Forum Overview :: Dark Star :: Okay look.

[quote name="laudablepuss"]Very well explained.. Jupiter's trojans: far too tiny. Pluto: clearly a dwarf planet. AND he says that dwarf planets are STILL planets. I love it all of that! Except he says that last bit right after he says it's NOT a planet. So . . . when he says "planet" he means "major planet" or "not dwarf planet" or something. But he's clearly just rolling his eyes as hard as he can. At least it seems that way to me. "Pluto lovers" spoken in the same tone as "2012 people". (My monitor doesn't have the resolution to see the glint in his eye, but my speakers are good enough to hear this.) What did his eye glint and tone of voice say when he was respecting that guy's pluto-love? His arguments were the three checkboxes for being a planet that he talks about, and then half of his talk was: kids who were born after the demotion don't care (gee no shit?), we used to have a planet named George, people used to think Pluto was enormous, etc. Which proves nothing but makes him sound like a dickhead. You yourself said we'd NEVER have considered Pluto a planet if in 1930 we had telescopes that we have now. Like it's RIDICULOUS to think otherwise. The most that can be said is, if we had the knowledge back then that we have today, this conversation would have happened in the 1930s and not in the 2000s. The assumption that it would have turned out the same way in this alternate reality means you think there's a God given definition of planets, and it's not an arbitrary definition. It's possible and even likely that this definition won't last beyond a hundred years, when we've seen more planets and collected more data on planet formation and evolution.[/quote]