|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 22, 2019 19:10:32 GMT
The landmass of Russia is bigger than Pluto
So no Pluto should not be a planet
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jan 22, 2019 19:12:47 GMT
Never should have been one to start with.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 2, 2019 0:26:49 GMT
I say yes. So what if we end up with lots of other bodies that we have to call planets. As long as their sizes are included in any discussion of them, then folks will know, for example, "oh, that's a small one, like Pluto." Or, "that's a medium sized rocky one like Earth or Mars." Etc. I'd say that if it is large enough to have gravity to make itself essentially spherical, then let it be a planet.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Mar 7, 2023 18:19:44 GMT
That's not necessary for most redditors, many of whom were not even in school yet when it was. They consider it one, astronomers be damned. But what about the dwarf planets in our solar system that are larger than Pluto.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 8, 2023 4:25:31 GMT
As mentioned by another poster, the IAU definition is problematic and there is not even close to a consensus on whether Pluto should be a planet. In fact, it was originally to be designated a binary planet but that was switched at the last minute by the guy who was butthurt his rock didn't make planet status. Back in the 60s some thought Earth and the moon should be reclassified as a binary planet.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 8, 2023 4:31:29 GMT
As long as it doesn't crash into the Earth, I don't care...
However, with how bad things are getting on Earth, I might change my mind of that in the near future, because it would be a hell of a lot more exciting that hearing about people kissing Trump's ass...
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 8, 2023 19:39:05 GMT
There should be a minimum size for a rock orbiting a planet to be considered a moon. Currently there is none, which makes Jupiter have 50 moons, some of which are less than 10km in diameter.
|
|