I didn't understand why having more words to classify and help better define astral objects would receive a push back from someone who coined one himself. Dwarf planet was something Dr Alan thought of, and seemed proud of it. I agree with Dr. Tyson that more words are needed. Rock planets should have a different or official name that would make them instantly known that they are not like Jupiter or the other gaseous planet. I believe that more vocabulary are a necessary step to allow concepts to be expressed better and those concepts give birth to other ideas, invention or discoveries.
I love it how scientists are not afraid to call each other wrong and not get offended by it. It's about knowledge and not about feelings and it's admirable. Also, have to commend Neil for his obvious teaching talent. I am sure most of us had teachers that just bomb drop terms they are familiar with but the students aren't, causing a rift in the learning process. Neil is very aware of this because of the audience. He is acting like a teacher for us and it shows his concern in teaching adequately. Also, Chuck for being the student in the room unafraid to ask the dumb questions. Great show. Thank you all.
problem is when a teacher is wrong but convincing...so you learn wrong things. seen it a few times in this conversation. teachers have to be especially careful what they say. avoid "hearsay", thats for small talk.
to me this "not afraid to call each other wrong" sounds like immaturity, why say "You wrong, me right", when it's more accurate to say "this is my opinion and I disagree with yours". it should be science and not opinions anyway so most likely both are wrong on the long run. I might be wrong what debate means, to me it's ideas fighting each other, but listening to debates seems like people are more concerned who is more charismatic in giving their point so they "fight" who should people believe, which is not scientific at all.
Around the 26 minute mark Neil DT is allowing others to speak uninterrupted for the longest I've ever seen on a podcast. I challenge anyone to find a longer example. He must REALLY respect this guy.
He tends to interrupt when the person says something incorrect or he has something to add. I don't think he means to be rude. I think he simply gets excited about the issues and topics at hand.
There's some confusion in the comments. The controversy is not whether Pluto is a dwarf planet or not. The controversy is whether the word "planet" should be a disjoint set or a super set. As it's currently defined, "planet" and "dwarf planet" are disjoint sets, i.e. Pluto is a dwarf planet and not a planet. Similarly, the Earth is a planet and not a dwarf planet. However, some are in favor of the idea that "planet" should be a super set, i.e. Pluto being both a planet and a dwarf planet. And, therefore, the Earth is also a planet, but not a dwarf planet.
Very well said @hrgwea, and a super important point. If our technology wasn't good enough to determine whether or not Pluto was a dwarf planet, it could be worth debating. These days, that question has been settled by observation, so debate is pointless. Given that the controversy is about our categories, it is in the purview of convention rather than of observation, and I think that is entirely worth debating.
@gh0st_0f_b0b_chandler nah Chuck has been here since the early days and honestly some of the best episodes were just Neil and Chuck discussing a whole range of topics. He's a pretty fun stand in for the audience and/or the less informed lay person.
I must admit that for awhile I didn't really understand the point of Chuck on this show. Last week I showed a clip to my 7 year old and he thinks Chuck is hilarious. I get it now.
It's not just that Chuck is funny, which he is. He utilizes his humor to break up what at times could be more serious scientific discussion. This keeps the mood light as well as provides pacing for the star talk itself. I've noticed sometimes he interjects with a joke to wrap up the current talking point so they can continue with the rest of the points they planned to discuss for the Star Talk. At least that's how it looks to me. Another aspect of having Chuck on the show is to weigh in as sort of a connection to the average viewer that isn't a Scientist with a PhD. Of course since I've never asked the guy personally I could be entirely wrong about all of that. ^^
@@thekaz5225Yeah, he's an entertainment professional, and plays our "Everyman." (He's also pretty smart himself, even if he pretends not to be for the sake of a joke!😉)
Alan Stern was the keynote speaker in 2015 at Festival of Science here in Flagstaff. He was jubilant because of the New Horizon mission. It is an event that I will cherish until death.
This was one of the best conversations I have watched! Not because of the 'whether Pluto is a planet or Dwarf planet', but just the overall information about history of the space programs that were discussed. Cheers
11:00 I think Neal was referring to "Trojans" and "Greeks" Asteroids in the leading (L4) orbit are named after Greek heroes (the "Greek node or camp" or "Achilles group"), and those at the trailing (L5) orbit are named after the heroes of Troy (the "Trojan node or camp"). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_trojan
Also the Hildas. If Neil was an astronomer and not an astrophysicists he would have known that. Im amazed Alan didn't know that! That's a basic astronomy 101 fact.
The exceptions to "L4 asteroids are named after Greeks, L5 asteroids are named after Trojans" are 624 Hektor, which is in the L4 point, and 617 Patroclus, which is in the L5 point.
@@crinolynneendymion8755 You are incorrect. Troy was a city in modern day Turkey which was settled about 3500BC, thus far predates the Greek city state era. The attackers are refered to as Greeks or Achaeans.
According to Memory Alpha, the planetary classes used in Star Trek are as follows: Class D: Dead planets Class H: Hadean planets Class J: Gas giants Class K: Desert planets Class L: Marginal planets Class M: Terrestrial planets Class N: Glaciated planets Class P: Ocean planets Class R: Rogue planets Class T: Molten planets Class Y: Demon planets
At least you relied on real science and technology there. Gene Rodenbery was a great screenwriter (heard him speak in person) but not really a scientist, cosmologist, exobiologist or . . . reliable for any of those classifications. Truly. Loved his TV work, though.
Gotta love Alan's passion about the subject, every new question would get him immediately focused and going in detail for everything. +1 for having him come back next year for updates
loved everything about this entire episode! The combination of 2 planetary scientists debating and chuck lightening up the tone of the debate every now and then! Such an enrichement of my week and so great that you manage to release any kind of content every few days!!
Eris is a tiny bit smaller that Pluto in diameter (about 50 k) but has 27% more mass. And nobody seems to care one whit that it's regarded as a dwarf planet.
ploto is the poster child, but most people who say pluto needs to be a planet have no objection to the other plutoids being planets. In fact find me the person that believes 'only' pluto should be the extra planet.
Yes we do. Twenty years ago there was all this excitement about discovering new planets, and people were nicknaming it Xena. Also, it is not that they are called dwarf planets, it is that dwarf planets are classified as not planets, even though they have "planet" right in the name. That's mad.
People are putting too much emotion into science. There's nothing wrong with making a distinction between planets and dwarf planets for the sake of being more specific. Especially when there might be dozens or hundreds of similar bodies in a solar system.
I actually serendipitously met John Spencer from Boulder, Colorado in Orin, Wyoming for the 2017 solar eclipse. I happened to be wearing a New Horizons shirt my dad received from a conference years ago. John was a really nice guy and he told me about his involvement with the New Horizons project. I'll have that forever etched in my memory. It was cool to meet a "celebrity" scientist whom I've seen in multiple Pluto documentaries.
I'm writing a book on the history of architecture and one of the most difficult things is categorization. From the broadest categories to the smallest subcategories, it can be brutal deciding what goes where, expecially when there are valid competing arguments for something going in multiple categories. The human brain learns and memorizes in large part by the very act of categorization. When it comes to planets, I think that first its necessary to categorize regardless of the categorization's imperfections, and second, to understand that many planets don't fit neatly into any one category and recognize and appreciate the nuances for why this is so.
An interesting topic in and of itself. The error I think is in the assumption that one set of categorizing rules can be applied ... categorically. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Our moon is much bigger then pluto. I think the problem is if we include pluto charon ect then we might have to add 200 spheres from the asteroid belt and the poor kids trying to memorize 217 planets in school
I am happy to see at 1 hour there are already 12,000+ views! In a world that sometimes seems to be awash in conspiracy theories and PhD.s in Google, it is great to see that so many still live in the world of provable science....
The Science world definitely needed a man like NDT to spark young Americas interest. Sadly we need entertainment and charisma to spark it but I'll take it!
I am reminded of a Tale of a dinosaur family standing on shore at Yucatan. They are looking up at the stars. Mom asks the kids, "Which one do you like?" The youngest says, excitedly, "I like That one, it gets brighter, every single night."
I'll always be in favor of Pluto as a planet, as I had an awesome science teacher who was related to the man who discovered it. Shoutout to Mr. Tombaugh!
@@Southghost5997 No, with the change in the scientific meaning of the word "planet", dwarf planets no longer fit that definition and are thus excluded. So right now, dwarf planets are not a type of planet, they are their own thing.
I agree with Alan Stern on the planet definition debate. Jupiter, Earth and Pluto are all Planets in the same sense that Blue Whales, Humans, and Ants are all Animals. Neil wants the term Planet to be a much more specific defining word than, but I think it is (and has been) a broader word like the word Animal is, at least IMO. I think the term Planet being used for Jupiter and Pluto is appropriate, and further defining from there with terms like Giant or Dwarf is also appropriate if you want to know exactly what someone is talking about as Neil said, like calling an Ant an Insect and a Human an Ape. I do wanna say I respect Neil for agreeing with Alan instead of just doubling down forever like so many other people would do. It shows Neil is more interested in the truth than "being right" all the time, and that's the mark of someone you can trust is following their head and not their emotions.
Indeed, “planet” is a broad term with many different subcategories. Neil is starting to become more likable over time. He used to be vigorously dogmatic about the Pluto debate (like Mike Brown), but now he’s more rational and agrees with Alan Stern in multiple ways.
Under Neil's definition, there are only 4 planets in the solar system, and it doesn't make sense to limit our teaching on planets to just Mercury, Venus Earth and Mars.
@@Jellyman1129glad to see Neil is managing to win ppl over. I was shocked to find so many people disliked him, esp after his rogan appearance. Folks found him to be a arrogant know it all, i never seen him that way though.
I also think that you cant just label both jupiter and earth as planets , and then say that Pluto is not a real planet. It just doesnt make sense. Thats because Earth is much more similar to Pluto than to jupiter. Both Earth and Pluto have solid surfaces , montains , plains . Jupiter is a giant ball of gas. Pluto is likely a mix of rock and ice, including water ice. Earth is rocky , and also has water and ice. Jupiter´s composition is more similar to the Sun than to Earth.
I have to say, and I hope you guys see this, StarTalk is the only podcast-style show I enjoy watching and doesn't get boring. Obvs it's because I'm interested in the topic, enjoy Neil's style of presenting in general, but it's also the inclusion of a comedian who plays the student while finding the perfect balance of humorous disruption without it becoming an annoying distraction, even when there's a guest SME on. That seems like a difficult achievement, thanks Chuck!
I did a black light diorama of the Thea collision for my 5th grade science project. It was a card board box with a black light attached and what had once been a bunch of foam balls inside painted with fluorescent spray paint, busted up and arranged to look like said event as best I could manage and a write up outside explaining the event. Won 1st prize.
That’s what happens when the IAU (people who don’t study planets) attempt to define what a planet is. Planets should only be defined by planetary scientists.
Awh.. I'd say the title was a bit misleading. I was really hoping for a debate, which they only barelyyyy did a little bit of at the end. That line about Neil being wrong, I was like WOOOOO! SHOTS FIRED! haha. I really thought that was about to be the beginning of them going back and forth for an hour or so debating points to support their views.. That short bit aside, it was mostly just another great grab bag episode of Patreon questions, just with a Pluto theme.. So yes, please, have him back and please allow a bit more time for them to actually debate a bit more. While Patreon questions are great, I'd love to just have two smart guys, one believing Pluto is a planet and the other saying it is not, each debating and discussing their reasons for why they believe it is or isn't, and by the end, I want Chuck to be able to judge who won the debate, so hopefully we can finally settle the matter of whether Pluto is a planet or not. At the very least, I'm damn sure I'd learn something from listening to such a conversation. :D
Well, I personally met Prof. Thombaugh and shook his hand when I was a teen. I was really into astronomy and science I also met my then hero Verner von Braun and later later had dinner with Robert Lusser where we talked about rockets...I later became a programmer learning numerous computer languages (Basic, assembler, COBOL, RPG, Fortran, C, C++, Java, php, javascript, etc) currently trying to get a handle on python as I'm interested in AI)
I agree with Neil about language. There is a huge difference between classification nomenclature and a succinct linguistic identification. Identification should have summarized verbage to make it easy. If you were to come across a North American Grizzly Bear in the woods, your first thought would be "Look! A bear!" or "Look! A grizzly!" It's only to the naturalist, "Look! A North American Grizzly Bear!" But to no one "Look! It's the Animalia chordate tetrapod mammalian carnivoran, Ursus arctus horribilis!" That's a bit of an exaggeration, but we need to take the scientist out of the language problem, here, and put the science back into the language. That's why Pluto fell out of the definition of planet, because we were defining planet and Pluto didn't meet those criteria. Alan disagrees with the criteria because he doesn't like Astrophysicists changing the language he uses in his own field. We're dealing with definitions and naming conventions together, though. Alan Stem seems to be confused at what type of name is being addressed here. He's inflexible and basically claiming that astrophysics is invalidating the nomenclature of his whole field. He's just too sensitive. So I know a very prominent herpetologist. I'm in comments and I don't have permission to name them. Their field of study is not only the order reptillia, but also amphibians and other animals that aren't even phylogenetically related to reptiles. He also really doesn't care much for ornithology, which would technically fall under herpetology, but strangely... doesn't. You know what happens to fields of study when the language and the science changes? The fields change to encompass the new data. Alan... he just disagrees based on the idea that he has a more correct opinion than astrophysicists about what should be classified as a planet. Personally, I think the way we see these objects beyond the scope of our own solar system should give us a better understanding of the universe, which improves our understanding of our solar system. Big picture affecting the little picture. Alan is so... little picture.
Neil brings up a good point about language. It should be more precise when describing a particular planet. Star Trek is a good example of how a classification system could be applied to the different types of planets encountered by using standard criteria. For example, a planet made of solid rock with water and land surface with a oxygen nitrogen atmosphere is termed a class M planet. Perhaps other types could denote gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, ice giants like Neptune and Uranus, rocky planets with no atmosphere like Mercury or a trace one like Mars? We have had a comprehensive system for classifying stars for a century, why not other celestial objects?
I think it's mostly just a matter of syntactic sugar. While combining adjectives and the noun together into a single word can be useful, it can also lead to a giant mess of specific terminology that a lot of people won't understand anymore. I guess it's a balancing act.
I totally agree with Neil. There should be new nomenclature for planets. For instance Jupiter, as a gaseous planet with about a dozen moons should not just be compared to earth or any other Rocky planet on the basic level. Another significant term(s) should be added to highlight such disparities.
I completely disagree. I think Neil got absolutely silenced by the adjective debate. We can easily differentiate between different types of planets using adjectives. “Planet” is a broad category. Like “galaxy”, “star”, “human”, “house”, we don’t need to rename the category when we have perfectly effective methods of describing them in further detail by use of language. This is a pretty basic function of the English language.. We use adjectives and descriptors to expand on broader categories of nouns.
I think we already have it to a degree... Jupiter is a "Gas Giant".... yet we know a gas giant is a type of planet without it having to contain the word planet. Perhaps we could use a word or two that describes a dwarf planet or even a rocky planet without having to say planet. Meanwhile, we'll just have to specify what kind of planet.
@tee4222 100% correct. I can't believe NDT got caught so easily with this. I love the explanation/definition of a planet. Spot on. Fused together by gravity of enough size to be determined to be spherical, regardless of the variety of materials the planet could be, and are, made from...
The issue is that we are not confortable with the idea of the solar system having tons of planets, which would happen if we add Pluto to the list. Hence we have added planetoids, dwarf planets etc... to our lists.
I think in the analogy around the types of planets being like different tyoes of people doesn't really work. I think the different types of planets are more like different kinds of mammals or animals in general. Sure, there are some commonalities, but there can be more differences (and important ones at that) than similarities in many cases.
Agreed. Tell a cop a human stole from you and there will be follow up questions. Why assume telling an ET there’s a planet orbiting a star wouldn’t yield different results?
I think we need to set a specific size or diameter of a planet which would be used to determine the difference between a planet and a dwarf planet. For now, let's call it Size X. So the rules of Planets are as follows - 1. The celestial body must orbit a star and not another celestial body. In other words, it cannot be a moon. 2. Must have sufficient mass so that gravity forces it to be spherical in shape. So a potato shaped asteroid wouldn't qualify as a planet. 3. If the celestial body meets criteria 1 and 2 but is below the diameter as specified by [Size X], it qualifies as a Dwarf Planet. If it is equal to and above the size limit, it would simply qualify as a Planet. 4. The core of the celestial body must not undergo fusion. In other words, it cannot be a star or a brown dwarf.
I gained a lot of respect for Dr. Tyson with his dictionary collection from different time periods. I do the same thing and thing it deserves lots more cultural attention.
They are called Trojan asteroids but there is a Greek camp and Trojan camp at each of the Lagrange points. They are named on this convention except for each camp has a spy which is named the different side.
Neil, I agree with you. There's a big difference between the planets closer to the sun than the kulper belt objects. there's far fewer, they're a lot warmer, they have a lot of different properties more than just ice. and in general, they are larger. Of course, we need other solar systems to compare to.
What I love about this conversation is both of these men who are experts in their field and have similar education with the same sources have different interpretations of these sources and can express them while respecting each other’s perspectives, opinions, and interpretations.
33:30 As blueberry farmer and I can confirm, the freezing water from the overhead frost protection gives off enough heat to maintain the bushes from freezing, even at mid 20sºF air temp. 39:42 Spanish kinda got a way to get around that problem of needing adjectives by using -tote & -tito. Planetote = big planet Planeta = normal planet Planetito = little planet You still have to think of a way to interject a differentiator between a gas planet, rocky planet, and liquid planet.
This naming scheme still just calls all of them "Planet," where they are are different in form, size and nature. Gas planet, smol planet, large planet are still a planet. But ice cream ball is not a planet. Minor planets, like stars, are different in "form" and/or "nature."
Not only blueberries, all trees can be protected by ice in freezing temperatures. If we expect negative temperatures (that is below 0 degrees celsius) we sprinkle trees with water and the ice formed protects the buds.
I found this video very interesting. I would love to have Alan Stern back on so I can learn more about Pluto. I am on Alan Sterns side. I think if an oject is spherical and orbits a sun, it is a planet.
I am a Pluto is a planet guy. It was my favorite planet. Neil says its not a planet due to its size but remember Neil, we have little people but they are still considered humans. So we can't say pluto isn't a planet because its small.
That’s literally the opposite of what he was saying. When clarifying Neil said that Jupiter and earth should not be classified as the same type of object and that it’s a shortcoming of the lexicon. He wants categories with proper nouns not noun + adjective.
Hey! Of course, Pluto was the name of a Disney character that we all loved. We don't need a minor celestial body named in honor of a corporation like that, let us lay it to rest.
I think Neil has a point for naming different variations of planets but that it comes less from a scientific background and more as a common name for something so different. Scientifically it is still a planet, but for the sake of language, it should definitely have names.
Imagine all the planning and calculations it must have taken to launch a craft and hit the target location at the right moment almost ten years later. That's an epic project in itself
i already know this episode is going to be spicy before i even watch it, neil's absolute HATE and distaste for pluto is palpable, pluto should be grandfathered in!!!
i bought a set of glow in the dark planets+pluto, IT HAD TO SPECIFY PLUS PLUTO just to include it... that made me sad, pluto should be given historical planet status for it's age and gas giant and dwarf should only be PREFIXES unless they want to remove jupiter and saturn from the list of planets!
Pluto is a planet. It is like saying a human that has dwarf syndrome is not human. There is small and big planets. Case closed. There is asteroids, stars, planets and moons.
This was an amazing show guys. Alan is an amazing guest with a lot of experience and expertise. Neil helping to break terms down and explain it helps a lot, I actually learned some new things as per usual watching Star Talk. Thanks guys.
What a wonderful episode. Alan is such an interesting guy and national gem and have heard him speak at NEAF about New Horizons. My favorite episode so far. And I agree with Alan, Pluto should have been left as a planet and we could have added more.
@@Jellyman1129 No, we can't just go naming something a planet just because it's there. Pluto is a KBO, period. It behaves nothing like a planet. Why don't we just start adding comets to the planet category? After all, Pluto's inclination, eccentricity, and composition are much closer to a comet than a planet. Why don't we just call Jupiter a star? It big, gaseous, and has objects that orbit it. Who cares that it doesn't have nuclear fusion? There's a REASON we classify things. Ceres acts more like a planet because it clears it's neighborhood better, yet no one is throwing a fit over it. Being called a planet has requirements that Pluto doesn't meet.
@@Jellyman1129 @Jellyman1129 No, we can't just go naming something a planet just because it's there. Pluto is a KBO, period. It behaves nothing like a planet. Why don't we just start adding comets to the planet category? After all, Pluto's inclination, eccentricity, and composition are much closer to a comet than a planet. Why don't we just call Jupiter a star? It big, gaseous, and has objects that orbit it. Who cares that it doesn't have nuclear fusion? There's a REASON we classify things. You don't get to be a planet by merely existing.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about Pluto's classification: In addition to the dwarf planet Pluto, there is also Eris, Ceres, Makemake, and Haumea - all other dwarf planets in our solar system. Thus, they'd need to be included if Pluto is included. So there's either 8 "regular" planets [not including dwarf planets] or 13 planets [including dwarf planets]. The threshold of what constitutes a dwarf planet is that it's too small for its own gravity to have what's called "orbital dominance" (but big enough for its own gravity to compress it into a sphere).
I think the question is where is the line between how much do two things need to be similar to be called the same thing? Adjectives are a great point and so is the language point. But how many things do two things need to have in common to be called the same thing? Two things can be different and be the same while things can be similar and be different? Where is that line where one thing becomes the other?
@@thebearrage i mean to say there are 8 planets. When they talk about “planet 9,” that’s the theoretical planet that hasn’t been discovered. No one calls it planet 10
My question would be that was the asteroid belt originally a planet that was torn apart by the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn (perhaps) as they moved into the position that they are today in the early formation of our solar system. In addition, did the giant planets (namely Jupiter) kick other dwarf planets and possibly the allusive 9 planet to its current position today in our solar system.
I appreciate NGD for bringing science to the masses in an easily palatable format. I respect NGD and the other scientists he speaks to for his ability to amicably debate each other where everyone learns something.
I wish y'all would've discussed the concept of an object "clearing its path," and why that's part of the distinction between a planet and a dwarf planet.
a better take on adding words is reapplying the prefix/suffix system and only adding base terms(potentially based in science) [reapplying] for lack of a better word
19:07 did he just blatantly lie? The term dwarf planet has been in use earlier than 1991. The delusions of grandeur and strong with this one! Or his ego got a strong chokehold on him..
I think they're both right about the word "planet". There should simply be 2 different terms. Neil said a new word would be useful to differentiate them, and I agree. Having a new name doesn't mean we still can't call them "large planets" or "dwarf planets". Fork, spoons and knives are all ustensiles but they also have individual names. A large planet could still be called a large planet and have it's own name at the same time. I think it's actually a weakness of science sometimes. A lot of scientists and mathematicians make things more complicated than they need to be, for people, by insisting we name things a certain way that makes learning and understanding more difficult, often for no good reason (fortunately, pharmaceutical companies use commercial names for their products, otherwise a lot of people wouldn't even be able to pronounce the name of the drugs they're ingesting). I remember when I was in high school, one of my maths teachers was always using very technical and complicated terms when he was explaining things, as if we were university students, and he insisted that we learn the hard vocabulary right away. The thing is, he was confusing everyone and a lot of students failed because they're weren't ready for it, and some obviously never became ready either, because a lot of people don't end up studying in a field of science. That's also why vulgarization is extremely important for the general population. A lot of scientists act as if science belonged to them because they're the ones doing it, but science is actually meant to belong to all humanity, therefore every human being must have a chance to understand what's happening, even if not in details. Having the right vocabulary helps with that.
I'm not saying that he's right because they're both smarter than me, but I agree with Neil. It's like saying the word "vehicle". Unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, motorcycle, 3 wheeled car, car, pickup truck, suv, box truck, dually, semi truck, bulldozer, earth mover, helicopter, airplane, hot air balloon, paddle boat, canoe, bass boat, pontoon, yaht, cruise ship, submarine, rocket, shuttle, etc, etc, etc. All vehicles but there's vocabulary that describes exactly or way more closely what's being discussed.
Whose side are you taking? 🤔
The Dark side 🌑
Neither. We need more definitions. That's what we do. Categorize stuff. :P
The Chuck side😂
I didn't understand why having more words to classify and help better define astral objects would receive a push back from someone who coined one himself. Dwarf planet was something Dr Alan thought of, and seemed proud of it. I agree with Dr. Tyson that more words are needed. Rock planets should have a different or official name that would make them instantly known that they are not like Jupiter or the other gaseous planet. I believe that more vocabulary are a necessary step to allow concepts to be expressed better and those concepts give birth to other ideas, invention or discoveries.
I thought by definition it's not a planet
I love it how scientists are not afraid to call each other wrong and not get offended by it.
It's about knowledge and not about feelings and it's admirable.
Also, have to commend Neil for his obvious teaching talent. I am sure most of us had teachers that just bomb drop terms they are familiar with but the students aren't, causing a rift in the learning process. Neil is very aware of this because of the audience. He is acting like a teacher for us and it shows his concern in teaching adequately.
Also, Chuck for being the student in the room unafraid to ask the dumb questions.
Great show. Thank you all.
problem is when a teacher is wrong but convincing...so you learn wrong things. seen it a few times in this conversation.
teachers have to be especially careful what they say. avoid "hearsay", thats for small talk.
to me this "not afraid to call each other wrong" sounds like immaturity, why say "You wrong, me right", when it's more accurate to say "this is my opinion and I disagree with yours". it should be science and not opinions anyway so most likely both are wrong on the long run. I might be wrong what debate means, to me it's ideas fighting each other, but listening to debates seems like people are more concerned who is more charismatic in giving their point so they "fight" who should people believe, which is not scientific at all.
my earlier comment was generalization, after listening to this debate these gentlemen were clearly joking and had a good chat/debate.
@@immko Yeah, sorry it was a matter of speaking. They were unafraid to challenge each others statements. They did not literally call each other wrong.
Political sciences beg to differ.
Around the 26 minute mark Neil DT is allowing others to speak uninterrupted for the longest I've ever seen on a podcast. I challenge anyone to find a longer example. He must REALLY respect this guy.
He tends to interrupt when the person says something incorrect or he has something to add. I don't think he means to be rude. I think he simply gets excited about the issues and topics at hand.
@@pingamalinga When the person says something (he perceives) as incorrect. Very important distinction to add.
@@LordAizen-wh4yw Well yeah lol. How else can you interpret it?
@@LordAizen-wh4yw ummmm.....
If y’all don’t stop
There's some confusion in the comments. The controversy is not whether Pluto is a dwarf planet or not. The controversy is whether the word "planet" should be a disjoint set or a super set.
As it's currently defined, "planet" and "dwarf planet" are disjoint sets, i.e. Pluto is a dwarf planet and not a planet. Similarly, the Earth is a planet and not a dwarf planet.
However, some are in favor of the idea that "planet" should be a super set, i.e. Pluto being both a planet and a dwarf planet. And, therefore, the Earth is also a planet, but not a dwarf planet.
According to the new rules Jupiter is also no longer a planet - eat that.
Very well said @hrgwea, and a super important point. If our technology wasn't good enough to determine whether or not Pluto was a dwarf planet, it could be worth debating. These days, that question has been settled by observation, so debate is pointless. Given that the controversy is about our categories, it is in the purview of convention rather than of observation, and I think that is entirely worth debating.
you are 100% correct
Could ypu give me the short story on that👀 really would love to defend pluto to people@dannygjk
@@light0000 A planet is supposed to have cleared its orbit. Jupiter has one or two posses in its orbit.
I'm so glad Star Talk is no longer a tv show. It was just so much better as a podcast and I'm glad to see it's back to that format.
they just need to lose Chuck and it'll be perfect
@@gh0st_0f_b0b_chandler I like him
@gh0st_0f_b0b_chandler nah Chuck has been here since the early days and honestly some of the best episodes were just Neil and Chuck discussing a whole range of topics. He's a pretty fun stand in for the audience and/or the less informed lay person.
@@gh0st_0f_b0b_chandlercouldn't disagree more
@@gh0st_0f_b0b_chandler no
cool geek fight
I love Tysons nerd "fights" with Charles
😂😂
LMFAO!!
Pleaes have Alan Stern on again in a year to follow up on everything he has talked about today!
Oh my I loved Dr. Allen and Dr. Tyson debating! Please do a longer show with him.❤❤❤❤
I must admit that for awhile I didn't really understand the point of Chuck on this show. Last week I showed a clip to my 7 year old and he thinks Chuck is hilarious. I get it now.
Crazy to be that guy in a room of arguable geniuses lol but he does have some input at times
Makes you *CHUCKLE*..
Hiluyk Hiluyk Hiluyk
It's not just that Chuck is funny, which he is. He utilizes his humor to break up what at times could be more serious scientific discussion. This keeps the mood light as well as provides pacing for the star talk itself. I've noticed sometimes he interjects with a joke to wrap up the current talking point so they can continue with the rest of the points they planned to discuss for the Star Talk. At least that's how it looks to me. Another aspect of having Chuck on the show is to weigh in as sort of a connection to the average viewer that isn't a Scientist with a PhD. Of course since I've never asked the guy personally I could be entirely wrong about all of that. ^^
That makes so much sense, now that I see how his humor is very approachable to kids makes me appreciate it
@@thekaz5225Yeah, he's an entertainment professional, and plays our "Everyman."
(He's also pretty smart himself, even if he pretends not to be for the sake of a joke!😉)
Alan Stern was the keynote speaker in 2015 at Festival of Science here in Flagstaff. He was jubilant because of the New Horizon mission. It is an event that I will cherish until death.
This was one of the best conversations I have watched! Not because of the 'whether Pluto is a planet or Dwarf planet', but just the overall information about history of the space programs that were discussed. Cheers
Neil: "you're not a planet"
Pluto: "And you're not Carl Sagan" 😡
😂
No one can replace Carl Sagan, the OG
😂🤣 buuuurn🔥
Seeing how Neil was greatly inspired by Carl Sagan and invited by Carl to meet him as a child, I doubt this was a burn.
He already is on Sheldon Cooper's immortal enemy list.
Thoroughly enjoyed listening to Dr. Stern talk about the outer solar system, and his banter with Neil on what constitutes main and dwarf planets.
11:00 I think Neal was referring to "Trojans" and "Greeks"
Asteroids in the leading (L4) orbit are named after Greek heroes (the "Greek node or camp" or "Achilles group"), and those at the trailing (L5) orbit are named after the heroes of Troy (the "Trojan node or camp").
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_trojan
Trojans were Greeks. Troy was a Greek colony,
Also the Hildas. If Neil was an astronomer and not an astrophysicists he would have known that. Im amazed Alan didn't know that! That's a basic astronomy 101 fact.
The exceptions to "L4 asteroids are named after Greeks, L5 asteroids are named after Trojans" are 624 Hektor, which is in the L4 point, and 617 Patroclus, which is in the L5 point.
@@crinolynneendymion8755 You are incorrect. Troy was a city in modern day Turkey which was settled about 3500BC, thus far predates the Greek city state era. The attackers are refered to as Greeks or Achaeans.
Right, Greek camp and Trojan camp. I've never heard them referred to as nodes. Same diffrence I guess.
Is step planet allowed? She raised me under the theory she was my real planet.
Dumb dad joke or just a dumb human?
Yeah haha!
And I've never known my real planet, with a 37 hours long day!😢
right 😂 pluto will always be a planet to me.
@@glimmeredgloom one would think it had a minute or two out of 37 hours to pay attention to us
You NEED Alan back. The chemistry between Neil and Alan is priceless. One of a kind!
According to Memory Alpha, the planetary classes used in Star Trek are as follows:
Class D: Dead planets
Class H: Hadean planets
Class J: Gas giants
Class K: Desert planets
Class L: Marginal planets
Class M: Terrestrial planets
Class N: Glaciated planets
Class P: Ocean planets
Class R: Rogue planets
Class T: Molten planets
Class Y: Demon planets
Do you know why they picked M for Terrestrial? And not E (earth-like), or T?
At least you relied on real science and technology there. Gene Rodenbery was a great screenwriter (heard him speak in person) but not really a scientist, cosmologist, exobiologist or . . . reliable for any of those classifications. Truly. Loved his TV work, though.
@@ryancappo and why Ocean are P instead of O? 😂
@@ryancappo ask a Vulcan.
@@ryancappo Yes, do you?
I was scared they wouldn't have Chuck on but I'm so happy he's here , Hey! Lord Nice ✨️🙏🏾... sending love from Africa [ RSA ] ❤🇿🇦
Come down,mzansi fosho
Gotta love Alan's passion about the subject, every new question would get him immediately focused and going in detail for everything. +1 for having him come back next year for updates
If a dwarf cow is a cow and a dwarf person is a person, a dwarf planet is a planet. ;)
yeah, go tell that to the IAU. i want to see what their response is to you.
@@Galaxius2117 Well then they need to actually find a different word, because a dwarf planet is a subtype of planet.
A DWARF planet yes.
@@randallbesch2424 Type: Planet
Subtype: Dwarf
loved everything about this entire episode! The combination of 2 planetary scientists debating and chuck lightening up the tone of the debate every now and then! Such an enrichement of my week and so great that you manage to release any kind of content every few days!!
That handshake shows how huge Tysons hands are. No wonder he was a great wrestler back in the day.
He was a boxer you fool. He held the heavyweight belt at one point.
Eris is a tiny bit smaller that Pluto in diameter (about 50 k) but has 27% more mass. And nobody seems to care one whit that it's regarded as a dwarf planet.
They should all be regarded as planets including moons.
@@fedoralexandersteeman6672 they're planetoids but the distinction matters
ploto is the poster child, but most people who say pluto needs to be a planet have no objection to the other plutoids being planets. In fact find me the person that believes 'only' pluto should be the extra planet.
Yes we do. Twenty years ago there was all this excitement about discovering new planets, and people were nicknaming it Xena.
Also, it is not that they are called dwarf planets, it is that dwarf planets are classified as not planets, even though they have "planet" right in the name. That's mad.
People are putting too much emotion into science. There's nothing wrong with making a distinction between planets and dwarf planets for the sake of being more specific. Especially when there might be dozens or hundreds of similar bodies in a solar system.
The battle we have all been waiting for
who cares about RUclips boxing, and disstracks! This is where it's at!
One of the best StarTalks that I have watched in quite a while. Thank you so much for the great information.
I actually serendipitously met John Spencer from Boulder, Colorado in Orin, Wyoming for the 2017 solar eclipse. I happened to be wearing a New Horizons shirt my dad received from a conference years ago. John was a really nice guy and he told me about his involvement with the New Horizons project. I'll have that forever etched in my memory. It was cool to meet a "celebrity" scientist whom I've seen in multiple Pluto documentaries.
I'm writing a book on the history of architecture and one of the most difficult things is categorization. From the broadest categories to the smallest subcategories, it can be brutal deciding what goes where, expecially when there are valid competing arguments for something going in multiple categories. The human brain learns and memorizes in large part by the very act of categorization. When it comes to planets, I think that first its necessary to categorize regardless of the categorization's imperfections, and second, to understand that many planets don't fit neatly into any one category and recognize and appreciate the nuances for why this is so.
An interesting topic in and of itself. The error I think is in the assumption that one set of categorizing rules can be applied ... categorically. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Meanwhile Eris is out there going, "Hey, what about me? I circle the Sun as well, why does nobody care if I'm a dwarf planet or not?"
Hey, justice for Pluto first. Then we listen to what Erin has to moan about, that old whiner.
I think charon should be counted as a dwarf planet. It's dancing with dwarf planet pluto and the tiny moons orbit between the 2 not around them
@@unholywarrior9007Pluto is actually 2 dwarf planets in a trenchcoat
Our moon is much bigger then pluto. I think the problem is if we include pluto charon ect then we might have to add 200 spheres from the asteroid belt and the poor kids trying to memorize 217 planets in school
@@unholywarrior9007 But I never heard of a dog named Moon.
I am happy to see at 1 hour there are already 12,000+ views! In a world that sometimes seems to be awash in conspiracy theories and PhD.s in Google, it is great to see that so many still live in the world of provable science....
The Science world definitely needed a man like NDT to spark young Americas interest. Sadly we need entertainment and charisma to spark it but I'll take it!
@dennisquinn7729 When there are 100 K views in the first hour, that will be the metric that says the conspiracy BS is losing.
I can't remember the last time I heard a good Capulette and Montague one-liner. Thanks Chuck!
I am reminded of a Tale of a dinosaur family standing on shore at Yucatan. They are looking up at the stars. Mom asks the kids, "Which one do you like?" The youngest says, excitedly, "I like That one, it gets brighter, every single night."
We found the best version of Jerry.
Jelly Hoshiumi?
"PLUTO IS A M-ER F-IN PLANET... B-CH!" 😂
@@Grux_ASGJerry from Rick and Morty. It's funny because I was thinking about that episode when I read this comment.
I think king flippy nips is on the edge of his seat!
Jerry Seinfeld?
I'll always be in favor of Pluto as a planet, as I had an awesome science teacher who was related to the man who discovered it. Shoutout to Mr. Tombaugh!
It is a planet. no one ever said otherwise.
I'm faux outraged too! 😠
@@Southghost5997 No, with the change in the scientific meaning of the word "planet", dwarf planets no longer fit that definition and are thus excluded. So right now, dwarf planets are not a type of planet, they are their own thing.
@@RenegadeVile I did not know that, thank you random Renegade!
Charon should be counted as a dwarf planet
I agree with Alan Stern on the planet definition debate. Jupiter, Earth and Pluto are all Planets in the same sense that Blue Whales, Humans, and Ants are all Animals. Neil wants the term Planet to be a much more specific defining word than, but I think it is (and has been) a broader word like the word Animal is, at least IMO. I think the term Planet being used for Jupiter and Pluto is appropriate, and further defining from there with terms like Giant or Dwarf is also appropriate if you want to know exactly what someone is talking about as Neil said, like calling an Ant an Insect and a Human an Ape.
I do wanna say I respect Neil for agreeing with Alan instead of just doubling down forever like so many other people would do. It shows Neil is more interested in the truth than "being right" all the time, and that's the mark of someone you can trust is following their head and not their emotions.
Indeed, “planet” is a broad term with many different subcategories. Neil is starting to become more likable over time. He used to be vigorously dogmatic about the Pluto debate (like Mike Brown), but now he’s more rational and agrees with Alan Stern in multiple ways.
Under Neil's definition, there are only 4 planets in the solar system, and it doesn't make sense to limit our teaching on planets to just Mercury, Venus Earth and Mars.
@@Jellyman1129glad to see Neil is managing to win ppl over. I was shocked to find so many people disliked him, esp after his rogan appearance. Folks found him to be a arrogant know it all, i never seen him that way though.
@@weplaydk2343 I’m glad too. He’s a really good science communicator and Star Talk is a great show.
I also think that you cant just label both jupiter and earth as planets , and then say that Pluto is not a real planet. It just doesnt make sense. Thats because Earth is much more similar to Pluto than to jupiter. Both Earth and Pluto have solid surfaces , montains , plains . Jupiter is a giant ball of gas. Pluto is likely a mix of rock and ice, including water ice. Earth is rocky , and also has water and ice. Jupiter´s composition is more similar to the Sun than to Earth.
I have to say, and I hope you guys see this, StarTalk is the only podcast-style show I enjoy watching and doesn't get boring. Obvs it's because I'm interested in the topic, enjoy Neil's style of presenting in general, but it's also the inclusion of a comedian who plays the student while finding the perfect balance of humorous disruption without it becoming an annoying distraction, even when there's a guest SME on. That seems like a difficult achievement, thanks Chuck!
I did a black light diorama of the Thea collision for my 5th grade science project. It was a card board box with a black light attached and what had once been a bunch of foam balls inside painted with fluorescent spray paint, busted up and arranged to look like said event as best I could manage and a write up outside explaining the event. Won 1st prize.
I'm *definitely* using "black light diorama of the Thea collision" as a Midjourney prompt.
Please do bring Alan back!
The guy who invented the term "dwarf planet" meant that Pluto is still a planet, and all the astronomers said, "No it's not, it's a dwarf planet."
That’s what happens when the IAU (people who don’t study planets) attempt to define what a planet is. Planets should only be defined by planetary scientists.
Awh.. I'd say the title was a bit misleading. I was really hoping for a debate, which they only barelyyyy did a little bit of at the end. That line about Neil being wrong, I was like WOOOOO! SHOTS FIRED! haha. I really thought that was about to be the beginning of them going back and forth for an hour or so debating points to support their views.. That short bit aside, it was mostly just another great grab bag episode of Patreon questions, just with a Pluto theme.. So yes, please, have him back and please allow a bit more time for them to actually debate a bit more. While Patreon questions are great, I'd love to just have two smart guys, one believing Pluto is a planet and the other saying it is not, each debating and discussing their reasons for why they believe it is or isn't, and by the end, I want Chuck to be able to judge who won the debate, so hopefully we can finally settle the matter of whether Pluto is a planet or not. At the very least, I'm damn sure I'd learn something from listening to such a conversation. :D
Well, I personally met Prof. Thombaugh and shook his hand when I was a teen. I was really into astronomy and science I also met my then hero Verner von Braun and later later had dinner with Robert Lusser where we talked about rockets...I later became a programmer learning numerous computer languages (Basic, assembler, COBOL, RPG, Fortran, C, C++, Java, php, javascript, etc) currently trying to get a handle on python as I'm interested in AI)
I agree with Neil about language. There is a huge difference between classification nomenclature and a succinct linguistic identification. Identification should have summarized verbage to make it easy.
If you were to come across a North American Grizzly Bear in the woods, your first thought would be "Look! A bear!" or "Look! A grizzly!" It's only to the naturalist, "Look! A North American Grizzly Bear!" But to no one "Look! It's the Animalia chordate tetrapod mammalian carnivoran, Ursus arctus horribilis!" That's a bit of an exaggeration, but we need to take the scientist out of the language problem, here, and put the science back into the language. That's why Pluto fell out of the definition of planet, because we were defining planet and Pluto didn't meet those criteria. Alan disagrees with the criteria because he doesn't like Astrophysicists changing the language he uses in his own field. We're dealing with definitions and naming conventions together, though. Alan Stem seems to be confused at what type of name is being addressed here. He's inflexible and basically claiming that astrophysics is invalidating the nomenclature of his whole field. He's just too sensitive.
So I know a very prominent herpetologist. I'm in comments and I don't have permission to name them. Their field of study is not only the order reptillia, but also amphibians and other animals that aren't even phylogenetically related to reptiles. He also really doesn't care much for ornithology, which would technically fall under herpetology, but strangely... doesn't. You know what happens to fields of study when the language and the science changes? The fields change to encompass the new data. Alan... he just disagrees based on the idea that he has a more correct opinion than astrophysicists about what should be classified as a planet. Personally, I think the way we see these objects beyond the scope of our own solar system should give us a better understanding of the universe, which improves our understanding of our solar system. Big picture affecting the little picture. Alan is so... little picture.
Neil brings up a good point about language. It should be more precise when describing a particular planet. Star Trek is a good example of how a classification system could be applied to the different types of planets encountered by using standard criteria. For example, a planet made of solid rock with water and land surface with a oxygen nitrogen atmosphere is termed a class M planet. Perhaps other types could denote gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, ice giants like Neptune and Uranus, rocky planets with no atmosphere like Mercury or a trace one like Mars?
We have had a comprehensive system for classifying stars for a century, why not other celestial objects?
I think it's mostly just a matter of syntactic sugar. While combining adjectives and the noun together into a single word can be useful, it can also lead to a giant mess of specific terminology that a lot of people won't understand anymore. I guess it's a balancing act.
@@RenegadeVileso true.
33:26 I have never heard a more entertaining discussion on ice
I totally agree with Neil. There should be new nomenclature for planets. For instance Jupiter, as a gaseous planet with about a dozen moons should not just be compared to earth or any other Rocky planet on the basic level.
Another significant term(s) should be added to highlight such disparities.
I completely disagree. I think Neil got absolutely silenced by the adjective debate. We can easily differentiate between different types of planets using adjectives. “Planet” is a broad category. Like “galaxy”, “star”, “human”, “house”, we don’t need to rename the category when we have perfectly effective methods of describing them in further detail by use of language. This is a pretty basic function of the English language.. We use adjectives and descriptors to expand on broader categories of nouns.
I think we already have it to a degree... Jupiter is a "Gas Giant".... yet we know a gas giant is a type of planet without it having to contain the word planet. Perhaps we could use a word or two that describes a dwarf planet or even a rocky planet without having to say planet. Meanwhile, we'll just have to specify what kind of planet.
@tee4222 100% correct. I can't believe NDT got caught so easily with this. I love the explanation/definition of a planet. Spot on. Fused together by gravity of enough size to be determined to be spherical, regardless of the variety of materials the planet could be, and are, made from...
OK, here's a significant term:
It's a "Big Planet".
We got gas giants, ice giants, terrestrial planets.
Large planet and Giant planet could suffice for size.
The issue is that we are not confortable with the idea of the solar system having tons of planets, which would happen if we add Pluto to the list.
Hence we have added planetoids, dwarf planets etc... to our lists.
Alan Stern, the Name fits really good
I think in the analogy around the types of planets being like different tyoes of people doesn't really work. I think the different types of planets are more like different kinds of mammals or animals in general. Sure, there are some commonalities, but there can be more differences (and important ones at that) than similarities in many cases.
Agreed. Tell a cop a human stole from you and there will be follow up questions. Why assume telling an ET there’s a planet orbiting a star wouldn’t yield different results?
A tree is a tree regardless of size.
We do not need more words.
If Mercury is a planet when compared to Jupiter, so is Pluto.
I think we need to set a specific size or diameter of a planet which would be used to determine the difference between a planet and a dwarf planet. For now, let's call it Size X. So the rules of Planets are as follows -
1. The celestial body must orbit a star and not another celestial body. In other words, it cannot be a moon.
2. Must have sufficient mass so that gravity forces it to be spherical in shape. So a potato shaped asteroid wouldn't qualify as a planet.
3. If the celestial body meets criteria 1 and 2 but is below the diameter as specified by [Size X], it qualifies as a Dwarf Planet. If it is equal to and above the size limit, it would simply qualify as a Planet.
4. The core of the celestial body must not undergo fusion. In other words, it cannot be a star or a brown dwarf.
This was the MOST tense episode but this is so needed
I gained a lot of respect for Dr. Tyson with his dictionary collection from different time periods. I do the same thing and thing it deserves lots more cultural attention.
I think the word "planet" is like the word "dinosaur". All inclusive.
Alan was not feeling the comedy in this episode. Lol
No he wasn’t 😅
He feels like he just wasted 14.3 of his 42.35 minutes.
@@Gpacharlie where did you get those numbers from
@@Number3Y It’s an engineer joke.
They are called Trojan asteroids but there is a Greek camp and Trojan camp at each of the Lagrange points. They are named on this convention except for each camp has a spy which is named the different side.
Yes. I thought, It had to be Greek surely?
Neil, I agree with you. There's a big difference between the planets closer to the sun than the kulper belt objects. there's far fewer, they're a lot warmer, they have a lot of different properties more than just ice. and in general, they are larger. Of course, we need other solar systems to compare to.
What I love about this conversation is both of these men who are experts in their field and have similar education with the same sources have different interpretations of these sources and can express them while respecting each other’s perspectives, opinions, and interpretations.
Just because you been to space, doesn’t mean you know more than someone whois studied space their whole life.
Yes iz does
33:30
As blueberry farmer and I can confirm, the freezing water from the overhead frost protection gives off enough heat to maintain the bushes from freezing, even at mid 20sºF air temp.
39:42
Spanish kinda got a way to get around that problem of needing adjectives by using -tote & -tito.
Planetote = big planet
Planeta = normal planet
Planetito = little planet
You still have to think of a way to interject a differentiator between a gas planet, rocky planet, and liquid planet.
Planetonio = Italian Planet.
Planetius = Legionaire Planet
Planetenor = Opera planet.
Planetist = Idealogically captured planet
Planetto = Ice Cream Planet
Planetoon = Gas planet
Planetallica = Rocky Planet
Planetohol = Liquid planet.
@@redfernpixelgnomepitcher1377 bruh 😂
Now I want icecream.
This naming scheme still just calls all of them "Planet," where they are are different in form, size and nature. Gas planet, smol planet, large planet are still a planet. But ice cream ball is not a planet. Minor planets, like stars, are different in "form" and/or "nature."
Not only blueberries, all trees can be protected by ice in freezing temperatures. If we expect negative temperatures (that is below 0 degrees celsius) we sprinkle trees with water and the ice formed protects the buds.
Love the debate at the end lol great episode
I found this video very interesting. I would love to have Alan Stern back on so I can learn more about Pluto. I am on Alan Sterns side. I think if an oject is spherical and orbits a sun, it is a planet.
I am a Pluto is a planet guy. It was my favorite planet. Neil says its not a planet due to its size but remember Neil, we have little people but they are still considered humans. So we can't say pluto isn't a planet because its small.
No views? I demand better for Lord Nice.
The views are incoming 📨
prime lord nice woulda had 1 quadrillion views by now 😮💨
I think Niel was saying don't just call it a planet use adj. Like stars are blue, white, yellow and red, just more info
That’s literally the opposite of what he was saying. When clarifying Neil said that Jupiter and earth should not be classified as the same type of object and that it’s a shortcoming of the lexicon. He wants categories with proper nouns not noun + adjective.
@@Grunttamer that's where adj come in, more information. Information is the whole point of science.
@@arghsonofcliff I agree, Neil doesn’t
The treatment received by Pluto has always been upsetting to me. How great that some of you feel the same!
Of course, Pluto doesn’t care.
Hey! Of course, Pluto was the name of a Disney character that we all loved. We don't need a minor celestial body named in honor of a corporation like that, let us lay it to rest.
@@jsliszt Jupiter Corporation, the Japanese video game developer, isn’t going to like where this is going…
@@red_wullf Truth. Thinking about the conundrum of which came first in life, with Jupiter and Pluto, and the corps involved,
@@red_wullf S0 true.
I think Neil has a point for naming different variations of planets but that it comes less from a scientific background and more as a common name for something so different.
Scientifically it is still a planet, but for the sake of language, it should definitely have names.
Imagine all the planning and calculations it must have taken to launch a craft and hit the target location at the right moment almost ten years later. That's an epic project in itself
"it's not that he's mean it's that he's wrong." that list is getting longer and longer
i already know this episode is going to be spicy before i even watch it, neil's absolute HATE and distaste for pluto is palpable, pluto should be grandfathered in!!!
💯!!!
Why.....? 🤔
i bought a set of glow in the dark planets+pluto, IT HAD TO SPECIFY PLUS PLUTO just to include it... that made me sad, pluto should be given historical planet status for it's age and gas giant and dwarf should only be PREFIXES unless they want to remove jupiter and saturn from the list of planets!
Not everybody’s favorite planet… I’m partial to earth
_"It's like poppy feilds.. You wander in and you Just.. stay.."_
Chuck wtf bro 😂😂 That one caught me off guard.
hello its always nice to listen your lectures on different topics . Sir it would be good if you also add subtitles as well
Hit the "CC" button - boom, subtitles.
I had hoped for more debating, but still an interesting video.
Pluto is a planet. It is like saying a human that has dwarf syndrome is not human. There is small and big planets. Case closed. There is asteroids, stars, planets and moons.
I very much agree with Dr. Tyson about designating new vocabulary for "types of planets"
This was an amazing show guys. Alan is an amazing guest with a lot of experience and expertise. Neil helping to break terms down and explain it helps a lot, I actually learned some new things as per usual watching Star Talk. Thanks guys.
I was taught in school in the 80s that Pluto is the ninth planet and nothing will change my mind on that
Free my boy Pluto, he ain't do nothing wrong.
What a wonderful episode. Alan is such an interesting guy and national gem and have heard him speak at NEAF about New Horizons. My favorite episode so far. And I agree with Alan, Pluto should have been left as a planet and we could have added more.
We can't just have hundreds of planets. We need to classify them. Leave the planets alone that behave like the main eight. The rest can all be dwarfs.
@@terrizittritsch745 Alan Stern is so engaging and fun to listen to. His NEAF presentations are also fantastic!
@@3Brandon11 Of course we can have hundreds of planets. That’s the reality of astronomy, get used to it.
@@Jellyman1129 No, we can't just go naming something a planet just because it's there. Pluto is a KBO, period. It behaves nothing like a planet. Why don't we just start adding comets to the planet category? After all, Pluto's inclination, eccentricity, and composition are much closer to a comet than a planet. Why don't we just call Jupiter a star? It big, gaseous, and has objects that orbit it. Who cares that it doesn't have nuclear fusion? There's a REASON we classify things. Ceres acts more like a planet because it clears it's neighborhood better, yet no one is throwing a fit over it. Being called a planet has requirements that Pluto doesn't meet.
@@Jellyman1129 @Jellyman1129 No, we can't just go naming something a planet just because it's there. Pluto is a KBO, period. It behaves nothing like a planet. Why don't we just start adding comets to the planet category? After all, Pluto's inclination, eccentricity, and composition are much closer to a comet than a planet. Why don't we just call Jupiter a star? It big, gaseous, and has objects that orbit it. Who cares that it doesn't have nuclear fusion? There's a REASON we classify things. You don't get to be a planet by merely existing.
Pluto is smaller than Earth's moon.
Size does NOT matter!
And mercury is smaller than Ganymede.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about Pluto's classification: In addition to the dwarf planet Pluto, there is also Eris, Ceres, Makemake, and Haumea - all other dwarf planets in our solar system. Thus, they'd need to be included if Pluto is included. So there's either 8 "regular" planets [not including dwarf planets] or 13 planets [including dwarf planets]. The threshold of what constitutes a dwarf planet is that it's too small for its own gravity to have what's called "orbital dominance" (but big enough for its own gravity to compress it into a sphere).
I think the question is where is the line between how much do two things need to be similar to be called the same thing? Adjectives are a great point and so is the language point. But how many things do two things need to have in common to be called the same thing? Two things can be different and be the same while things can be similar and be different? Where is that line where one thing becomes the other?
For me Pluto is and always will be the ninth planet, doesn’t matter who or what says otherwise.
I think you mean 8th planet
@@Psychonaut165 mercury Venus earth mars Jupiter Uranus Saturn Neptune Pluto. 9 planets
@@thebearrage i mean to say there are 8 planets. When they talk about “planet 9,” that’s the theoretical planet that hasn’t been discovered. No one calls it planet 10
@@Psychonaut165 to me Pluto will always be the ninth planet. Doesn’t matter what any scientist or person says. You can think there’s 8.
@@Psychonaut165 Can you count?
Dr. Tyson, where can I get that shirt!?
Pluto is a planet in my book!
I agree :)
Allen Had Neil stumped with his responses! Good arguments allen 💪🏽
Dr Allen is very smart. He is a fierce defender of Pluto being a planet! That being said, I agree with NDT on the matter.
Back in my day we had nine planets.
and?
Now we know we have more, cause we have better technology
"Yeah? Well back in my day we had eight planets." -- Teddy Roosevelt
i *really* wish the guest could speak. i really wanted to hear what he was saying uninterrupted.
10:00 Is "Lucy" an acronym?
No, it's a pretty name.... 😂😂😂 Dying over here!
I read this at the EXACT time it started playing in the video 🫨😧🫨😧🫨
My question would be that was the asteroid belt originally a planet that was torn apart by the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn (perhaps) as they moved into the position that they are today in the early formation of our solar system. In addition, did the giant planets (namely Jupiter) kick other dwarf planets and possibly the allusive 9 planet to its current position today in our solar system.
I think the debris that came from the solar nebula combined into the irregular shapes of the asteroids
I appreciate NGD for bringing science to the masses in an easily palatable format. I respect NGD and the other scientists he speaks to for his ability to amicably debate each other where everyone learns something.
Sorry I’m not sorry but Pluto will always be a planet to me. I was raised when Pluto was a planet and I will always feel it deserves to be included.
Mr. Know-it-all got schooled....about damn time!
geez Tyson cannot help himself but to cut off his guest every 10 seconds 🤦🏽♂️ makes this really all over the place and unwatchable at times
I wish y'all would've discussed the concept of an object "clearing its path," and why that's part of the distinction between a planet and a dwarf planet.
a better take on adding words is reapplying the prefix/suffix system and only adding base terms(potentially based in science)
[reapplying] for lack of a better word
19:07 did he just blatantly lie? The term dwarf planet has been in use earlier than 1991. The delusions of grandeur and strong with this one! Or his ego got a strong chokehold on him..
No, he really did define the term. 1991 was the first time it appeared in a research paper and other scientists followed suit.
I think they're both right about the word "planet". There should simply be 2 different terms. Neil said a new word would be useful to differentiate them, and I agree. Having a new name doesn't mean we still can't call them "large planets" or "dwarf planets". Fork, spoons and knives are all ustensiles but they also have individual names. A large planet could still be called a large planet and have it's own name at the same time. I think it's actually a weakness of science sometimes. A lot of scientists and mathematicians make things more complicated than they need to be, for people, by insisting we name things a certain way that makes learning and understanding more difficult, often for no good reason (fortunately, pharmaceutical companies use commercial names for their products, otherwise a lot of people wouldn't even be able to pronounce the name of the drugs they're ingesting). I remember when I was in high school, one of my maths teachers was always using very technical and complicated terms when he was explaining things, as if we were university students, and he insisted that we learn the hard vocabulary right away. The thing is, he was confusing everyone and a lot of students failed because they're weren't ready for it, and some obviously never became ready either, because a lot of people don't end up studying in a field of science. That's also why vulgarization is extremely important for the general population. A lot of scientists act as if science belonged to them because they're the ones doing it, but science is actually meant to belong to all humanity, therefore every human being must have a chance to understand what's happening, even if not in details. Having the right vocabulary helps with that.
Thank you for this great conversation. Funny, entertaining, and very informative. A great way to spend 42:35.
I'm not saying that he's right because they're both smarter than me, but I agree with Neil. It's like saying the word "vehicle". Unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, motorcycle, 3 wheeled car, car, pickup truck, suv, box truck, dually, semi truck, bulldozer, earth mover, helicopter, airplane, hot air balloon, paddle boat, canoe, bass boat, pontoon, yaht, cruise ship, submarine, rocket, shuttle, etc, etc, etc. All vehicles but there's vocabulary that describes exactly or way more closely what's being discussed.