Holy fuck

Isnt the center of its gravity above its surface between it and its moon as well?

More like (((NASA))) has ramped up space stories because they're scared that people are talking too much about Flat Earth

Attached: 1531286435796.jpg (4359x2970, 3.26M)

A light or a wandering star on the firmament
Theres no such thing as planets

Attached: 1532667382259.webm (1008x494, 2.82M)

How can Pluto be a planet when the Earth is flat?

Attached: 1528427557382.jpg (600x444, 57K)

Pluto is just debris from the Kuiper Belt. It's composition is completely like the Jovian Planets. It's just a Kuiper Belt Object and nothing more. If Pluto is a planet, then so is Eris. These kikes are retarded

t. astrophysics leaf

I think he meant similarly sized to each other, not Pluto, seeing how that's what he typed is how I reached this conclusion.

Not really relevant, the technically disqualifying feature is that it doesn't dominate its orbit. There's lots of crap in there. Now that in itself is a bit of a weird heap problem, how much junk is too much junk to be considered disqualifying? Its not any, because then all planets would be disqualified, but the line seems to roughly be that Pluto has way more junk than a planet should, I guess.

If there was a planet sitting in the asteroid belt for some reason it wouldn't be considered a planet for the same reason (if it was a planet it would've cleaned up the asteroid belt)

There's not 'tons' maybe, but there's a bunch of other things similarish to Pluto is size and maybe more that we don't know about since they're hard to detect. There's random stuff floating out past neptune and some of it is relatively big and planet-like.

*unlike Jovian Planets.

>If there was a planet sitting in the asteroid belt for some reason it wouldn't be considered a planet for the same reason

Ceres was consideres a planet once. it is in the asteroid belt

Pluto should have been grandfathered in

Yeah, and now its not, 'cuz its sitting in the asteroid belt and hasn't cleaned its room.

>but there's a bunch of other things similarish to Pluto is size and maybe more that we don't know about since they're hard to detect.
Thanks for reply user, so where are they? What proof is there of these objects? The detectable ones, lets just ignore the ones we dont yet have the technology to detect right now. So for the ones we cant detect where are they? What is their orbit? Do the other objects have their own independent orbit?

Eris is actually bigger than Pluto, and Haumea and Makemake are in the same neighborhood.

Sorry, Eris is more massive than pluto, it's slightly smaller in diameter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)
Eris is one, and the one that prompted the discussion of what a planet is in the first place.
Here's a list of others, knock yourself out, they're all just vaguely 'past Neptune' and I don't really care what their exact orbits are.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_possible_dwarf_planets

Bring to the attention of black science guy, he hates that shit.

What do you think the FCC does?

>CNN reports about something someone else has said
>it's CNN that is claiming this to be true
you stupid wannabe alt right faggots do not know what context clues are, do you?

Side point - The FCC doesn't regulate cable.

The whole Pluto argument seemed to coincide with the discovery of another pluto sized Kuiper belt object Xena/Eris. To what seemed spiteful to me, "they" decided to demote Pluto rather than face the possibility of having to add a number of new planets which will certainly be discovered way out there.

It amazes me how spiteful and petty academia can be.

Attached: 1510757219527.gif (426x230, 1.23M)

Its not really spiteful, they either do it this way or keep having to update everything every couple of months/years when they confirm yet another object out there that fits the description of planet. This way they probably never have to add another planet again and we just sit with 8.

They preferred the pessimism of Plutos demotion to the optimism of Eris addition

>implying that isnt what we should be doing

This is hilarious watching NPC discuss in depth details about an object that doesnt exist

If they can make you believe that Pluto is a planet and not a hole in the celestial spheres through which shines the light of the heavens, then they can make you believe anything.

isnt eris just an asteroid in the asteroid belt? its shape and size is not determined by its own mass for example nor does it have its own independent orbit around the sun.

thats Eris right?

Isn’t “I’m hearing” and “people are telling me” the main buzz words this orange faggot daughter fucking president uses all the time?

You're right that the choice was between cutting Pluto, or adding some new planets. Except it wasn't adding 2 or 3 new planets... it was adding several hundred. That's right, hundreds of dwarf planets are suspected to be in our Solar System.

Just debris with its own moon Charon.

That's Ceres, and it also would be a new planet if Eris and Pluto were. And I think there's one or two more we know about currently that probably would be and dozens of others waiting for confirmation.

There isn't a point, the objects aren't useful in any way nor historically or culturally relevant since we're recently discovering most of them. You'd have to come up with some new term for the planets that just includes the 8 current ones + maybe toss in Pluto as fiat just because. Which is basically what they did (excluding Pluto) with a standard definition of Planet.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

Oy vey the (((flat earthers))) are out again

(((NASA))) means to decieve in Hebrew,

Attached: 1508390970336.jpg (2006x2754, 860K)

Attached: 1505801263420.webm (720x480, 2.62M)

Attached: 1530046471858.webm (1280x720, 2.95M)

Attached: 1533315523246.webm (720x480, 2.5M)

Attached: 1526303592021.webm (640x480, 1.74M)

Attached: 1511442171832.webm (640x480, 2.31M)

Attached: 1530807387767.webm (640x480, 2.66M)

Attached: 1516644997130.webm (640x480, 2.53M)

PLUTO IS A PLANET AND BEST GIRL, AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU CAN GO FUCK OFF

Who the fuck gives a shit about Pluto more than any other floating rocks floating in space right now

Is it also possible that it's a captured object since it orbits out of plane with everything else?

saved for fake news folder

I'm not really sure about the orbits, the main criteria it doesn't satisfy is being dominant in its orbit.
>That is, it is in direct orbit of a star, and is massive enough for its gravity to compress it into a hydrostatically equilibrious shape (usually a spheroid), but has not cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit.

It's a matter of practicality. If we're going to generalize the definition of planets to be any roundish object that rotates a star, our solar system isn't gonna have 8 planets, it's gonna have 13, potentially 24+. Adding the qualifier that a planet needs to also be an isolated body - having cleared its orbital path of other large bodies, is completely reasonable.

Just because a celestial object has a smaller one orbiting it doesn't mean it's a planet. That's just how mass, distance, and diameter interact.

They are right. Pluto is a planet.

I understand this, but it seems rather stubborn to dismiss objects 1/4 the size of earth orbiting the sun -despite having an elliptical orbit. Yea pretty much this.
Ceres is much smaller than Eris. Ceres is just over 1/3 the size and may truly be one of the hundreds of proto planets that formed at the creation of the solar system -not something to be ignored but very tiny by planet standards.
But I do agree there should be a sub class of minor planets that these objects can be put into. They may be less relevant, but still relevant to science.

Yeah and so is Haley’s comet

only manlets think a dwarf planet is a planet

Fags with small cocks thing Pluto is a planet is a fucking petrified comet

>But I do agree there should be a sub class of minor planets that these objects can be put into. They may be less relevant, but still relevant to science.
Like the one they're already in? Dwarf planet?

I see a curve

>11:11 hour

nice, another user that gets a lot of doubles in his cellphone too

Ok you got me every fucking rock is a planet
We have millions

CNN can’t even draw the line on race they danm well they know they can’t fuck with Pluto

>Ceres is much smaller than Eris. Ceres is just over 1/3 the size and may truly be one of the hundreds of proto planets that formed at the creation of the solar system -not something to be ignored but very tiny by planet standards
That's not the criteria. The criteria is that if its big enough to squish itself into a sphere-ish shape then its big enough to be considered as a planet. Ceres is spherical and not a potato asteroid, it directly orbits the sun, thus it qualifies by the two criteria of a planet except that it hasn't cleared its orbit of other material (that isn't a satellite like a moon or ring), which is what disqualifies Pluto and Eris as well. They're big enough to be shaped right, not big enough to have grabbed or thrown everything else that would be competing out of their orbit.

Seeing Eris is almost identical in size to Mercury, should we demote it also?

The moon is a planet
Vampires are real
Niggers are human

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined in August 2006 that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:

is in orbit around the Sun,
has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

Among other things, this definition caused Pluto to no longer be a planet, a change from how it had been widely considered until that point.

A non-satellite body fulfilling only the first two of these criteria (such as Pluto) is classified as a "dwarf planet". According to the IAU, "planets and dwarf planets are two distinct classes of objects". A non-satellite body fulfilling only the first criterion is termed a "small Solar System body" (SSSB). An alternate proposal included dwarf planets as a subcategory of planets, but IAU members voted against this proposal. The definition was a controversial one, and has drawn both support and criticism from different astronomers, but has remained in use.

If Pluto is a planet then our solar system has hundreds of planets and possibly tens of thousands.

Earth is hollow, that is the ultimate redpill. The flat earth is just a bluepilled psyop.

Mercury has cleared its orbit, its not a matter of size. Also in what world is being less than half as big and an order of magnitude less massive 'identical in size'?
Mercury
>2,439.7km
>3.3011×10^23kg
Eris
>1163±6 km
>(1.66±0.02)×10^22 kg

>Earth is hollow
Where does magma come from?

See what demoting Pluto has done? Now it's all a mess. Instead of the fun and excitement of finding new planets way way out there with interesting and unique properties, these objects barely get mentioned and nobody in the general public even knows about them.

there is thickness in the layers, magma flows in between these layers. Agartha, Antarctica 47.

They don't really have interesting and unique properties, most objects in our universe are incredibly boring rocks. Eris is bigger than Pluto, but less massive, which is probably why its bigger, its not held together as tightly. Which means its made of really boring garbage when Pluto is already theorized to be made of really boring garbage.

I don't know, but I've heard President Trump use those words

>A non-satellite body fulfilling only the first two of these criteria (such as Pluto) is classified as a "dwarf planet". According to the IAU, "planets and dwarf planets are two distinct classes of objects". A non-satellite body fulfilling only the first criterion is termed a "small Solar System body" (SSSB).
Translate this for me, I read it as their saying Pluto has no orbit?

It fulfills the first two criteria, it has a direct orbit around the sun and it has enough gravity to smash itself into a spheroid. It doesn't fulfill the third criteria as there are other objects (that aren't its moon) crowding up its orbit.

We must make Pluto a planet again to fuck with these kikes Kabbalah. The Jews used this as some form of meme magic for there volcano demon moloch

/b/ in 2006
>wtf, why did the normalfags take pluto from us!

Jow Forums in 2018
>yikes, why are (((they))) trying to shill (((pluto))) so hard again?

You contrarian fucks

Normalfags were the ones complaining, it was academia that did it. And during the time no one was talking about 'why' they did it, which was actually a debate surrounding Eris and future categorization of objects in the Solar System which is actually a lot more interesting than 'Scientists decided Pluto was tiny and sucked and made it not a planet anymore'
Hearing their actual reasoning and why the debate was taking place is important, but morons missed the point entirely.

>It fulfills the first two criteria, it has a direct orbit around the sun and it has enough gravity to smash itself into a spheroid. It doesn't fulfill the third criteria as there are other objects (that aren't its moon) crowding up its orbit.
So uhhhh not arguing with you but thanks for reply and please respond.
but uhhh....
Doesnt that mean the Earth isnt a planet because we have a moon so we havent "cleared our orbit", also other planets have moons.

I feel I disagree with the third rule being needed and is flawed on its premise, what do you think?

That's a drawing, not a photo

>It doesn't fulfill the third criteria as there are other objects (that aren't its moon)
Moons/Rings are classed as 'Natural Satellites' or something like that and don't count against the orbit being clear, I guess since the object is orbiting around the planet. Pluto has a moon, but the moon isn't the reason Pluto's orbit isn't considered clear, there's a bunch more junk out there.
Now admittedly, that definition is a bit questionable to me, since things like Haley's Comet pass through our orbit regularly, and IAU acknowledges that but according to them there's orders of magnitude in difference between the amount of crap in any other planet's orbit and Pluto's. And since the amount is so vastly different they don't feel like splitting hairs on exactly how much junk is needed to disqualify something, just know that our 8 planets don't have enough and Eris/Pluto/Ceres have too much.

>Now admittedly, that definition is a bit questionable to me
Good response I agree with alot of it, to me it makes alot of sense. That third rule seems like they just phoned it in, maybe with it being the third or last rule that is what happened. I will say due to its vagueness it sounds from its own wording very unscientific lacking the specificity of the others. Thanks for input user, it was good reading!

Then it needs to get in line because over 3 planetoids/asteroids larger than Pluto have been discovered in our Solar System, closer than Pluto I might add.

FFS Europa (the moon) is bigger than Pluto

you're just an idiot dude.

Well they had to come up with some relatively specific, but sort of arbitrary reason for why Pluto wasn't a planet. And actually it wasn't so much for why Pluto wasn't a planet as it was for why Eris shouldn't be one, and Ceres, Pluto just falls into that definition as well and gets booted out. As pointed out in the thread there are literally hundreds of potential objects in the solar system that we known about that could fall into the same bucket, as long as NASA is doing their jobs we'd be adding planets forever and anyone wanting to teach about the planets would have to say 'Okay, so theres dozens of planets, but even I don't remember them, so here's the 8 that actually matter and I guess Pluto for reasons and don't worry about the rest'

picture of one of the scientists

Attached: scientist.png (970x582, 601K)

Pluto is a planet, bietch

Attached: 53566785784637.png (1920x1088, 2.31M)

Also worth adding, before this, Planet had no scientific definition. The planets are what they are based on history and sorta vague 'eh, that's a planet' feelings by the people that discovered them. We booted the sun and moon out of being planets, as well as some stars and certain other planets moons, but this is mostly kind of whimsy without solid definition. Its similar to the term vegetable, which has no scientific definition, only a historical culinary one, while fruit has a botanical scientific definition.

first coconut oil, now this? *phew* it's going to be a long week eh fellas?