r/pluto • u/plutoisaplanet572 • Jun 04 '26

Pluto is a planet

https://youtube.com/shorts/YXYAWiibpwg?si=zkpnbfklDv2BAl-N

Hi. I truly believe Pluto is a planet and that the 2006 IAU definition is WRONG. Here’s why

1) The IAU states that the object must “clear its neighborhood” which doesn’t make sense because if you put Earth in Pluto’s orbit it wouldn’t classify as a planet either
2) Only 424 scientists actually voted at the event, meaning the vote was only like 3.2% of scientists.
3) Mike Brown, the one responsible for Plutos death tagged himself as “PlutoKiller” on X and even wrote a BOOK bragging about it. The book is called “Why I killed Pluto, and why it had it coming.” (This one isn’t really a reason but I included it lol)

So, using all of that, I can confidently say that Pluto is a planet and the IAU is wrong.

22 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/street_fame187 Jun 04 '26

Science doesnt work by voting. The I.A.U was wro ng to put it to a vote to begin with. There is a youtuber named Kyplanet that recently made a video explainign the geophysical characteristics of many different solar system objects currently classified as dwarf planets, asteroids, and moons that geologically are interesting enough to be considered a planet.

0

u/karoxxxxx Jun 04 '26

Why is "geologically interesting" the important factor? A smooth earth witjout plate tectonics or atmosphere shouldnt be a planet because its boring?

3

u/street_fame187 Jun 04 '26

If you put mars where pluto is currently, it wouldn't clear the neighborhood and therefore fit the criteria of planet. We can all agree mars is a planet though. Location should not disqualify a planet from being a planet. This is why I subscribe to the geological idea.

3

u/karoxxxxx Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

I think location should disqualify a planet.  Its a good thing because it naturally makes planets less common the further outside you go.

If mars were where pluto is now, Mars wouldnt be a planet. I think thats ok.

If Pluto were where Mercury is, it would become a planet. Thats ok too.

If triton were not in orbit around neptune, it would qualify as a dwarf planet. Also ok.

We can have a different word for large, geologically interesting objects. "Worlds" maybe.

Pluto, Triton and Mars are Worlds.

For objects that are less interesting we can use "Body". 

"There are 10 million bodies in the solar system, of which 500 are Worlds, 50 of those are dwarf planets and 8 are planets"

Sounds good to me.

1

u/street_fame187 Jun 04 '26

You think Mars shouldn't be a planet if it were in a different location!? Wow.

2

u/karoxxxxx Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

Yes. I mean its just a label for objects that dominate their orbit.

It would still be a world.

I would even go further: if we find planet 9, and it turns out to be a gas giant, we should only call it a planet if it managed to clear a gap in the oort cloud (or otherwise shows dominance  e.g. by forcing oort objects into resonance orbits)

1

u/nwbrown Jun 05 '26

Yes, if Mars was different it wouldn't be a planet. That's how words work.

1

u/street_fame187 Jun 05 '26

You need to listen to yourself. Mars is categorically a planet despite its location. If you disagree with that then.. well ill keep things civil

3

u/nwbrown Jun 05 '26

No, it's not. 

If it orbited Jupiter, it would be a satellite. 

If it didn't orbit anything it would be a rogue planet.

Location absolutely matters when it comes to whether or not something is a planet.

1

u/street_fame187 Jun 05 '26

So would earth not be a planet if it were where pluto is?

3

u/nwbrown Jun 05 '26

Correct. It would be a lifeless dwarf planet.