Good to know I'm not the only one who perceived it like that :D

The 12 year old in me laughed

*soft piano notes*

Needed a cricket noise.

Agreed but far more effective.

Actually, we are looking at nature's boxes and simply labelling them.

@@RideAcrossTheRiver No, nature doesn't have boxes. Nature doesn't care. OP was correct, we create our own boxes.

@@RideAcrossTheRiver No, we try to simplify reality to reduce complexity, but nature is just inherently complex. That's why semantics will always be debated.

@@gljames24 We observe a loose association of body types in our solar system. Same for stars and galaxies.

I do really wish people would stop insisting that the boxes themselves are some sort of objective truth, and I am sad that he stooped to doing that at the end of the video.

Of course, asteroids have for the longest time been classified as "minor planets".

must have been a 4 inch refractor....price really jumps up from going from 3.3 inch to a 4inch.

I believe it has been seen by the naked eye by people with extremely good night vision at high elevation dark sky sites.

@accelerationquanta5816 No it isn't. It fails one category.

@accelerationquanta5816 Well since I was one of the people responsible for the criteria required (2006 IAU resolution) I think I might know this. To be considered a planet the object has to have cleared its orbit - Ceres has not done that. The definition is: A "planet" is a celestial body inside the Solar System that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

1,025

how do we teach kids about some icy object that’s name sounds like a cat walked across a keyboard

​@@astronliketheancientgreekword seems easy enough

I know the name of all 1025 of them I can handle 50 or so planets

Damn I wish I'd thought of Icesteroids 😂

@@astropro1 it was an appeal to the emotional pluto lovers who won't shut up after 16 years

Plutoid is a nice homage to dear old Pluto but we really need something more scientific.

@@astropro1 In fairness, cryasteroids sounds way more scientific

I cryo'd 🥶😭

yup

yea

It's not a crime it's a felony

The great egg in the sky needs its voice heard

@@tartine2463 You made me spit out my water, but I'm not angry.

only 2 different kinds of planets? I don't know bro I don't normally put the 4 rocks in the same bag as the 4 gas giants

Neptune and Uranus are considered ice giants so wouldn't it be 3?

In 1987 in the 6th grade I said I didn't think Pluto was a planet. We hadn't discovered the Kuiper Belt yet, but science knew comets came from the outer solar system. That there were a bunch of ice chunks out there and occasionally one got bumped toward the inner solar system and became a comet. I think it was called the ice belt. I thought it was like the asteroid belt, just ice instead of rock. I said Pluto was just an above average size ice chunk. The teacher said it was a planet because it had an atmosphere and a moon. I said comets have atmospheres and if it came closer to the sun it would have a tail. And I said there are asteroids with other asteroids orbiting them, they aren't planets. Pluto even has an off plane elliptical orbit like a comet. Not the best technical definition, but I was 11 and had just thought this up 2 minutes earlier. The teacher said "That is the stupidest thing I have heard in my entire life." So I was thrilled in 2006 when Pluto got demoted. I hope my 6th grade teacher was still alive and remembered calling me stupid.

@@BrettonFerguson BURN! American school system be like:

@@WinVisten Yes america schools. The same teacher once said the Earth's inner core was molten metal. I corrected her and said the outer core was liquid, but the inner core was a solid. She said I was stupid because the core was like 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit so the Iron would be melted. I said melting temperature increases with pressure. At that point she told me to go to the principal's office "for being a smart ass".

Imagine having to model each asteroid they found💀

@@el-verdadero_mordecai-456 There are probably a ton more models in a large open sandbox type game like Breath of the Wild, GTA V, or something else I haven't played. Sorry, not big on gaming. I've often wondered how people deal with tasks like that. Not as complicated as modeling large amounts of objects, that's way beyond me. But just entering information into a massive database. Like say, you want to start a dictionary site. You'd need a database with all of your words in it for the website to consult whenever somebody searches. Sorry if this is too simplistic I just don't want to assume any prior knowledge and cause confusion. And I just think about how many tens of thousands of UNIQUE entries they have in each entry in the database. And every one of them had to be entered by a person. Again, I'm no expert, but I'm sure they have ways to automate it to a degree. For example to digitize books, I found an app where you just point your camera at a page in a book and it turns it into a pdf document. But aside from hiring people at slave wages to do data entry for you, I dunno how they would fill even a database with 10k entries. And yeah, then you get into video games you suddenly you have databases of objects that have to be called in a very specific manner at very specific events. The database itself may have just as many items, but the way they're interacted with is way more complex than just a user searching for one at a time. And nevermind actually making the maps for these games. Like Breath of the Wild's map is apparently about the size of Manhatten! Give or take, of course. But looking at other games, that's about the size of the maps for some of these large ones. You've gotta think about a game like GTA V where they had to recreate large parts of LA, although I guess a good bit of the groundwork was already done in San Andreas. But they still basically had to start from a vague template. Not to mention, as big as San Andreas' map was, V's dwarfs it. I'm curious how big VI's will be.

​@@VoidHalo Nope, Not even close, the amount of KBOs is staggering Universe Sandbox only renders the important ones, and all others are just a generic dust cloud

Just go look at Space Engine. It's not perfect but good enough.

The I.A.U hurt Pluto's feelings and laugh at Pluto and calling Pluto names right?

We totally need to move all mining operations out there asap. No need to mine on Earth for Space-based equipment / resources beyond the first few generations.

@@TechRyze -- That might not be as useful for resources though. Ceres is mostly Rock, Ice, Salt, and Clay. There's some graphite and sulphur too. The heavier elements may have sank to the core over billions of years of cryovolcanism. All that water is great for a station though. Lots of propellant for rockets, lots of water for easy shielding from radiation, and lots of drinks for the monkeys! Asteroids for mining could be towed into orbit, and the refining equipment kept near the (relative) comfort of a full station.

Exactly why it's cool. It's such a massive object in the belt. It would be cool if more people knew about it.

@@TechRyze What is there to mine? And what use even were it found?

@@eannamcnamara9338 1 Ceres is only 11 percent the mass of the Moon.

I know people say Piazzi finding Ceres was a coincidence but I really doubt it. My guess is the celestial police didn’t ask him to look for it, so when he heard about it anyway and actually found it, the police lied and said his letter “must’ve gotten lost,” which remains the official story. I find it almost impossible to believe he found Ceres without knowing where to look first.

@@astropro1 I guess it is possible yeah. But "officially" he was not part of the group and just so happened to be systematically surveying that part of the sky correcting star charts he was in possession of 🤔

Damn. I was totally theorizing that Neptune's orbit was being deformed by the wormhole left out there by previous visitors.

Also if im not wrong there was some measurement whose calculated value (as per the newtonian model) wasnt aligned with the observed value; but what it turned out to be was that that newtonian model was fundamentally flawed in the sense that the main gravitational equation was "incorrect", and that when people used Einstein's theory of general relativity to calculate the aforementioned value they got something that lined up with the observed value.

@@elle9834 That was Mercury

There are 9 planets in our solar system and 4 known planetoids.

Alright then learn all asteroids and TNOs [insert gru holding you on gunpoint here]

To make it simpler, they could’ve just chosen to only teach the classical nine planets while still recognizing there are more out there. You can have your cake and eat it too. Voting to change scientific facts is not science, nor is the motivation behind it valid.

It's okay to disagree with the IAU's arbitrary third criteria.

@@ulfrinn8783 Yeah, I don’t know why people think the IAU has the final word of this subject. It’s clear that they don’t and many people already ignore their definition, myself included.

Yeah, it's crazy that we argue about the smallest particles to the biggest galaxies, but also kind of impressive that we have the means to do that at all. Sorry if I'm taking this too seriously and you were just making an exaggeration, but you went a bit far there. The planets are several to dozens of astronomical units away. A light year is used for interstellar distances where rogue planets and stars would inhabit, and is many thousands of times further away.

Kuiper Belt is not rocky bodies. They are icy bodies.

@@RideAcrossTheRiver also these are way closer than half a light year. It's less than a thousandth of a lightyear.

Pluto is like half a light day away if not closer.

Pluto, apparently not even in the solar system.

I have a theory that the long awaited planet 9 might be an object so distant that it takes hundreds of thousands of years to complete it's orbit arround the sun, maybe a former rogue planet ? Do i have anything to support this ? No lol, but it's cool to theorize.

If such an object were to be discovered, I assume the IAU will change their definitions again. It seems weird to have a Kuiper belt object the size of Mars or the Earth that isn't classified as a planet.

@@PyroBlaze202_alt um, there are no "Earth-sized" objects in Kuiper. Triton, Neptune's moon, is the largest. Triton is not even as large as the Moon.

@@jeffdeischer8692, none have been discovered. But, as far as I understand, one could be discovered. which is what I'm referencing in my comment.

@@PyroBlaze202_alt I wouldn’t doubt it. The IAU botched the definition to begin with, it’ll be obsolete in no time.

Ceres was initially classified as a planet, but there wasn't a huge uproar when it was downgraded to asteroid. I guess because there was no internet back then.

@@Dulcimerist And people who loved astronomy acted more dignified and as adults back in the day.

@@carlossaraiva8213 Great point!

​@@Dulcimerist Asteroids were a subset of planets back then (as with pretty much everything that's not either stars or comets). It wasn't until Kuiper's papers in 1950s that argued about asteroids' distinct physical differences from larger planets that they stopped being considered planets. I think the reason for the lack of uproar was probably because Ceres was never really as popular as Pluto.

@@AstroChara Ceres is still very much a planet. Math isnt wrong the IAU is as ussual. No one in Astronmy agrees with that UN board of Selected politicians.

He didn't need a punchline, the audience knows the joke and the silence was just enough time to think of it and laugh before the content resumes. (We are all children)

we're never mature when it comes to uranus (audience laugh)

The silent pause after saying uranus was just too funny, but it be interesting to find out why they decided to name it that.

10:51 "Not my anus Uranus" 💀

@@guestiveuranus isn't a laughing matter ... uranus is huge full of gas and very important!

This I can agree with. Pluto, Eris, and large round moons are just as interesting as planets, sometimes even more so (Titan is a lot more awesome than Mercury). Omitting them from Solar System models does them a great injustice as despite being called “dwarf” planets, these are very large objects, thousands of times larger than asteroids.

Learn to edit. C+

Hey, why not present/communicate/ or educate at the planetarium the possibility that Mercury is Venus' moon.

​@@atomicplanets8226Mercury does not orbit Venus??? What the hell are you on?

Nobody loses interest in a celestial obeject because it's called a dwarf. Just to acknowledge that means that you are interested in astronomy to begin with. Most people couldn't care less. The real argument is on a precise definition of a planet.

Black hole orbits our sun? Are you high? Black hole are way more massive and they are center of masses of the galaxies. So, in fact, it's other way around, the sun is orbiting a black hole, just like all the other stars in our galaxy.

​​@@rakhatthenut3815 You may be right, as insane as your comment sounds. This comparably tiny black hole would definitely change our sun's orbit around the galactic core, even if it has less than 2 solar masses

somehow it's not being discussed that Pluto-Charon is actually closer to a binary PLanet system, ala the Centaurus system (3 stars in in orbital resonance), since the gravitational barycenter is well outside of Pluto's surface. Earth-Luna was the largest example of size relation of planet-satellite, until the details about Charon became better known. Add in the fact that both Pluto and Charon are tidally locked to each other, and it's a slam dunk.

Atleast star-like makes sense in the context of being a point of light in the sky. But obviously we now know that is about the only similarity between asteroids and stars. (Tiny rocks vs giant perpetual nuclear explosions)

Geoid already has a meaning, so I thought terroid might be better... however, a quick Google search found that to be taken as well.

@@RuthBingham words can have many meaning associated to it

to be fair we still use the words galaxy and galactic, so asteroid honestly isn't that big of a deal considering that most people nowadays think of a big space rock when they hear asteroid and not something star-like

​@@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman in this case, science doesn't like using identical terms for very different things if possible. Especially not when we're using classifying words. The entire point of classification is to maximally delineate as definitively as possible.

Well, no. Pluto would stay a planet and Quaoar would get added. Also, Pluto’s mass in comparison to its orbit is so minuscule because it’s so far away, hence why Earth’s mass is greater than Jupiter’s shown on that graph. If Earth were moved to Pluto’s distance from the sun, it would suddenly not be a planet.

g!kúnǁ'hòmdímà

@@handledav What you said is a dwarf planet candidate, 2007 UK126

@accelerationquanta5816 Apparently astronomers couldn’t cope with the existence of more planets. They’re fine with billions of stars and galaxies, but planets reaching double digits is “too much”. Our solar system has hundreds of planets, they need to get used to it.

@@Jellyman1129Star” and “galaxy” are quite simply more general terms than “planet”. There are so many objects orbiting the sun that to say “well over a quintillion” wouldn’t even be an understatement, but only 8 of them are planets.

They literally do

im glad theyre trying to find a new planet, lets just hope it actually exists

Search for planet 8* I don't know why they're pretending Earth fits in the definition of planet when there are two "uncleared" asteroids swinging around us lol

@@SoftBreadSoft because, as Caelan pointed out in the video, its about the proportion between the planet's mass and the mass all of the things in its orbital path (because every planet - even Jupiter - is going to have stuff in its orbital path. hell, larger planets LIKE Jupiter are going to actually corral stuff into those places, which is why we get Trojans) and since Earth's mass dominates it's orbit, it is considered a planet. in fact, if a planet's orbit had to be totally clear all the time, the number of planets in our system would be a whopping 0.

@@4orks976 Earth's mass does not dominate its orbit, neither does Neptune now that you reminded me (hello Pluto) It is much easier to retroactively move goalposts, make ammendmemts and special exceptions than to admit the semantics are not rigorous and change the diction, which is what they should have done in 2014-15 instead of the aforementioned damage control.

@@SoftBreadSoft ok can you maybe come back here after you actually watch the goddamn video and maybe learn a bit about basic astrophysics before you try to pass yourself off as someone who knows astrophysics

The question here is; when does a hill become a mountain.

Can I interest you in the term "centaur"?

@@BerryTheBnnuy isn't that only for things influenced by Jupiter's orbit?

So basically just "all the dwarf planets except Makemake"

*separate

Dude I have some soothing cream for Planetoids... It Can be very painful in the science department😢

On a serious note you mentioned our moon, which is moving away from us every second, about 4cm a year. At one epoch no longer will eclipses happen as we see today, but the earths gravitational force will be superceded by another force centrifugal(¿) And be thrown into a different orbit. Maybe stable enough around the sun that it meets all the criteria for the planet. The new name for Luna To Jänus?

That must’ve been Mike! That’s the book he wrote about all this. That’s awesome, I wish I could go to a lecture of his!

@@astropro1 It was back in 2007 or 2008 but I remember it being really interesting. Great work from you on this video as well!

@@astropro1 Brown and his co-author have a good paper from last year predicting the orbit of a massive trans-neptunian body "Planet Nine". ~6.2x Earth Mass at >300AU!

@@alexreustle I'm betting if Planet Nine exists it has not cleared it's orbit (the further out an object is the more massive it has to be to "clear it's orbit") and so Brown is either going to have to give up the clear it's orbit thing or admit it is not a "planet" even though it would be an ice giant.

That's a hilarious title for a lecture

Same feeling when Eris was found out. I thought it will be the tenth planet. 😔

I was in 5th grade when it was discovered and I remember saying to my friends that Sedna sounded like an insurance company.

*Dinosaurs*: There’s over 1,000 species of us. Kids love it! Yeah, it was a stupid decision for the IAU to limit the number. I guess we have to go back to eight states and eight elements. 🙄

​​@Jellyman1129 Kids don't learn all 1000

Meanwhile the periodic table:

Either its a planet or it is not. e do not care about your pets. OFF Topic.

Proto Planet is a term for ancient remanents, like Vesta and Ceres, Plus planets that probably existed like Theia

Dang I gotta watch it there instead. Bye yt!

Why, what's different there?

@@drsrwise watch it earlier

Unfortunately, planetoid is a term long in use. It is another word for asteroid. It's a shame, really, since it is the most logical name to use.

@@perrywilliams5407 Boo at redundant naming, reclaim planetoid for a proper use!

I think all asteroids and all so-called 'dwarf planets' (what a condescending name) should be called 'planetoids'.

@@Rishi123456789 We have also 'dwarf stars' (including 'red dwarfs' and 'white dwarfs') and 'dwarf galaxies'. Why 'dwarf planet' is condescending?

Earth-Moon is a binary system, the center of gravity of the system makes it difficult to visualize.

The Moon would be called a planet if it orbited the Sun by itself.

Earth-Moon are a binary system. It is difficult to visualize because of the center of gravity of the system being so near earth, and because we are viewing it from the larger body, and because the binary system 'wobbles' through its orbit once every 28 days.

Isn't all of the moons are moons because they orbit a planet?

@@12duck123 Does the Moon really orbit the Earth? The gravitational force on the Moon from the Sun is twice that of Earth's pull. And what other body in the Solar system is even remotely close to being able to swing around the bigger body with such strength? Charon around Pluto is the only other rounded body in the Solar System that does this in addition to the Moon. The Moon can get the barycentre to about ⅔ the difference from the core to the surface. Not even Callisto, Ganymede, or Titan can do that with Jupiter and Saturn and they are bigger than Mercury. The shape of the Moon's orbit around the Sun is essentially a circle, and this is not true of any other rounded body in the solar system except for Charon, and the planets both dwarf and major.

Zena/Xena is now named Eris

Xena and Gabrielle are just the old unofficial names for Eris and Dysnomia.

I had forgotten that those two had initially been named after two characters from a television series, until they finally came up with the official names.

Ummm…retired lecturer in Philosophy here. Philosophy isn’t a social science. It isn’t any kind of science, but an exploration of fundamental questions by use of reason. The main divisions are metaphysics (what is the nature of reality) epistemology (how do we know anything) and axiology (study of values - right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, cool and uncool). Social constructs and intersectionality (awful word!) are concepts from social science. Social science isn’t really science either.

@@robinharwood5044 and pray tell why is intersectionality an awful word?

Indeed, it was coined by Dr. Alan Stern in 1991.

It’s a political battle, not a scientific one.

You remember the day you were born? lol

​@accelerationquanta5816HARD AGREE. I'm totally teaching kids that there are dozens of planets. You don't need to memorize them, just like you don't need to memorize the 50 nearest stars, just some important ones. We already often group Uranus and Neptune together, so grouping all the generic iceballs together isn't really all that different. And of course, we may discover rings, odd shapes/colors or geological features etc as our knowledge increases.

Sometimes kind of shocking to watch a good KZfaq video made by someone that more effectively explains a subject I spent years learning about in school. Like "why did no one else think of explaining it this way before? "

Ceres is cool Join the Ceres fan club

I remember the name Xena too. I was also confused for some time when I saw the name Eris.... I actually liked the name Xena for some reason.

@@Rebslager A certain warrior princess perhaps? ;-)

@@lordearthblood Ha ha... Yea I know about her too.... But I also remember Eris was called Xena in the beginning.... and it is kind of a cool name for some reason.... And the warrior princess didn't make the name worse ;-)

same thing here, to be honest, i don't even remember pluto being a planet itself, maybe i am too young. but, I've always heard about pluto being "no longer a planet" and accepted as an update on our conceptions, or new discoveries. i was also a dino and documentary kid, up to the conception that science is not constant, since it is a way of creating knowledge, not the knowledge itself, so things we classify today as something will be classified as others as our understanding and classifications grow. maybe one day, pluto and other similar bodies will be once again planets.

Same here

I was in elementary school when the change happened and was also a nature/science documentary kid. Blue planet was awesome as a kid, and "Life" was really cool when it first came out. I just accepted the change as the newest documentaries always had more info and corrections over older ones. One thing that is really cool in the age of streaming is you can find a documentary series like "How the Universe Works" and watch season 1 through season 10, but its really cool to watch the season 1 episode on black holes and then watch the season 10 episode on the same topic. Both episodes are made with the same good faith and most up to date information but its hilarious how different they are, because newer data supports a different theory.

Don’t know why’d you immediately accept something without doing your own research. Seems gullible.

@@Jellyman1129 The 'research' in question was realizing that newer information from reputable sources all agreed it wasn't, and that when newer information is in agreement when it comes to science, it is usually more correct than the old information. That kind of critical thought is frankly pretty impressive for an elementary-age kid (or heck, even in most adults I would say); what else would you expect a kid to be able to do (or even the general public in this kind of situation, most people don't have private access to multi-million telescopes!

Nothing but the best for you 😉

Same! Now time to watch every video 💪

I don't see any difference between dwarf planet and Minor planet. Its just that you prefer the word minor to dwarf for some reason

Which one is your favourite “main” planet in the sol system? Mine is either Saturn or Jupiter

Hot Jupiters in your neighbourhood

By the IAUs very definition, exp-planets are not planets at all. They run afoul of criteria 1: “…in orbit around *the Sun*.” Meaning our sun, Sol. There are only eight planets in the universe according to the IAU. Am I being a petty rules-lawyer to reach a conclusion I’d decided on before even beginning. Yes, but no more the IAU did themselves in 2006.

@@matthewtalbot6505 I don’t blame you at all! It’s easy to poke holes in the IAU definition, and people SHOULD do that because the IAU embarrassed themselves with a nonsensical argument.

I agree! Planetologists call them dwarf planets, but as a TYPE of planet. Like how the sun is a dwarf star, it’s still a star.

What's the difference between dwarf planet and Minor planet? The only difference I see is that you prefer the word minor to dwarf. I don't buy your argument

@@enadegheeghaghe6369 The term “minor planet” was used a long time ago when we thought there were “major planets” (Jupiter, Mars, Neptune, etc.) and “minor planets” (Juno, Vesta, Pallas, etc.). Once we determined that these “minor planets” are less massive and geophysically different than the planets we were familiar with, we realized they weren’t “planets” at all, but asteroids. So the term “minor planet” was dropped, but some people at the Minor Planet Center still continue to use the term for some reason. I caution against using it because it doesn’t make sense to call an asteroid a planet when it’s not. “Asteroid” replaced “minor planet”. Dwarf planet is a different can of worms. It was a term coined by planetary scientists in the early 90s to mean “small planet”, like how the sun is called a dwarf star to mean “small star”. This term does NOT refer to asteroids, but objects that are actually spherical and planetary like Pluto, Eris, Makamake, Sedna, and more. This term get far more mileage because it actually makes sense. Some people call them “minor planets” because they’re lower mass and gravitationally minuscule compared to the eight “major planets”, but that can get confusing. I’d just stick with terrestrial planets, giant planets, and dwarf planets.

Planets that gravitationally dominate (i.e. over 50% of the mass in their orbital region) should be called cardinal planets.

@Acceleration Quanta That's not how that category works. Titan, Triton, the Galilean satellites, and our moon are not planets.

I couldn’t agree more! I use the geophysical planet definition as it’s far less ambiguous. Instead of kids learning the names of every single planet, just have them learn the types. There’s terrestrial planets (like Earth), giant planets (like Jupiter), dwarf planets (like Pluto) and satellite planets (like Titan).

Yes agree. the Sun is very small compared to other stars so might as well remove sun in the star category because of its size 😒

@@janjamesramos247 Exactly. The sun is a dwarf star, but it’s still a star. Same with the dwarf planets. They’re planets that are just smaller.

@@Jellyman1129 @Jellyman Thank you. Oh, I didn't know that the sun is a dwarf star. I just disagree with the notion that Pluto is not anymore a planet. Its characteristics are like a planet except that it's small. But some satellites are also too small but there's no dwarf satellite category 😅 Anyway, I agree to your categories and it can be truly considered.

@@janjamesramos247 Yeah, the sun is a yellow dwarf. And Pluto has all the characteristics of planet-hood. Some moons are even bigger than Mercury.

I agree with you, but if dwarf planets are not real planets does it mean that dwarf people are not real people???

@@Reth_Hard exactly

People got upset because there was an intense emotional political battle behind the scenes that this video doesn’t mention.

It might exist or it might not, some people think it’s the solar system’s missing “super-Earth” others say it could be a completely transparent gas giant

It just doesn't exist, What they where looking for was found out to be failed math, they expected a near Jupiter mass object to explain the anomaly, but the discovery of general relativity fixed the math Planet 9 is a completely different theory than the Planet X theory, and theoretically it could be possible, as the math for it only puts it at around 3-4 Earth masses, but even then, it's also likely based on incorrect math

Fantastic comment, I couldn’t agree more! I was convinced at a young age that Pluto wasn’t a planet (mostly due to its small size) until I heard about New Horizons and Alan Stern. I saw his analysis of the IAU definition as well as the process of the vote and immediately switched sides to his definition. The EXPERTS of the field should define what they study, NOT an outside organization (especially by unscientific vote). So I’m with Stern on this, his definition makes way more sense from a scientific and principle standpoint.

You nailed it. Great job. This was a IAU media stunt to get publicity A scam upon the general public.

Thank You!!! Could not agree more!

#MakePlutoGreatAgain

@@gigadude Dangerously based.

Couldn’t agree more! This is largely in line with the geophysical planet definition, which is superior.

I couldn’t agree more! That’s already a thing with the geophysical planet definition. There’s terrestrial planets (like Earth), giant planets (like Jupiter), dwarf planets [which ARE planets] (like Pluto), and satellite planets (like Titan).

@@Jellyman1129 I agree with your idea for satellite planets I always thought the larger moons of the solar system deserved a better name than just moon while I personally think planetary moon is a better choice As I feel there needs to be an easy way to differentiate moons from each other

@@ryzethick1071 I certainly appreciate your reply, but it’s not MY idea. It’s the concept of the experts in the field, I’m just following along with their planet definition. And round moons go by a handful of names: satellite planet, secondary planet, and yes, planetary moon. You’re absolutely right. All of these names are used interchangeably and all mean the same thing, so pick whatever works for you! “Planetary moon” definitely sound the best to say, so feel free to use it! Planets that orbit a star are often called solar planets or primary planets. And planets without a host system are rogue planets or free-floating planets. Other moons like Phobos or Dactyl are often called satellite asteroids or asteroidal moons. “Asteroidal moons” sounds way better in my opinion. It makes sense that moons are divided into asteroidal or planetary because it doesn’t make sense, for example, to group Titan with Hyperion as the same object. Sure, they’re both moons/satellites because they orbit the same thing, but you can tell they’re clearly very different objects. Thanks for the comment! 😁