I have been thinking about the classification of planets and

>>8863865
I think this got real old, real fast.

>>8863867
LIBERAL BUTTHURT

>>8863870
You got me, I'm absolutely ass blasted over some cuck in a bow tie.

>>8863867
Why? There is a high probability of finding a 9th planet and there may be several other ice giants in the kuiper belt. There's a good chance that the spectrum of planets will widen over time.

Insisting Pluto is a planet based on feels is not dissimilar to a MtF insisting they are a woman.

>>8863865

Pluto is definitely Transplanet

I find people assuming its planet status to be fucking shitlords

>>8863895
Who the fuck is talking about MtFs and women? We're talking about planets.

>>8863865
I personally identify as a dwarf planet so the true red pill is that everything is actually on the same spectrum. There is no real difference between, lets say the sun, and my sex junk, it's all just a spectrum.

File: ACLpV9L.png (613KB, 532x570px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 532x570px

>>8863895
>>8863901
I think our vocabulary is limited in terms of what we can call all these giant celestial objects so we create new definitions so we can have a more precise classification system. Unfortunately it's not that easy and we end up redefining already defined objects after finding new examples.

Celestial bodies exist on a spectrum.

pluto is celestial body-fluid, sometimes it is a planet, other times it isn't.

>>8863919
Do you think it's social acceptable to colonize Pluto some day because they feel oppressed? If Pluto truly identifies as a planet, perhaps science can solve the problem by sending out space ships to clear Pluto's orbit so it can be a planet and be in alignment with its identity.

>>8863915
>Celestial bodies exist on a spectrum.

I think some specific qualifiers are needed for planet status

>Orbit of the star/stars by itself (outside of any moons)
>Big enough to form a sphere (>1000km)

Size, composition, and whatnot, outside of those 2 variables, shows the spectrum of what we consider planets

>>8863915
No, they don't, except we don't care what "spectrum" even means anymore. "Spectrum" would mean that the definition of celestial bodies is depended on one parameter, for example size. Than celestial bodies would exist on the spectrum size. This is not the case though. Size is just one parameter of many. So it is definetely not a spectrum. Except spectrum suddenly means everything that can be defined is a spectrum, in which case the word "spectrum" loses any precision and therefore all linguistic value. It's like replacing the words positive and negative with the word alladeen.

>>8863927
It may be a multi-dimensional spectrum where there are more than one parameters. It's all so complex and difficult to understand. I used to think it was as simple as following the list of criteria but even that's a spectrum.

>>8863933

Pretty much

1
2
3

Three distinct entities, are now part of a spectrum

Science is clearly lagging behind our understanding of semantics

>>8863945
3 different spectrums forming a super-spectrum. Science is hard, I know. Hopefully you'll learn more to understand it better some day.

>>8863965

I mean, shit

After 1-3, even in a fully closed system, has 4-10. So, it's really a spectrum of 1 - infinity.

Language is going to leave science in the dust.

>>8864018
We're gonna find more than 3 over time. One of the fundamental characteristics of the universe is that every object in it is on a spectrum of one way or the other.

>>8863865
Okay, I chucked.
Here's your (You)