About as informed as Neil. Who refuses to talk about Pluto anymore out of cowardice. Or as he said the Stephen Colbert, "I don't want to talk about Pluto."
Many scientists accused the IAU of harming science itself when it publicly voted to relegate Pluto in 2006. “Voting is a terrible mechanism of doing science,” he said. “We don’t vote on the theory of relativity. We don’t vote on quantum mechanics. The image of the IAU taking a vote was the single most damaging pedagogical event in science in probably a century, because to many people it was easy to reach the conclusion that science is arbitrary or political, which it is not.”
That’s correct, the definition as it stands is stupid because astronomers became afraid of large number of planets. Oh no! Here’s a really good video explaining what happened and it offer a better definition: ruclips.net/video/azbLNSKDQrM/видео.html
WhileI am all for science, and agree 100% with all of this, I am also for sometimes listeing to your heart, and in my heart at least Plut is the children's planet, this is why it is small, why it has not made it own path in life fully, it is still the "child" out there, so let the children have Pluto, let the scientist use their definituons, and then lets just declare it the children's planet, a sort of in the middle. scince should be driven by the heart sometimes, not just the mind
If the Earth's position was substituted with Pluto's (Kuiper belt is much more massive than Earth) than it would cease to be a planet as well. That alone shows the absurdity of these definitions. The definition of a planet should be concerned more about its physical attributes than that of the things around it. You can further subcategorize it based on those things. Astronomers do that with other celestial bodies as well.
If you put an Earth-sized object at the Kuiper belt, it should be able to collide or fling other objects and eventually clear a chunk of the belt given some time to be a planet. If circumstances deny that, then most likely that object wouldn't become Earth-sized anyway. Pluto is certainly the latter case, barely even winning from its own moon, Charon. If you want to include Pluto, it's likely we should also include Eris (more massive than Pluto), Ceres, Makemake, etc., you can investigate their tiny details all you want, it is just too much drama and likely not universal when applied to exoplanets. There are much more things about Pluto that doesn't make sense for a planet and a line has to be drawn. Is Pluto interesting? Yes. Is it a planet? No.
That is not 100% right. The Earth would eventually clear the it's path due to it's mass. Thi s the third requirement for an object to be designated as a planet.
Correct. Glad someone finally understands the idiot creators of the definition. Physical attributes are the only things that matter when classifying objects.
No. Pretty much the one defining characteristic of a planet is that it orbits a star. So the very essence of what a planet is depends on what is around it, more specifically how and if it interacts with a star. If you would put Earth in Pluto's orbit it would dominate the orbit and clear it so Earth would still be a planet. You can argue that this characteristic is not meaninful for the definition of a planet and that is a sensible discussion, but saying that the definition of a planet should be independent of what's around just does not make sense.
I guess its commonly thought of that the Moon formed during a collision between the Earth and another small planet. So what I'm curious about is, what is Pluto from? Some portion, or maybe all (mass) of the Kuiper belt? Perhaps there was a rather large planet out there that got comet'd. But then again, maybe Pluto was 'that' object. I dunno tho. It's ice so.. /shrug
The Earth's moon is not the biggest in the solar system Jupiter has the biggest moon. Ganymede is the largest in the solar system Ganymede Jupiter's moon: 5,270 km Titan (Saturn's moon): 5,149 km Callisto (Jupiter's moon): 4,800 km Io (Jupiter's moon): 3,643 km Earth's moon: 3,475 km
So pretty much this all started because they changed the definition of what a planet was when they started finding a bunch of things that fit in the original definition. And instead of categorizing the objects to fit in the original definition, you just change the definition. Its fine when a words definition change naturally, but to forcibly do it doesn't make sense to me when you could of done it another way. Kinda of how they call pluto a dwarf planet. Dwarf could be a category of planet. Or a rouge planet could be what you call asteroids.
I get what your saying but saying a rouge planet is an asteroid might be stretching it, for instance what if we say call Jupiter a rouge planet and now suddenly it’s heading towards earth would we call it an asteroid no we would not it would be too big to be considered an asteroid, asteroids are just big rocks flying through space and some planets are gas giants and not just solid masses so calling asteroids rouge planets just wouldn’t make sense.
That’s correct, the definition as it stands is stupid because astronomers became afraid of large number of planets. Oh no! I’m reality, dwarf IS a type of planet, just as we have giant planets as well as dwarf stars and dwarf galaxies. Here’s a really good video explaining this: ruclips.net/video/azbLNSKDQrM/видео.html
That's fine, so long as you recognize eris, ceres, makemake and all of the other dozens of spherical, frozen rocks that have just as much as a claim to planet hood as pluto. But of course, doing so would then necessitate the creation of a different term to describe the current 8 planets that do meet the criteria of the IAU, and at that point, all you have done is unnecessarily shift terms to a way that no one uses them, just to cling to an outdated understanding.
I got more sad news you saying the word planet 😔 means there's 9 makeing it a minor dosn't make it disappear and you repeatedly saying minor "PLANET " MAKES IT 9
I honestly have no idea why people fight so hard to prove Pluto is a planet a decade after science proved it never should of been called a planet in the first place
So why use the word planet to describe a NON planet. Is a dwarf human not a human? Lacking size for consideration would be bad... especially for men with small... packages down below. That would make them NOT a man... oh okay, I get it now!
![Shenseea - Dating Szn (Options) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eUePmZFIXUg/mqdefault.jpg)
Pluto is still king of the underworld
💯 % True
"Welcome to the company of informed people"
I thought that was a little cringey
About as informed as Neil. Who refuses to talk about Pluto anymore out of cowardice. Or as he said the Stephen Colbert, "I don't want to talk about Pluto."
Despite the video title name, it doesn't show Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Pluto
Many scientists accused the IAU of harming science itself when it publicly voted to relegate Pluto in 2006. “Voting is a terrible mechanism of doing science,” he said. “We don’t vote on the theory of relativity. We don’t vote on quantum mechanics. The image of the IAU taking a vote was the single most damaging pedagogical event in science in probably a century, because to many people it was easy to reach the conclusion that science is arbitrary or political, which it is not.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson: “Pluto is not a planet!"
Few minutes later…
Neil deGrasse Tyson: “Pluto is a really lame planet."
That’s why the term “dwarf planet” is stupid.
I love science ...but Pluto us a planet and I'll die on that hill!! Lol
In my opinion Pluto can be an exception even if it's not classified as a planet, like wouldn't be the first and last irrational thing we made.
Misleading title :)
Lol how? He literally only talks about Pluto...
What are you smoking bro?
They mean like he's not on pluto 😂
@@samantha5126 it’s a joke
But why was Pluto important to reclassify is the bigger question? I still think of it as a planet and I’m not one of those 3rd graders.
That’s correct, the definition as it stands is stupid because astronomers became afraid of large number of planets. Oh no! Here’s a really good video explaining what happened and it offer a better definition:
ruclips.net/video/azbLNSKDQrM/видео.html
What's he doing on Pluto?
Damn you neil degraded mustache, pluto is a planet and you cant argue with that.
That’s correct. Here’s a really good video explaining this:
ruclips.net/video/azbLNSKDQrM/видео.html
@@Jellyman1129 I said that as a joke, I think pluto is not a planet
@@Skirbiy Well Neil just said it was at the end. 🫤
@@Jellyman1129 he ain't an astrophysicist buddy
@@Comet-2011-W3-Lovejoy Neil is.
WhileI am all for science, and agree 100% with all of this, I am also for sometimes listeing to your heart, and in my heart at least Plut is the children's planet, this is why it is small, why it has not made it own path in life fully, it is still the "child" out there, so let the children have Pluto, let the scientist use their definituons, and then lets just declare it the children's planet, a sort of in the middle.
scince should be driven by the heart sometimes, not just the mind
If the Earth's position was substituted with Pluto's (Kuiper belt is much more massive than Earth) than it would cease to be a planet as well. That alone shows the absurdity of these definitions. The definition of a planet should be concerned more about its physical attributes than that of the things around it. You can further subcategorize it based on those things. Astronomers do that with other celestial bodies as well.
Good point!
If you put an Earth-sized object at the Kuiper belt, it should be able to collide or fling other objects and eventually clear a chunk of the belt given some time to be a planet. If circumstances deny that, then most likely that object wouldn't become Earth-sized anyway. Pluto is certainly the latter case, barely even winning from its own moon, Charon.
If you want to include Pluto, it's likely we should also include Eris (more massive than Pluto), Ceres, Makemake, etc., you can investigate their tiny details all you want, it is just too much drama and likely not universal when applied to exoplanets.
There are much more things about Pluto that doesn't make sense for a planet and a line has to be drawn. Is Pluto interesting? Yes. Is it a planet? No.
That is not 100% right. The Earth would eventually clear the it's path due to it's mass. Thi s the third requirement for an object to be designated as a planet.
Correct. Glad someone finally understands the idiot creators of the definition. Physical attributes are the only things that matter when classifying objects.
No. Pretty much the one defining characteristic of a planet is that it orbits a star. So the very essence of what a planet is depends on what is around it, more specifically how and if it interacts with a star. If you would put Earth in Pluto's orbit it would dominate the orbit and clear it so Earth would still be a planet.
You can argue that this characteristic is not meaninful for the definition of a planet and that is a sensible discussion, but saying that the definition of a planet should be independent of what's around just does not make sense.
I guess its commonly thought of that the Moon formed during a collision between the Earth and another small planet.
So what I'm curious about is, what is Pluto from?
Some portion, or maybe all (mass) of the Kuiper belt?
Perhaps there was a rather large planet out there that got comet'd.
But then again, maybe Pluto was 'that' object. I dunno tho. It's ice so.. /shrug
Stop making fun of Pluto's size, I'm sure it has a great personality anyway.
The Earth's moon is not the biggest in the solar system Jupiter has the biggest moon. Ganymede is the largest in the solar system
Ganymede Jupiter's moon: 5,270 km
Titan (Saturn's moon): 5,149 km
Callisto (Jupiter's moon): 4,800 km
Io (Jupiter's moon): 3,643 km
Earth's moon: 3,475 km
So pretty much this all started because they changed the definition of what a planet was when they started finding a bunch of things that fit in the original definition. And instead of categorizing the objects to fit in the original definition, you just change the definition. Its fine when a words definition change naturally, but to forcibly do it doesn't make sense to me when you could of done it another way. Kinda of how they call pluto a dwarf planet. Dwarf could be a category of planet. Or a rouge planet could be what you call asteroids.
I get what your saying but saying a rouge planet is an asteroid might be stretching it, for instance what if we say call Jupiter a rouge planet and now suddenly it’s heading towards earth would we call it an asteroid no we would not it would be too big to be considered an asteroid, asteroids are just big rocks flying through space and some planets are gas giants and not just solid masses so calling asteroids rouge planets just wouldn’t make sense.
It's not just language, it's science. Someone has to change the definition to less ambiguous one, it won't fix itself.
That’s correct, the definition as it stands is stupid because astronomers became afraid of large number of planets. Oh no! I’m reality, dwarf IS a type of planet, just as we have giant planets as well as dwarf stars and dwarf galaxies. Here’s a really good video explaining this:
ruclips.net/video/azbLNSKDQrM/видео.html
I FEEL like Pluto is a planet...therefore it IS a planet.
Isn't that how it goes Neil..?
That's fine, so long as you recognize eris, ceres, makemake and all of the other dozens of spherical, frozen rocks that have just as much as a claim to planet hood as pluto.
But of course, doing so would then necessitate the creation of a different term to describe the current 8 planets that do meet the criteria of the IAU, and at that point, all you have done is unnecessarily shift terms to a way that no one uses them, just to cling to an outdated understanding.
@@Why79-dx4rf
Hey...if I can 'FEEL 80% female' I can certainly feel like Pluto is a planet
I got more sad news you saying the word planet 😔 means there's 9 makeing it a minor dosn't make it disappear and you repeatedly saying minor "PLANET " MAKES IT 9
That’s correct, Pluto IS a planet. Here’s a really good video explaining this:
ruclips.net/video/azbLNSKDQrM/видео.html
He ends with lame planet lol
Key word.......planet.
@@popeyethepirate2902 dwarf though
@@dr_davinci planet though
Every time a science communicator lies, a flat earther gets its wings.
I'm still angry
LIAR LIAR PLANTS ON FIRE
I honestly have no idea why people fight so hard to prove Pluto is a planet a decade after science proved it never should of been called a planet in the first place
ruclips.net/video/bFNneK3-5Eo/видео.html
Because people are stupid
Pluto is still a planet. It’s still explorable
Correct.
ruclips.net/video/azbLNSKDQrM/видео.html
That's not the definition of a planet
A very lame planet, but a planet nonetheless
Pluto is not lame, Neil is lame. #restorepluto.
Is Neil a scientist?
yea, idk what, but hes real smart
So why use the word planet to describe a NON planet.
Is a dwarf human not a human? Lacking size for consideration would be bad... especially for men with small... packages down below.
That would make them NOT a man... oh okay, I get it now!
Yeah, it’s laughably stupid. Here’s a really good video explaining this:
ruclips.net/video/azbLNSKDQrM/видео.html
blah blah blah yet again