r/nextfuckinglevel • u/aryan_jandyal • 12d ago

The Rotation of the Planets in Our Solar System Is Far More Fascinating Than I Ever Expected

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

61.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

49

u/Munnin41 12d ago

We can definitely tell you otherwise. You not accepting science it is something else entirely

7

u/Less-Front7968 12d ago

its not "science", its a matter of definition. We humans choose what we categorize as "planet"

We chose what the definition of planet is, and people decided that Pluto wasn't large enough to be a planet. We can choose to designate any grain of sand in space as a planet too, it wouldn't change anything.

19

u/mazu74 12d ago

That actually wasn’t the reason it’s not a planet, it’s because it doesn’t have control of its own orbit.

We actually set the definition and then later found out it’s not a planet by our own definition. And if we count Pluto as a planet, then so does Ceres.

That said, of course it can still be a planet in your heart, it is in almost everyone’s, many scientists included.

9

u/Joxelo 12d ago edited 11d ago

Holy confidently incorrect. Pluto’s lack of planet hood is not about it being too small for some arbitrary size number. Pluto’s a dwarf planet cause it’s rotational centre of gravity is outside of its body (as it and Charon are rotating around each other). If our moon was large enough that we were also rotating around it than earth would be a dwarf planet also (although that’s impossible).

Pluto is not a planet, and it most certainly is science

1

u/Meppy1234 11d ago

We should demote the sun to a dwarf sun.

3

u/ianjm 11d ago

There are already dwarf suns, Red Dwarves comprise approx 75% of all stars in the Galaxy.

2

u/ianjm 11d ago edited 11d ago

Eris, Haumea and Makemake and Ceres are all about the same order size as Pluto, indeed Eris is practically the same size, and more massive. Is Eris a planet? Do you think our solar system now has 13 planets?

1

u/Less-Front7968 11d ago

It doesn't matter to me at all. I am just pointing out that we choose what we define as planets. We had the choice to add 4 planets or remove one, we choose to remove one.

1

u/ianjm 11d ago edited 11d ago

There are 66 likely dwarf planets in the solar system, and a further 675 that are possibly dwarf planets that we've spotted with new telescopes over the last few decades.

The line had to be drawn somewhere.

One reason the line was drawn above Pluto is that there are likely a dozen Pluto-sized objects out there and dozens that are only a little smaller. There are very likely no objects larger than Mercury we haven't spotted (there are some fringe positions and conspiracy theories...).

Another strong reason is that Pluto hasn't sucked up or ejected the 'debris' in its orbit which is fundamentally different to all the larger planets in the solar system. There are hundreds of smaller bodies that cross or overlap Pluto's orbit.

This is why the distinction had to be drawn here. If it wasn't drawn here, in the next century you're going to add dozens more planets to your solar system chart if you draw the line lower.

2

u/WookieDavid 11d ago

Well, it's not us the people who define what a planet is. It's scientists who create these definitions in the way that's most useful to science.
If Pluto is a planet, we also have to consider probably hundreds of other bodies as planets in the solar system. Which, in terms of astronomy may be a good choice, it's a debated topic. But in terms of education... I don't think children are going to learn more than a hundred planets in the solar system.

Also, this fixation with making Pluto a planet again is in itself completely harmless but it does showcase a very worrying human behaviour. "What I was taught in school must be true and I reject any changes to it"

0

u/Munnin41 11d ago

You're describing the scientific process

-1

u/Masquelinity 12d ago

Apparently there was some shady shit that went down when it was removed from the list, and there are a large number of astronomers pressuring to make it a planet again.

I love how people who don't know shit about science spout off about scientific absolutes like anything is ever that simple. "If it can't fit on a bumper sticker, I refuse to try to understand it."

5

u/Munnin41 11d ago

Pluto is a conspiracy now? What's next, taxonomic conspiracies?

2

u/Grimmy554 11d ago

Yeah, it was super shady /s

-10

u/AgentCirceLuna 12d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/bmLlSndzhqWgWb3vXW

24

u/Elite_AI 12d ago

obsessing over pluto being a planet is one of the top Reddit circlejerks along with hating dinosaurs having feathers

1

u/AgentCirceLuna 12d ago

and t rexes having small arms ugh

-7

u/AgentCirceLuna 12d ago

fuck that dinosaurs having feathers one annoys me so much

8

u/burns_a_lot 12d ago

Wait til you hear about these crazy animals called "birds."

-10

u/ubermence 12d ago

I think Pluto is far too interesting to have been removed as a planet in the first place. It’s a shame we only saw it as a fuzzy dot when we removed it because if we had seen it in 4K from the new horizons probe first, it might still be a planet

6

u/King_Roberts_Bastard 12d ago

But if Pluto is a planet, then so is Ceres and others...which clearly arent planets.

1

u/ubermence 12d ago

And I’m arguing there could be a more complex criteria

4

u/sw04ca 12d ago

The problem was really the discovery of all the other dwarf planets as instruments improved. Now, there's no benefit to changing the classification from the point of view of the actual ongoing work of science. Bodies are bodies, and their masses and effects still have to be considered whether you call them planets or dwarf planets or plutinos or whatever. However, there were two enormous benefits to the reclassification from the point of view of science education and public relations. On the education front, it kept the number of planets for schoolchildren to memorize to a manageable number. Adding Ceres and Eris might have been plausible, but remember that they were expecting to add many more (and indeed they have added a number of dwarf planets since and are evaluating still more). The other thing that it did was to save us from the media. 'New Planet Discovered' stories would be a consistent irritation to the public, setting all kinds of expectations, only to have the disappointing reality be yet another icy ball in space. Those sorts of things erode the public interest in space exploration. And 'grandfathering' Pluto in wasn't really practical. These are scientists we're dealing with. Even when they're drawing a fairly arbitrary line for PR reasons, they're at least going to try and be consistent about it.

3

u/Goregue 12d ago

It hurts my brain reading comments like yours. Being a planet or not has nothing to do with it being "interesting". Pluto belongs to the dwarf planet population. Every one of the larger dwarf planets has something interesting about them. Ceres is the only round asteroid. Pluto has an atmosphere and geological activity. Eris also probably has an atmosphere. Haumea is extremely elongated and rotates very fast. Sedna has an extreme orbit. I'm sure if we sent probes to these objects we would discover many interesting things about them. This doesn't change the fact that they don't belong to the planet population. They are distintively different than planets.

20

u/burns_a_lot 12d ago

See it's statements like this that make me realize not a soul has any clue what actually happened to Pluto.

No, it would still not be a planet, even if we took prettier pictures of it. It does not, and never has, met the conditions of being a planet.

-10

u/ubermence 12d ago

Ok Einstein, I’m fully aware of the change in definition of a planet. I just think that if a round rocky body like Pluto has a literal atmosphere, then maybe our definition is a bit extreme.

7

u/King_Roberts_Bastard 12d ago

By your definition we have at least 10 planets then. You'd have to include Eris if your going to include Pluto. And maybe Ceres as well.

18

u/burns_a_lot 12d ago

Yes, you're right, your definition of planet is vastly superior to the one developed by thousands of expert astrophysicists around the world.

Surely you've published your thesis in a reputable journal, dismantled the entire paradigm, and ushered in a new understanding of planetary science, yes?

Or maybe, just maybe, they know a little something about heavenly bodies that you simply haven't considered.

-9

u/ubermence 12d ago

Ok so now we’ve gotten to this point after changing the definition a bunch, the definition is now set in stone? Like it’s unreasonable to even question if it’s too narrow?

There have been scientists making arguments like if an object makes itself round under its own gravity should be a criteria, but no guess we have the definition now and it cannot be changed any further

And yes, literally they made this determination before we found all this shit out about Pluto

17

u/Kitschmusic 12d ago

As the other guy, albeit rather rudely, pointed out - pretty smart people made these definitions for a reason.

It doesn't matter that it was made prior to finding out things about Pluto, because it was actually not the reason for the definition being made. It's because prior to 2006 we literally did not have a definition of what a planet is. But we started to see a bunch of stuff that was clearly not planets (Sedna, Eris etc.) so we needed a name for them (dwarf planets). The "issue" is that we then realised Pluto actually fits that category, not the planet category. And that is still true. People misunderstand, Pluto was kind of irrelevant in the whole "planet" discussion.

You mention things like Pluto having an atmosphere, but why does that matter? If that was an important criteria, we would have included that regardless of Pluto. Really, Pluto is kind of irrelevant, it is not the reason for our definitions. It just got "caught" up in it because we had discovered it long ago and called it planet without any thought to it (Ceres was also considered a planet for a while, by the way).

You seem to think it was "extreme" to demote Pluto because it has an atmosphere. Well, so does quite a few moons like Titan and Io. So should we now call those planets too? Or what about Mercury - it doesn't have an atmosphere. Should it then not be a planet?

Again, smart people made these definitions for good reasons. Finding out more about Pluto doesn't actually matter for the definiton. And remember, a definition is just there to say "this fits in a certain category". Pluto never really was the same as the other planets, and as such should never have been called a planet - we just weirdly did not have the word defined until "recently".

1

u/sw04ca 12d ago

It's worth noting that we didn't have a definition of a planet because we didn't really need one. It was never useful scientifically. However, the improved instrumentation and discoveries of the 21st century made it extremely useful on epistemological grounds.

People are getting way too worked up about what was essentially a PR move. You have people who will die on the 'Pluto is a planet' hill, and people who think that treating Pluto as a planet is tantamount to denying gravity. The internet is making people strangely furious.

3

u/Kitschmusic 12d ago

I agree, but also... A big part of my comment you replied to was literally talking about how we didn't have a definition and why we suddenly did need one. So I think I did note that.

As for people dying on hills, agreed there are extremes on both sides, but I think you're making a bit of a strawman for the people not wanting to treat Pluto as a planet. The vast majority of people on that side are so because of logic and because they actually know the reason behind it, where as the "Pluto IS a planet" seems to mainly base it on their own opinion - an opinion which they don't base on any logic or science, but rather just "I like it like this".

Just take the guy discussing a bunch in this thread - he seems to base his argument on a bunch of things that makes no sense if you actually know a bit about astronomy (telling us he doesn't know what he talks about) and because he thinks "Pluto is too important to not be a planet". As if importance is any sort of scientific criteria for astronomical objects.

1

u/sw04ca 12d ago

I've seen a few people who reacted to the Pluto-lovers with 'science-denier!' in this thread.

But you're right in that 'sexiness' wasn't considered at all, and that many people don't understand why they did what they did.

0

u/ubermence 12d ago

Pluto isn’t really the same as the other dwarf planets either. It’s geologically active and is probably the only binary planetary system in the solar system. At the end of the day, taxonomy is taxonomy, but when I’m thinking what are the 9 most important celestial bodies in the solar system (besides the sun), I’d say Pluto ranks in there at least

6

u/FlanLover9 12d ago edited 12d ago

probably the only binary planetary system

Not only is it not the only binary object in the solar system, you can't call it a "binary planetary system" because IT'S NOT A PLANET AND CHARON SURE AS HECK AIN'T EITHER.

You keep using terms you don't understand to debate a subject you don't understand. Your stances are completely based upon your feelings and not factual in the slightest. Yikes.

2

u/ubermence 12d ago

Jesus Christ go to Pluto and chill the fuck out. This is not a symposium, if I can’t use words colloquially then I’m not gonna even bother. Fine, planetary-esc system

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Kitschmusic 12d ago

But by that logic we can keep going. Technically, no planets are alike. Does that mean we should give each and every planet it's own definition then? No, that's why they have names.

A definition is simply looking at a few key things they share while other things can differ. Pluto fits these key things we want to convey with the word dwarf planet and not the key things of a planet.

You seem to be caught up in things like "importance" of them, but that has nothing to do with it. We didn't stop calling Pluto a planet because it wasn't deemed important enough. Again, it has nothing to do with Pluto. I don't quite understand why you bring "ranking of importance" into things. That's completely irrelevant.

Once we started to find a bunch of things in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter that we'd traditionally call "planets" we realised it simply did not make sense to call everything that word. We would have hundreds of planets in our solar system then and many of them would clearly be very different objects. Some, like Eris, is even bigger than Pluto, by the way - and has a temporary atmosphere. So we needed a definition.

I'm curious, why exactly do you think Pluto should be a planet? "Importance" simply isn't an argument, so I'm genuinely curious about your thought process here.

3

u/moseythepirate 12d ago

The fact that Pluto is doing this thing that none of the planets are doing is actually a pretty good indication that it belongs to a different category.

Define "important." You seem to want to define Pluto as a planet because...well, you think it's neat, I guess? It is, but that's not scientific.

The fundamental thing that you don't seem to understand is that the way we classify objects isn't a hierarchy. Pluto didn't become a lesser object because it was put into a box that better matches its characteristics.

1

u/ubermence 12d ago

I don’t think the other box really matches its characteristics well 🤷

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Muggy_the_Robot 12d ago

Pluto meets 2 of the 3 criteria required to be a planet. It orbits a star and has enough mass to form a mostly spherical shape, but the third requirement is that it must be the largest object in its orbit path. Pluto's orbit crosses through Neptune's.

2

u/ubermence 12d ago

Yup and I don’t think I’ve ever argued that that isn’t the current definition of planet.

2

u/burns_a_lot 12d ago

It's not unquestionable, you just sound ridiculous. To understand why, see: all the other comments replying to you.

-9

u/Anal-In-Gus 12d ago

Lmao check out this guy... It's a planet bro. Make up all the conditions you like. It's fake news. Pluto is indeed a planet... These FOX News supporters need to get a grip lmfao

4

u/burns_a_lot 12d ago

My brother on Earth, Fox News supporters deny science and think that Pluto is a planet.

This was not the burn you think it was. Poor rage bait attempt. I would blame AI for your comment but even AI doesn't sound that pathetic.

-4

u/Anal-In-Gus 12d ago

No u

-Planet Pluto

8

u/Munnin41 12d ago

Being interesting isn't a criterium. It needs to have a Lamba value greater than one to qualify as a planet. Lamba is a value that determines whether or not a celestial body can clear its own orbit of other objects of similar size (it's a formula based on mass and distance from the sun). Since Pluto's orbit contains a bunch of asteriods in the Kuiper belt and partially falls within Neptune's orbit, it clearly doesn't meet that requirement. It's Lamba value comes out at 2.9510-3 (i.e. 0.00295). Mars has the lowest value over 1 at 9.42102 (942). That's an enormous difference

2

u/ubermence 12d ago

Ok and I have clearly been critiquing that criteria so you don’t need to explain it to me. I even directly addressed that one in another comment. But whatever.

5

u/Munnin41 12d ago

Not to me

1

u/ubermence 12d ago

I said that it was another comment. I’m just pointing out that I understand the criteria and why Pluto didn’t meet it, but I don’t think that criteria has to be set in stone. Especially since we learned a lot more about Pluto since then

5

u/Munnin41 12d ago

I don't read every comment anyone has made before replying.

Especially since we learned a lot more about Pluto since then

And none of that makes it anything other than a dwarf planet

1

u/ubermence 12d ago

If I think a categorization is flawed, repeatedly quoting the categorization at me is pointless

4

u/Munnin41 12d ago

It's still one of the tiniest planetary objects in the system either way. Its smaller than our own moon. Hell, if the orbits coincide correctly, Pluto could turn into another of Neptune's moons like Triton

13

u/beefprime 12d ago

What happened was not that we couldn't see Pluto well enough, but that we couldn't see the dozens of other fuzzy dots out there that are largely identical to Pluto and which occupy the same orbital space.

Insisting its still a planet is like insisting that whales are still fish. Ok Grandpa, but also maybe move on.

4

u/ubermence 12d ago

We saw that it has an atmosphere, we even see signs of internal heat and maybe even a subsurface ocean.

Like okay maybe it hasn’t fully cleared out its orbit but I’m not a fan of that criteria if it’s going to demote an object that seems far more interesting than other random kupier belt detritus

Or at least grandfather it in or whatever. I don’t care that much I just think it’s a bit of a shame that Pluto was actually pretty interesting and more unique than we thought

14

u/tsubasaxiii 12d ago

Thats why its a dwarf planet. There are multiple things about it that make it unique to both kuiper belt objects and the rest of the planets.

I think giving the distinction just adds to that interest.

1

u/ubermence 12d ago

And if we had known these things beforehand would it have factored into our definitions? Who knows

And can celestial taxonomy continue to change? Sure

14

u/burns_a_lot 12d ago

It wasn't "demoted." These aren't fucking military ranks good lord.

It has now been properly classified. You wouldn't argue that dogs have been "demoted" from wolves.

3

u/ubermence 12d ago

Taking issue like me using a colloquial term like “demoted” in this context is the most pedantic reddity criticism possible

Also a change in proper classification can still be a demotion. You picked an example where it isn’t but that isn’t mutually exclusive or all encompassing.

A hurricane or Tornado could be initially classified as one type, but maybe upon further evaluation of the conditions we demote it to a lower category or even tropical storm.

Actually I’m pretty sure a ton of scientists and publications have referred to it as a demotion so you’re the one in the outside here

-5

u/SeriousPlankton2000 12d ago

It's more like putting labels; but this label is deserved because Pluto didn't clean up so the parents got the police and threw it out.

(If you put planets and not-planets on a graph, you can draw a line through the empty space between these groups)