Big Breasted Women & Demotion of Pluto

[Pimppeter2]

As I understand it, a decade ago there were 9 planets in our solar system. A few years ago an international astronomical society not only demoted Pluto to be a dwarf planet but re-classified 2 other bodies as dwarf planets. Now, they say there are 8 planets in our solar system.

From a philosophical and English rules perspective, this makes no sense. If I were to say there are 6 billion people on earth; 3 billion are men, 3 billion are women and 1 billion are big-breasted women, that would make no sense. Big-breasted women are not a different category from women; they are a subset. So too it is with any adjective-noun syntax, including planets.



The number of planets in our solar system should have gone up from 9 to 11; with 4 being inner planets, 4 being gas giants (or outer planets) and 3 of the 11 being dwarf planets. Why is it that dwarf planets are not considered to be a subset of planets?

[sub]Maybe I should of used another analogy, but this one was funniest.[/sub]

 

[FranzTyphid]

Its Height-ist is what it is!

 

[internetzealot1]

Because if we classified Pluto as a planet, we'd also have to include some of the larger asteroids in our solar system.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

I don't know. I do feel sorry for Pluto, though what other four are you talking about?

 

[DoctorNick]

What's the difference between an island and a continent besides size?

We can argue the semantics of it all day but at some point you have to establish some sort of diving line, and for better or worse Pluto and the other dwarfs don't meet the standard.

 

[El Poncho]

What, sorry I was looking at the picture

I always thought about that, it's still a planet. Planets aren't called Big planets, just planets. Therefore Pluto is a planet, even though it's small.

Racist I say!

Because if we classified Pluto as a planet, we'd also have to include some of the larger asteroids in our solar system.

Wouldn't they have to have planet like qualities other than being big?

 

[Olikunmissile]

Because some people in white coats changed the rules for being a planet everything I learnt at school was wrong.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.

However they are not planets because they are not big enough apparently.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because there's more than three dwarf planets in orbit.

Do YOU want to learn about the 5000 planets?

 

[GundamSentinel]

It is sometimes argued that the Earth and the Moon are double planets. Really, I'm not too fussed with definitions. 8 normal planets and 3 dwarf planets is okay with me. Pluto just plain sucks.

 

[Americow]

I want Pluto back!! I never really found out why they don't think it's a planet, but I don't care either.

 

[Kajin]

I think one of the reasons why pluto isnt considered a planet is because it's orbit is somewhat irregular. Certain parts of it's orbit bring it closer to the sun than neptune, meaning that at least part of the pluto year is spent as the eighth farthest from the sun as opposed to the ninth.

Don't ask me why that makes it "not a planet", I don't really get it either.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

Because there's more than three dwarf planets in orbit.

Do YOU want to learn about the 5000 planets?

If one of them resembles a disco ball, then yes.

Screw science, I still think of Pluto as a planet anyways.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Sorry what was you talking about?, its just I saw the the title and I couldn't think, I get like that when thinking pluto.

Serious note, its because the definition of a Planet is flawed, check it out .... what is a planet?

nay sayers would have you believe that Pluto cannot be a planet because its made of ice and its moon is bigger than it is/ it doesn't travel in the same way as the other "Planets"/ if pluto is a planet so is Sedna/ blah de blah de blah.

Now go into your dictionary to find out what a planetoid is?.

The definition of Planet was flawed to start off with because at the time Planets were Planets, now its got a whole lot more complex everyone has a fit.

You think Pluto has problems?, I'd like to see it take off a bra.

 

[grimsprice]

What, sorry I was looking at the picture

I always thought about that, it's still a planet. Planets aren't called Big planets, just planets. Therefore Pluto is a planet, even though it's small.

Racist I say!

Because if we classified Pluto as a planet, we'd also have to include some of the larger asteroids in our solar system.

Wouldn't they have to have planet like qualities other than being big?

Exactly... like... being round?

Wouldn't that be the simplest definition of a planet? A large round thing orbiting the sun?

And potatoes shaped objects... aren't planets.

 

[Xero Scythe]

As I understand it, a decade ago there were 9 planets in our solar system. A few years ago an international astronomical society not only demoted Pluto to be a dwarf planet but re-classified 2 other bodies as dwarf planets. Now, they say there are 8 planets in our solar system.

From a philosophical and English rules perspective, this makes no sense. If I were to say there are 6 billion people on earth; 3 billion are men, 3 billion are women and 1 billion are big-breasted women, that would make no sense. Big-breasted women are not a different category from women; they are a subset. So too it is with any adjective-noun syntax, including planets.



The number of planets in our solar system should have gone up from 9 to 11; with 4 being inner planets, 4 being gas giants (or outer planets) and 3 of the 11 being dwarf planets. Why is it that dwarf planets are not considered to be a subset of planets?

[sub]Maybe I should of used another analogy, but this one was funniest.[/sub]

dwarf planets are not really planets, the same way a jellyfish is not really a fish. It's one step up from moon, and one step below planet. For a planet to be a planet, it must have its own course of trajectory around a star, unaffected by any other planet's gravity. Therefore, the planet-hopeful must be pretty big and pretty far away. Pluto is small, and is affected by Neptune's gravity, actually intersecting on their trajectories. Neptune still counts as a planet since it stays in its normal trajectory; only pluto changes course.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Wouldn't they have to have planet like qualities other than being big?

What qualities would they be? And how do we know Pluto possesses them?

Do YOU want to learn about the 5000 planets?

We would need one hell of a mnemonic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic] for that.

 

[El Poncho]

Wouldn't that be the simplest definition of a planet? A large round thing orbiting the sun?

Well, it's own gravitational pull as well I guess but a lot of things have gravity.

But! I'm hoping there is other things...because hope is all I got for Pluto

 

[grimsprice]

dwarf planets are not really planets, the same way a jellyfish is not really a fish. It's one step up from moon, and one step below planet. For a planet to be a planet, it must have its own course of trajectory around a star, unaffected by any other planet's gravity. Therefore, the planet-hopeful must be pretty big and pretty far away. Pluto is small, and is affected by Neptune's gravity, actually intersecting on their trajectories. Neptune still counts as a planet since it stays in its normal trajectory; only pluto changes course.

Every body in the solar system has a non-circular orbit and is affected by the gravity of every other body. Only to smaller degrees. So what tolerances do you hold as the standard for determining the difference between "affected by other bodies" and "not affected by other bodies"?

Why isn't it an "irregular orbit planet", or a "rogue planet".

And what about those other little ones that aren't affected by the gravity of other bodies? I forget their names. Shouldn't those be planets?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Because it and it's moon orbit each other, the center of gravity is not in pluto. That may be bullshit.

 

[CINN4M0N]

Pluto was already on The magic schoolbus space game as a planet, so it's too late to turn back now.

Q.E.D it's a planet.