by all means let's call it a planet.

By any reasonable person's definition of a planet, Pluto is a planet. It's a rocky spherical mass that orbits the sun, with a varied terrain of mountains, plains and glaciers. It has days and seasons. It has its own system of moons.

An additional grievance I have is that, by the IAU's stupid definition of a Dwarf Planet, Charon should really be called a dwarf planet too. It isn't a satellite of Pluto in a meaningful sense - both Pluto and Charon orbit a point between them. The other moons also orbit this space between Charon and Pluto.

So, want to know why it isn't a Dwarf Planet? Because the IAU class it as a planetary satellite. What's the formal definition of a planetary satellite then? There isn't one. It was discussed, but a formal definition was not decided upon. Charon is literally a moon now because it was called a moon before the definition of a planet was changed and dwarf planets were invented.

I'm all for formal definitions, but the IAUs current rules are just really sloppy. It's maddening.

You're not wrong, but I've also seen people calling Pluto-Charon binary dwarf planets.

But yes, the IAU tends to only pin down definitions when one is becoming unworkable - in this case the ever larger numbers of trans-Neptune objects that were potential planets.

You know whats funny? Technically speaking, the only thing that holds luna from being a planet is only the fact that earth and moon are not declared as a biplanetary system. This is due to the weak argument that the mass center of the two planets is JUST under earths surface. When we argue with anything else, like for example gravitational pull, the sun pulls stronger than earth, making the moon not part of earths system but equally a part of the suns system, declaring earth and moon as a biplanetary system. Moon is very large in relation to earth to be an actual moon (like Jupiters or Mars' moons). Strictly speaking by ignoring the (somehow) most relevant but weakest argument of the mass center being (just) inside earths crust, it could clearly be declared as biplanetary system