this post was submitted on
685 points (55% like it)
3,468 up votes 2,783 down votes
shortlink:

funny

subscribe2,576,731 readers

6,674 users here now

Reminder: Political posts are not permitted in /r/funny. Try /r/PoliticalHumor instead!

NEW! No gore or porn (including sexually graphic images). Other NSFW content must be tagged as such

Welcome to r/Funny:

You may only post if you are funny.

Please No:

  • posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor. Click for an Example.

  • Screenshots of reddit comment threads. Post a link with context to /r/bestof or /r/defaultgems if from a default subreddit instead.

  • Posts for the specific point of it being your reddit birthday.

  • Politics - This includes the 2012 Presidential candidates or bills in congress. Try /r/politicalhumor instead.

  • Rage comics - Go to /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu instead.

  • Memes - Go to /r/AdviceAnimals or /r/Memes instead.

  • Demotivational posters - Go to /r/Demotivational instead.

  • Pictures of just text - Make a self post instead.

  • DAE posts - Go to /r/doesanybodyelse

  • eCards - the poll result was 55.02% in favor of removal. Please submit eCards to /r/ecards

  • URL shorteners - No link shorteners (or HugeURL) in either post links or comments. They will be deleted regardless of intent.

Rehosted webcomics will be removed. Please submit a link to the original comic's site and preferably an imgur link in the comments. Do not post a link to the comic image, it must be linked to the page of the comic. (*) (*)

Need more? Check out:

Still need more? See Reddit's best / worst and offensive joke collections (warning: some of those jokes are offensive / nsfw!).

Please DO NOT post personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder.

If your submission appears to be banned, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

The moderators of /r/funny reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

CSS - BritishEnglishPolice ©2011

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

684
685

Oh Pluto (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by Doomjelly

all 80 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]DarkWorks 63 points64 points ago

Pretty sure NASA didn't decide this.

[–]SamCroft 30 points31 points ago

Correct. It was done by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). It is a dwarf planet because it isn't big enough to have its own gravitational field, and it's orbit varies by more than the allowed limits laid out in the definition of what a planet is. (I study Astrophysics and my lecturer was in the committee that decided all of this.)

[–]whydoyoulook 9 points10 points ago

Everything has its own gravitational field. To be a planet, you must:

  1. Be Round
  2. Orbit around the Sun
  3. Be massive enough to clear its orbit of significant debris.

[edit]: Pluto meets 2 of the 3 requirements, but it hasn't cleared its own orbit of debris.

Or, here's the quote from the IAU website: A celestial body 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, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

[–]SamCroft 0 points1 point ago

Yes, well That's what I meant. Clearly. Obviously everything has it's own gravity.

[edit]; Also, i meant this to not sound so pratish lol!

[–]nepidae -2 points-1 points ago

Could mercery clear its own orbit of debris if it weren't so close to the sun?

Plenty of planets have stuff orbiting around them.

To be honest, a lot of this stuff sounds like people arguing whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, when it really doesn't matter because those are culinary terms, not scientific ones.

[–]whydoyoulook 1 point2 points ago

According the the IAU, Mercury already has cleared its own orbit of enough debris to be considered a planet.

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point ago

Again that seems odd. Why not set the bar higher? Or lower? It really just sounds like people who want to try and make their mark.

Scientifically it doesn't even matter what a planet is or a "dwarf" planet. it is just a label. It doesn't change its interactions with the solar system.

[–]whydoyoulook 1 point2 points ago

The distinction of "dwarf" planet doesn't change anything. Pluto is still what Pluto is. Just because we call it something different doesn't make Pluto any different. Why get bent out of shape about the whole thing? This is just a way of classifying objects. This is the same way we classify the inner rocky bodies (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the outer gaseous giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus).

[–]dblan9 0 points1 point ago

Well, there are quite a bit of incorrect trivia cards that state 9 planets. Moops!!

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point ago

I think you meant Moors.

[–]dblan9 0 points1 point ago

It says Moops!

[–]elerner 1 point2 points ago

If we set the bar low enough that Pluto is a full-fledged planet, we're going to have to start letting more — maybe a lot more — planets into the club. There are already at least two other Kuiper Belt objects that would make the cut along with Pluto, and there are four other good candidates right now. There is also Ceres and potentially Vesta in the asteroid belt.

As you say, "planet" is just a label. But labels are helpful. In this case, we want to make a distinction between the major orbiting bodies in the Solar System and the minor ones. Having 17 planets somewhat dilutes the significance of the label, especially as that number will only increase as our probes and telescopes improve.

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point ago

Why don't we let more into the club? The only real measurement that we should care about is the real measurements. Not the arbitrary name. We call Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune gas giants, but they are still planets. We could call pluto and mercury dwarfs, but still planets.

And anyway, we could have a thousand planets orbiting the sun, I'm not sure what the problem would be. Is that too complicated for people?

[–]ElGoddamnDorado 0 points1 point ago

You may be able to remember the name and characteristics of thousands of planets in just one solar system, but most people couldn't or just wouldn't care too. Why does it really matter anyway? I'm sure Pluto doesn't actually give a damn.

[–]peepants666 0 points1 point ago

Planet didn't have a real definition before they came up with one. It needed to happen.

[–]nepidae -1 points0 points ago

"They." I guess I just don't put much stock in "They"'s definition.

[–]peepants666 1 point2 points ago

I would hardly call the IAU some meaningless "they." It's not like some guy on his blog made it up and we all just went with it. Professional astronomers and physicists etc put a lot of effort into figuring out how to classify the bodies of the universe. It's something that is necessary so we can learn about things.

[–]Deemanboy24 1 point2 points ago

You have very little understanding what science is, don't you?

[–]AmericasNo1Aerosol 0 points1 point ago

I think the point was that if we continue to call Pluto a planet, we would need to consider all the other Pluto-like objects we've discovered in the solar system planets as well. There might be dozens or hundreds of planets.

The truth is that Pluto is a lot different than the other 8 planets. Stopping the criteria before we include Pluto makes a lot more sense than after. If we include Pluto, we should include other objects as well. So where do we stop? Do we stop at all? Should we include everything that orbits the sun and have a million planets? You have to pick the place where the criteria is the clearest. I know it's not 100% cut and dry, but is there a better, more meaningful, place to draw the line?

[–]nepidae -1 points0 points ago

Why would it be a problem to have a hundred planets? We have hundreds of a lot of things. hundreds of elements and somehow we manage to categorize those?

Mercury and Jupiter are incredibly different.

Why should we stop? Does making pluto not a "real" planet increase our ability to understand the universe?

[–]AmericasNo1Aerosol 0 points1 point ago

Would it be a problem? No, probably not. But they decided it was better to remove one than to add a million. And you support my point with your elements analogy. We categories the elements into groups of similar properties. Just like we categories the bodies in the solar system into groups with similar properties. We have noble gases, halogens, alkalines and we have planets, dwarf planets, and asteroids.

Mercury and Jupiter are different. One is a small rocky planet, and one if a giant gas planet. Maybe we should put them in their own categories. Oh wait, we do. The 4 rocky planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) and the 4 gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Venus). And we also group together the dwarf planets that are decidedly different than the planets closer in.

Why should we stop? I don't know that we need to. I doubt that "real" astronomy cares about what is classified as a planet and what isn't. It's just a label to help classify similar things when you're describing them to someone. Whether or not we call Pluto a planet has nothing to do with it's physics and on it's effects on the universe.

Does "demoting" Pluto increase out ability to understand the universe? Pluto itself, no. Dwarf planets, yes. Understand that it's not about Pluto itself. It's about classifying all the objects that are similar to Pluto (Pluto included). If you call an object a dwarf planet, I can make some reasonable assumptions about it (orbit, mass, composition). If you just call it a planet, I would probably way off with my assumptions.

[–]Ragnalypse -3 points-2 points ago

Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of significant debris. Pluto is about as significant as debris gets.

The new criteria are crap.

[–]whydoyoulook 0 points1 point ago

Except for the fact that Neptune and Pluto don't share the same orbital path. Not only is the path different, but Pluto's orbital plane is tilted by 17 degrees. Sure, distance-wise they are "close" to each other (by which I mean that Pluto is rarely closer to the Sun than Neptune), but that doesn't imply that they share the same orbit.

[–]Ragnalypse -3 points-2 points ago

Just as nothing is directly in pluto's path. The stuff that pluto hasn't attracted out there is mostly stuff that Jupiter would not have cleared, because the debris is so spread out.

[–]whydoyoulook 0 points1 point ago

but as far as classifications go, Pluto shares more similarities with a Kuiper Belt Object than it does with any other Planet. Just as the gas giants share more similarities with each other than any other object. Just as the inner rocky planets share more similarities with each other than the other object.

It doesn't matter what you want to call it. The only thing this does is help scientists classify similar objects. It is the same concept as putting similar elements in columns on the periodic table.

[–]Ragnalypse -3 points-2 points ago

I'm not arguing that Pluto is a planet. I'm pointing out that the definitions we're currently using are garbage. These "scientists," if you can call such illogical people such, set up definitions that either include pluto or exclude Neptune depending how literally you take "clearing out your Orbit."

At least they're busy on something people don't actually bet their lives on, like the engineering that goes into cars.

[–]DarkWorks 5 points6 points ago

Yep, I've seen a ton of Neil DeGrasse Tyson videos, he always makes this point very clear. It's a shame whoever made/posted this is so ignorant of facts.

[–]DoubleRaptor -1 points0 points ago

I appear to have spelt "r/science" as "r/funny" again, my bad.

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point ago

I have to say, the word "dwarf planet" sounds like one of the stupidest things ever. I mean look at the size of Jupiter, and then look at the size of other planets. Pluto is half the radius of Mercury.

[–]nigganigga 0 points1 point ago

what exactly is a gravitational field?

surely it has mass and thus exerts some gravitational force upon other things, right? just not a field?

[–]drusteeby 1 point2 points ago

Gravitational force is the force that you feel when a body is inside a gravitational field. Just like magnetic force is the force a magnet feels inside a magnetic field.

All mass does exert a gravitational field (even you and me). The statement "It isn't big enough to have it's own gravitational field" makes no sense scientifically. I think what SamCroft was trying to say was "It doesn't have enough mass to have a significant gravitational field to clear the neighborhood around it's own orbit."

In otherwords, for it's small size it's not dense enough to be a planet.

[–]SamCroft 1 point2 points ago

This is exactly what I did mean. I was high on painkillers when I wrote that. The guy below, pategoisgras, explains field theory well. Just like you have electric fields or magnetic fields, you can have gravitational fields. Only there's no such thing as a negative gravity field.

[–]patefoisgras 0 points1 point ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

Field theory allows physicists of the old days to wrap their minds around the phenomenon of 'force at a distance'.

A gravitational field is a quantity at one point in space (Newtonian physics) indicating the magnitude and direction of the gravitation phenomenon in particular. It can be considered as "the effect that a massive object has on empty space".

Technically speaking, every massive object should have gravitational fields around it, even atoms and possibly smaller particles, so it was wrong of SamCroft to have claimed that Pluto couldn't have its own gravitational field (although he most likely meant something else).

EDIT: Why am I posting physics when a dude with cancer is getting laid with a random hot Asian chick from GW while spending $8k raised by Reddit?

[–]nigganigga 0 points1 point ago

why is that relevant?

[–]jp07 3 points4 points ago

Well the jerk store called they are running out of you!

[–]DarkWorks 3 points4 points ago

Well then you better get down there ASAP.

[–]hooterboy 0 points1 point ago

Yeah? Well I had sex with your wife!

[–]SimilarImage 28 points29 points ago

Age User Title Reddit Cmnt Points
5 months littlelistmaker You get 'em Pluto. here 219 856
8 months Kita Dear NASA, /r/pics 35 166
11 months GameMackeral Oh...my...god here 83 423

This is an automated response

FAQ | Send Feedback | Report Error

[–]alelan 9 points10 points ago

And sorry to say but it also wasnt NASA that decided it...

[–]Deemanboy24 8 points9 points ago

God dammit, Pluto! You're drunk again. Give me your phone and go to bed before you start spreading those pictures of Uranus.

[–]Toth201 8 points9 points ago

*sincerely

[–]trimeta 7 points8 points ago

A rebuttal.

[–]P3ngu1n48 15 points16 points ago

Oh, THIS joke again.

[–]nostateofmind 6 points7 points ago

It isn't just about Pluto's size.

[–]Apostolate 0 points1 point ago

But you're saying that size still does matter?

[–]RocketRedRocket 5 points6 points ago

Its not because of its size, its because Pluto is part of the Kuiper Belt, which is essentially an asteroid belt. Pluto isn't a planet for the same reason the asteroids between Mars and Jupiter aren't planets.

[–]tomkandy 1 point2 points ago

the asteroids between Mars and Jupiter aren't planets

And similarly, the largest main belt asteroids were initially considered to be planets, before we realised there were loads of others.

[–]RocketRedRocket 1 point2 points ago

oh, cool, didn't know that

[–]ndnecoal 2 points3 points ago

If Pluto WAS defined as a planet then about 20 other objects (including Pluto's satellite Charon) would also have to be defined as a planet. Since then, it was simply decided that a planet has to have "cleared out" it's orbit. Since Pluto hasn't cleared out it's orbit in Kuiper Belt, it isn't a planet, same with the other 20 known objects and the other hundred or so of potential candidates.

[–]eagleapex 1 point2 points ago

"PLUTO! Stop being such a wuss."
-Makemake

[–]ReyTheRed 1 point2 points ago

I didn't think NASA had anything to do with properly classifying Pluto.

Also, interplanetary action? Kinky. You go NASA's mom.

[–]draivaden 1 point2 points ago

grow up

edit - someone beat me to the punch in posting this, but watch it anyways

[–]WhateverUWant5555 1 point2 points ago

REPOST!

[–]ConVonCon 1 point2 points ago

Who or what would be NASA's Mom?

[–]DoubleRaptor 1 point2 points ago

Mrs NASA

[–]willscy 0 points1 point ago

The... Air Force? I think?

[–]RoflCopter4 0 points1 point ago

It was more than just the size. It barely resembles any of the other planets. There are bigger asteroids. Pluto just isn't a planet.

[–]imtoooldforreddit 0 points1 point ago

it's not about what it resembles, it's just that it hasn't cleared its orbit enough - too many other bodies in a similar orbit. If pluto was the only thing there, it would be considered a planet even though it doesn't really resemble any of the other planets.

[–]wanderso24 0 points1 point ago

Pluto jokes still?

[–]Lilkounchry 0 points1 point ago

ZING!

[–]honeybunchesofOtis 0 points1 point ago

Not NASA's idea and Pluto needs to quit bitching.

[–]just_a_quantum_dot 0 points1 point ago

I'm not seeing Pluto in there, to be honest.

[–]mingohagen 0 points1 point ago

Needs more fonts.

[–]I_am_NOT_IronMan 0 points1 point ago

Someone's a little sensitive.

[–]taboo007 0 points1 point ago

I'm pretty sure I saw this about the time the media was talking about this...which was years ago.

[–]deathleaper 0 points1 point ago

Pluto you're still not a planet. Get the fuck over it.

[–]chewtality 0 points1 point ago

I miss Pluto :(

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Dammit I was expecting Dolan.

[–]amatamoros 0 points1 point ago

Sincerely

[–]masedizzle 0 points1 point ago

Ah yes, I love jokes from 2006! Thanks OP!

[–]the-troller69 0 points1 point ago

it will take awhile for it go get here.

[–]cuddlebear 0 points1 point ago

Relevant

[–]brownboy13Delhiting your posts since 2012[M] 0 points1 point ago

Removed - Picture of text. Please submit this as a self post.

[–]PlutodaPlanet -1 points0 points ago

I upvote this post everytime damn time

[–]Dekodev -1 points0 points ago

Give it up, plutards

[–]maneaters12512 -1 points0 points ago

Oh look, this again. Has it been a week already?

[–]MrBigBMinus -1 points0 points ago

Repost rubbish

[–]sporkasaurus -1 points0 points ago

this again?!

[–]AllDizzle -2 points-1 points ago

I don't get why so many people got mad that Pluto was found to not fit the description of a planet.

Why aren't those people spending their energy now to get more funding to nasa and space exploration instead of wars?

[–]DoubleRaptor 2 points3 points ago

Wars and posting funny pictures in /r/funny, they're both basically the same. Ethically, at least.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 9684 on app-86 running bd731f1.