Thread: Pluto's Fifth Moon Discovered

That's an interesting fact to know - I didn't know that Pluto had four other moons along with Charon.

Originally Posted by Syxx

Originally Posted by Evil Figment

Still not a planet.

Still should be; that whole "Not a planet" thing was a stupid decision to begin with.

I'm gonna disagree with you and say it was stupid to call it a planet in the first place.

This. Calling Pluto a full-blown planet would be like calling every single celestial body that's revolving around the Sun a "planet".

Originally Posted by The Outrage

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

I didn't know Pluto had any moon other than Charon, anyway.

That was my reaction. I was basically "why did I not know when second through fourth was discovered"

Also this.

Originally Posted by Evil Figment

Unova Castaway: I know perfectly well their reasoning.,

It was still an utterly unecessary decision from a science world/real world relation point of view, and a full-blown example of scientists being stuck in their ivory towers and not realizing they're not the only ones using these words. They could have invented a term to separate pluto from the rest without trying to hijack a commonly used word and redefine it in a jargon that makes fairly little sense to anyone who isn't an astronomy geek at the very least.

Pluto is not a planet because other non planets are like Pluto. There, I just explained it. No PhD required.

Maybe if the public would actually consider why Pluto was declassified instead of being butthurt that something they learned in their elementary school science class no longer applies, they might actually learn something instead of remaining scientifically illiterate.


On a different but interesting note, this article makes the case that the Pluto-Charon system is a binary planet. Charon is 12% the mass of Pluto, and orbits very close (orbital period of about 6 and a half days) about a barycenter which is located outside the radius of Pluto. In kind, the remaining 4 moons revolve around this barycenter, so they are essentially orbiting the Pluto-Charon system, not Pluto itself.

Originally Posted by TheShuckpluff

On a different but interesting note, this article makes the case that the Pluto-Charon system is a binary planet. Charon is 12% the mass of Pluto, and orbits very close (orbital period of about 6 and a half days) about a barycenter which is located outside the radius of Pluto. In kind, the remaining 4 moons revolve around this barycenter, so they are essentially orbiting the Pluto-Charon system, not Pluto itself.

Wasn't this one of the reasons why Pluto was declassified in the first place?

Originally Posted by J J M

Wasn't this one of the reasons why Pluto was declassified in the first place?

Nope, the possibility of being a binary planet had nothing to do with it.

Another moon for the dwarf planet. Interesting.

Pluto became a dwarf planet after there were characteristics of a planet set. Because if Pluto was considered a planet, we would have to have also classified other (dwarf) planets like Ceres as planets in our Solar System.

Stupid question but if its not a planetary body how do the revolving bodies get the status of "moon"? Honest question, its something that never made sense to me.

Pluto has five moons and we only have one? What a crock.

Sorry, folks, the nostalgia goggles are fused firmly to my face. I couldn't take 'em off even if I wanted to. So I'll consider Pluto a planet until the day I die. dealwithit.jpg

Also, count me among those who had no idea Pluto has so many satellites. That's actually pretty cool.

The stupidest part of it all is the replacement name they found for it.

"It's not a planet, it's a DWARF planet".

So...a dwarf star is a small star, a dwarf galaxy is a small galaxy, a dwarf shrub is a short shrub, a dwarf angelfish is a small angelfish, a dwarf beaked snake is a small snake...

But, get this, a dwarf planet is not a planet.

Bravo, guys. WAY to be clear about things.

The original redefined proposal was far better, just needed a little improvement to deal with a few issue. The version they ultimately adopted was tripe dipped in shit layered with academic ego-centrism.

I'm not sure why is this significant. Don't expect any life forms in this moon though.

Originally Posted by Evil Figment

The stupidest part of it all is the replacement name they found for it.

"It's not a planet, it's a DWARF planet".

So...a dwarf star is a small star, a dwarf galaxy is a small galaxy, a dwarf shrub is a short shrub, a dwarf angelfish is a small angelfish, a dwarf beaked snake is a small snake...

But, get this, a dwarf planet is not a planet.

Bravo, guys. WAY to be clear about things.

The original redefined proposal was far better, just needed a little improvement to deal with a few issue. The version they ultimately adopted was tripe dipped in shit layered with academic ego-centrism.

Sounds like you're mad, and I don't understand why. Scientists do what they think is right based on the evidence available. Science changes sometimes when scientists realize that what they were doing before was not perfectly accurate.

At any rate, could you please lock this thread? It's not supposed to be an argument about Pluto's planethood.

I'm keeping the thread open. Discussions change, and if people want to continue the futile debate about whether Pluto is a planet or a dwarf planet, they can go ahead.

So be it.