Study Explains Why Pluto (And Some Moons) Are Actually Planets After All

Hello and welcome! My name is Anton and in this video, we will talk about a new study that explains why Pluto is still a planet
Links:

Support this channel on Patreon to help me make this a full time job:

Bitcoin/Ethereum to spare? Donate them here to help this channel grow!
bc1qnkl3nk0zt7w0xzrgur9pnkcduj7a3xxllcn7d4
or ETH: 0x60f088B10b03115405d313f964BeA93eF0Bd3DbF

Enjoy and please subscribe.

The hardware used to record these videos:
Some of the above are affiliate links, meaning I would get a (very small) percentage of the price paid.

Thank you to all Patreon supporters of this channel
Special thanks also goes to all the wonderful supporters of the channel through YouTube Memberships:
Tybie Fitzhugh
Viktor Óriás
Les Heifner
theGrga
Steven Cincotta
Mitchell McCowan
Partially Engineered Humanoid
Alexander Falk
Drew Hart
Arie Verhoeff
Aaron Smyth
Mike Davis
Greg Testroet
John Taylor
EXcitedJoyousWorldly !
Christopher Ellard
Gregory Shore
maggie obrien
Matt Showalter
Tamara Franz
R Schaefer
diffuselogic
Grundle Muffins

Images/Videos:
NASA/JHUAPL/SwRI
NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute

Licenses used:

[adamwu]

This geological definition of planet is interesting because it also makes the definition of planet consistent with the definitions currently used for stars and brown dwarfs, which are also based on what processes are happening inside the object, ie various types of nuclear fusion.

It also would mean that planets, like stars, can have lifespans, and will die, ceasing to be a planet just as a stellar remnant like a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole isn’t considered a star anymore. When a planet cools enough that all its internal and geological processes end, it would no longer be a planet but instead become a planetary corpse, which possibly would need a new name of some sort.

[JanneWolterbeek]

I love Anton. He always brings context, history etc. to a topic.

[nick]

Honestly, the definition of a planet being a geologically active object makes way more intuitive sense. It's also far less abstract and arbitrary than needing to "clear its neighborhood."

[LiamRappaport]

It’s always bothered me that, if the “clear your orbit” requirement knocked out Pluto, why did it not also knock out Neptune??

[TakoyakiStore]

This is interesting and leans towards 2 different planet categories, geologically a planet and orbitationally a planet and if both categories are checked then they will be "classical" planets.

[GianAgassi]

I see a similar ontological issue with the “geologically active” requirement: will the moon stop being a planet if its geological activity will stop sometime in the future? It would still have the same mass and the same influence on the Earth, why do planets need to be geologically active? Would a body as massive as the Earth but geologically inactive not be a planet?

[kma]

Anton is saying what we already knew - what matters most is what's on the inside! Yay Pluto! All good-hearted people were rooting for you.

[ArchBattle]

Hello Anton 👋🏼
This is an old study, I was a part of it. Not only Pluto, the others are: 2003EL61, 2007or10, 2005fy9, 2003UB313
With best wishes
J.I.R.M

[The_Modeling_Underdog]

Pluto, rising from the shadows: "I am... inevitable."

[lasgio_]

Anton, the man that saved Pluto in 2022

[EstrellaViajeViajero]

So all old stars won't have planets because the planets will cool down enough to not have geological changes? I'm not sure that's the greatest definition either. Plus, would the Gas Giants be planets since they have more weather than geological activity (at least that we can detect)?

[Zikar]

To keep the moon a, well, moon, a simple definition would be that a moon, as opposed to a planet, has its barycenter entirely within another planet.

Basically, it's a planet if it orbits the sun and a moon if it orbits a planet. It's only part of a binary system if their barycenter extends out from one of the planet's surface.

Also, while we're at it, lets demore any moon that isn't round down to just "natural satellite". Phobos doesn't deserve its title.

[simplesimon]

I personally consider any object that has hydrostatic equilibrium (gravitationally achieved a spherical shape…within reason taking into account deformation due to rapid rotational forces) and being comprised of more than 50% of non elemental hydrogen compounds or elements to be the more reasonable definition of a planet. That would cover anything traditionally considered a major or dwarf planet, rogue planets, and many moons - which are then merely minor planets in orbit about major planets. Anything that is predominantly hydrogen is going to be a brown dwarf or some type of star. Anything that cannot achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, much less layering itself in large part, is an asteroid or comet. Maybe comets are nothing more than ice asteroids. One can layer further categories on top of that definition of a planet such as terrestrial planets, ice planets, gas giants, etc by further examination of that (largely non hydrogen) composition.

Considering ability to clear its orbit seems arbitrary and asinine. Would a Jupiter-sized planet in a fledgling system that has not get cleared its orbit not be classified a planet? Whether it orbits something else and what that may be seems equally inane. Isn’t a super earth kicked out of it’s system by a gas giant and floating freely rather than orbiting a star still a planet? Titan would be a planet if not orbiting Saturn…so isn’t it still a planet now? Just one whose size being inferior to the planet it orbits conferring upon it the additional designation of a satellite. A satellite planet, or moon.

School children need not memorize every dwarf planet and satellite planet in the solar system. Just the major planets. We don’t make students in math classes memorize every formulae and relationship ever discovered. A handful of the most commonly useful ones such as the Pythagorean theorem and quadratic equation are sufficient for their needs. Literature students are not required to memorize the names of every author who’s ever put pen to paper. Or even just those who’ve ever been published. They are held to knowing only the most prolific and well known authors such as Shakespeare, Tolkien, Chaucer, Sun Tzu, etc. Why would a class in astronomy or planetary sciences have expectations any different? This whole debate is truly vapid.

[Kualinar]

The first time that I heard of the Earth and Moon as a binary planet was in the 1970's. So, about 40 to 50 years ago. Nice to see that concept getting more recognition.

[valerie_]

Excellent videon, Anton! Very well presented information which I find highly intriguing. I love this concept in that it really does seem to make our universe more diverse and vast :)

[notsoseriousmoonlight]

I never demoted Pluto. In my heart it has remained a planet!

[SassePhoto]

Anton makes everything look so easy because he is one of the hardest working Youtubers I have ever seen! Popularizing Science is a heavy task behind the scenes

[AusTxMale]

I always wondered if so called rogue planets that were not orbiting a local star would still be considered a planet because of the IAU definition. Under these other proposed definitions the question is clearly answered provided you can observe any kind of geological activity from such a great distance.

[captainstroon]

As we know from pokémon, children are definitely capable of memorizing 150 strangely named things.
And Sol Alan Stern has to be the best name for a planetary scientist ever.

[charlesmumby]

I have learned more from you Aton than I did in my entire schooling life