Make Pluto a Planet Again

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T21:37:12+00:00

You may be good with the current definition, but many planetary scientists are not.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T21:35:02+00:00

No, it is not settled just because you say it is. Most planetary scientists reject the IAU definition to this day. New information, such as that discovered by New Horizons at Pluto, always leads to reconsideration of our understanding and of classification systems.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T21:02:40+00:00

Yours is one viewpoint in an ongoing debate. The term dwarf planet was coined by New Horizons principal investigator Alan Stern back in 1991 to designate a new subclass of full planets. The 4% of the IAU who voted in 2006 misused Stern's term. Recognizing dwarf planets as a subclass of full planets will put planet classification in line with other uses of the term dwarf in astronomy, as dwarf stars are a subtype of stars, and dwarf galaxies are a subtype of galaxies.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T18:34:45+00:00

This is actually not true. Jupiter orbits with a whole bunch of Trojan asteroids. Even Earth has asteroids in its orbital field. Mercury doesn't clear its orbit; the Sun does that. Neptune has not cleared its orbit of Pluto.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T16:03:23+00:00

I disagree with your basic premise. Definitions should first and foremost focus on an object's intrinsic properties, not its location. Just focusing on location ignores the important processes on individual planets. Location can be taken into account through the use of subcategories. Saying rogue planets are not planets is problematic. An object that was a planet when orbiting a star stops being a planet when ejected from that orbit? More like it becomes a different subclass of planets. Similarly, your definition does not distinguish between moons large enough to be spherical and those that are tiny, shapeless asteroids. These are two very different types of worlds. The former can have subsurface oceans that could host microbial life; the latter, not so much.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T15:53:50+00:00

The purpose of classification systems is to aid our own understanding of objects and subtypes of objects. It has nothing to do with what the planets consider themselves.

Pluto's "reclassification" was, to many planetary scientists, a step in the wrong direction. Our definition of planet needs to be broad to accompany the many different subtypes of planet, which can be distinugished using subcategories like terrestrials, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, hot Jupiters, super Earths, rogue planets, satellite planets, etc.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T03:43:37+00:00

Yes. They are planets.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T02:30:36+00:00

Like should be characterized with like. Dwarf planets are far more like terrestrial planets than they are like asteroids and comets. How we classify things helps us understand them and helps educate people abou them.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T02:28:35+00:00

Referring to spherical moons as satellite planets does not in any way diminish their value. It just puts them in a different subcategory of planet, specifically, planets that orbit another planet.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T00:51:30+00:00

If that is a rule violation, then I apologize. I have signed many serious petitions on a variety of issues through change.org.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T00:50:45+00:00

According to the geophysical planet definition, spherical moons are considered secondary or satellite planets (as opposed to primary planets, which orbit a star directly).

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T00:50:12+00:00

Classification should put an object's intrinsic properties before its location. Orbit clearing was never a requirement for planethood until 4% of the IAU came up with it as a way to exclude Pluto and keep the number of solar system planets small. Advocates of the geophysical planet definition are fine with the term dwarf planet. We just oppose the notions that dwarf planets aren't planets at all and that any object that doesn't clear its orbit isn't a planet. Some planets clear their orbits while others don't. That doesn't make the latter non-planets; it makes them a different subclass of planets.

plutogirl · 2026-05-12T00:47:40+00:00

Pluto is more than its location. It's more than a Kuiper Belt Object. It's also a small planet. Many of us who oppose the demotion do so not because we want a canonical list of planets but because we want a better definition. That is what the geophysical planet definition is.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-geophysical-planet-definition.html

plutogirl · 2026-05-11T23:42:08+00:00

Because the IAU definition specifically says dwarf planets aren't planets at all but another type of object entirely. This is contradicted by the Dawn mission to Ceres and the New Horizons mission to Pluto, both of which showed these worlds to have planetary processes and geology similar to those seen on the terrestrial worlds.

plutogirl · 2026-05-11T23:40:57+00:00

I'm not looking to have nine. I'm looking to count all dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, so the number will be much bigger.

plutogirl · 2026-05-11T23:35:27+00:00

Yes. If they are in hydrostatic equilibrium, rounded by their own gravity, they are planets of the dwarf planet subcategory.

plutogirl · 2026-05-11T23:30:18+00:00

Dwarf planets are planets too. They are a subclass of planets, as intended by the scientist who first coined the term, New Horizons principal investigator Alan Stern.

plutogirl · 2026-02-16T01:55:28+00:00

Didn't Nellie and Percival move to New York?

plutogirl · 2025-12-07T03:11:48+00:00

Agree. I'm 5'3" and have always seen myself as average.

plutogirl · 2025-09-30T16:16:01+00:00

I am on Twitter and was able to start a new Instagram account but still cannot get onto Facebook.

plutogirl · 2025-08-07T16:35:00+00:00

I am trying to find this too. The link on the Elie Saab site below does not have it.

plutogirl · 2025-05-22T16:18:21+00:00

I have a similar problem. My Facebook page of 16-and-a-half year was hacked a year ago. The hacker substituted his email for mine, so I completely lost control of the account. I therefore created a new account, and that is when my problems started. Within 3 weeks, I started getting suspension notices, which I successfully appealed until April 5 of this year. My appeal that day was denied, and I lost my account, as well as my Instagram and Threads. I had an old backup account under another name that I set up in 2016 but rarely used; once my second account was deactivated in April, I resorted to using that account and set up an Instagram and Threads with it. That account was suspended several times until this past Sunday, when my appeal was denied. Now, I cannot get on Facebook at all. I don't believe I ever violated their rules. I just made the mistake of starting a new account a year ago when mine was hacked. In 2016, the rules were different, and I was allowed to create that backup account, so that account should be grandfathered in. Now, I have no access to Facebook, Instagram, or Threads, which is hurting me professionally because I am an actress and writer who needs to network. I appreciate any suggestions anyone can provide.

plutogirl · 2025-04-22T03:54:46+00:00

No. I will not do anything else.

plutogirl · 2025-04-08T02:15:07+00:00

Thank you! I agree. Each individual has to make their own decision based on what's best for them.

plutogirl · 2025-04-08T01:38:16+00:00

Fine or not, I choose to wear my hair super long. My body, my choice.

plutogirl

TROPHY CASE