Is Planetary Status a Form of Discrimination?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FeynmanMH42
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planetary
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the controversy surrounding Pluto's demotion from planet status by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and the implications of this decision. Charon, Pluto's moon, expresses strong opposition to the IAU's classification, labeling it as discriminatory and arbitrary. The argument emphasizes that Pluto and Charon should be recognized as a double planet due to their unique orbital relationship, which challenges traditional views of planetary hierarchies. The discourse critiques the IAU's definitions, suggesting they reflect outdated prejudices and a lack of imagination regarding celestial bodies. Additionally, there are concerns about the financial implications of Pluto's demotion, including potential fraud related to planetary investments. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of how celestial bodies are categorized and the need for a more inclusive understanding of planetary relationships in the solar system.
FeynmanMH42
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
From http://www.vgg.com/VGGBlog/

End Planetary Discrimination Now!

charon.jpg

Hello I'm Charon. You might know me as Pluto's "moon." I've remained silent in the planet/not-a-planet controversy regarding Pluto, but I can remain silent no longer. The International Astronomical Union has decided to demote my life partner Pluto and take away his status as a planet. This blatant, divisive, and cruel discrimination can not stand.

Pluto and I are no strangers to controversy. Our very discovery was controversial. Percival Lowell's outer-solar system witch hunt first outed us in 1930 due to the public's panic about a supposed gravitational "influence" over Neptune. Well, now the truth is out there- our supposed "influence" on Neptune is minimal, people: minimal. Neptune is his own planet, and he lives his own life. As for us, we could live with the strange looks and being snubbed by space probes. But this time the astronomy establishment has crafted an arbitrary definition of "planet" simply to exclude Pluto. This is discrimination at its worst.

Am I not a planet? Do I not orbit the Sun? Am I not rounded by the gravity of my own mass? What more could you want? Yes, our orbit has been described as "eccentric"-- but I'm here to tell you that this is an astronomy codeword for "inferior." You can dress it up in all the euphemisms you want, astronomy, but it is still the language of hate. It's time we stood up and proudly proclaimed that our orbit isn't eccentric- it's QUEER!

Obviously, panicked, conservative astronomers no longer want Pluto and I in the list of planets where children would have to be taught about us and our lifestyle. By demoting us, they think they can sweep us under the rug, out of sight, and pretend that moons orbiting planets and planets orbiting suns in neat little ellipses in the same plane is the somehow the "natural" order of things, despite the reality of the universe.

What they find even worse is that I don't orbit Pluto. And Pluto doesn't orbit me. We orbit EACH OTHER. We are not a planet and moon, but a double planet! Our relationship is an EQUAL partnership, and it is this fact that so frightens the establishment. Our existence challenges the so-called "traditional values" of the planet-moon relationship where the moon is always in the inferior position, and "knows their place."

It's sad that the astronomy establishment sees our equality as a threat that must be suppressed. A threat so great they feel they must revoke our status as planet. The IAU will no longer legally recognize our partnership, and will deny such recognition to all future double planets, or even, "God forbid" triple planets. But we're here, we're queer, we're Kuiper! And we're not going anywhere- in fact, our numbers are growing. Sedna, Quaoar, Varuna, - sure our names may not be from classic Roman mythology, we may not have the topography and atmospheres the "establishment" says is proper, but we all orbit the same sun as you.

The IAU has chosen to discriminate against Pluto by assigning it a status separate from the "classical" planets, and calling it something other than "planet." Separate is not equal. Especially when the separate status thrust upon us is "dwarf." Dwarf? We're not dwarfs- YOU, you the astronomers, are the dwarfs- dwarfed in spirit, dwarfed in mind, dwarfed in imagination. Your hide-bound, outdated, antiquated prejudices have left you unable to see that all planetary bodies are created equal. Your plutophobia sickens and disgusts me.

There's no need for it to be like this. Dark matter is 90% of the universe; regular matter, the type of matter that makes up planetary stalwarts like Jupiter, Earth, and Mars--is the very same stuff that makes up Pluto, myself, and a whole host of bodies you've probably never even taken the time to be aware of. We're all part of the same, precious 10%. And it's high time we all saw that.

We all orbit one, solitary star. Let's try to remember that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe we need a special term for partner (paired) planets, even though they are unique. Afterall, they are together by mutual attraction. :biggrin:
 
We do have a special term. Its moon (or satellite).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a gay man, I deeply sympathize with your plight, Charon.
You and Pluto have a special relationship that is fine, good and ought to be recognized on its own terms. Just because you don't fit into the traditional value system shouldn't work against you.

Keep up the good fight!:smile:
 
I think the real reason Pluto has been demoted is to make the old ryhme work again.

Mary's
Violet
Eyes
Make
Johnny
Stay
Up
Nights
 
Pluto is mad

This not only discrimates pluto but caused damages and possible fraud. Just look Pluto's complaint letter!
Pluto
near the Kupier Belt and by Neptune.

06 September 2006

International Astronomical Union

RE: Complaint concerning advice received on endowment mortgage and Plantary investments

Endowment policy number 9

Mortgage reference number 9.2

I am writing to you to make a complaint about the way I was sold my mortgage endowment policy. I believe, for the reasons set out below, that I was mis-sold this policy and am requesting you to investigate the sale. I am also requesting that you send me a copy of my endowment file so that I can see all the documentation you have relating to my case.

An adviser in your company sold me a Plantary Insurence and investments endowment policy in February 1930 . The target amount was $1,100,00012.

The reasons I am complaining are as follows:

  • The endowment was not suitable for me. Other options for repaying the Plantary mortage were not discussed fully with me. The adviser did not explain the endowment was a long-term policy and that I would need to be able to keep up payments over the whole term of invesments. The adviser did not explain there was a risk that I would no longer be a planet and explain my endowment. The adviser did not discuss in full the deffention of my status was to be invested in.


  • The sale didn't follow the rules. No fact finding was completed during the sales process and therefore the adviser did not have full knowledge of our financial situation. They also made violated polcies of my investors during a meeting on my status.
  • The endowment policy will not mature until after I'am demoted.
  • I already had an defention with an endownment and the adviser told me to cash it in and gave me a new deffention.

I was register as a planet, the IAU has guarnteed benefits of a planet. Unill last week, when the IAU voted for a new defention of a planet which discernment me and others and it also commits fraud. My faimly members including, my sister Charon, My best friend 2003 UB313, and my grand father ceres will sue IAU for abuse of the defention of planet and fraud of plantary stock investments. My investors, including NASA, has lost billions in the stock market. The IAU has also caused damage to other planets investors such as merury(no one likes a small planet :( ) and Neptune (No one likes going to the farthest) and they might as well(although I cannot confirm this).
I will sue the IAU for farud of investments and possible fraud of other planets as well, including Earth, due it's redefention of a planet. The IAU has caused damage to the soloar system damage and my lawers will fight this until the IAU can get justice for plantary discrimination and fraud.

I would be grateful if you could reply to this letter within 14 days for legel reasons as adviced by my lawers.

Yours Scin..., Planet

Pluto

I knew this going to cause finacle diffuculty for pluto:frown:
 
Maybe we should start doing science by popular vote. :rolleyes:
 
I'm curious as to why Pluto/Charon aren't considered a double planet. Doesn't the Barycenter lie above pluto's surfice? Whats their pause is calling it a double planet? Is it because this would bring about problems with Jupiter/Sun?
 
  • #10
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
I'm curious as to why Pluto/Charon aren't considered a double planet. Doesn't the Barycenter lie above pluto's surfice? Whats their pause is calling it a double planet? Is it because this would bring about problems with Jupiter/Sun?

It was considered and eventually rejected, as it was decided neither was a planet:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=129039"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
But why, do you know?
 
  • #12
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
But why, do you know?

Pluto was demoted because it didn't clear its orbital path. It lives in the Kuiper Belt, in which there are many objects of similar composition and comparable size. The same reasoning would apply to the Pluto-Charon combination.
 
  • #13
So it isn't a double-planet because it has the word "planet" in the phrase double-planet? And since it isn't a planet it can't be a double planet? That's stupid... I guess we could come to a comprimise and call it a double-dwarf planet
 
  • #14
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
So it isn't a double-planet because it has the word "planet" in the phrase double-planet? And since it isn't a planet it can't be a double planet? That's stupid...

I dunno, I think it would be kinda silly to call a pair of bodies a double planet if neither was a planet.
I guess we could come to a comprimise and call it a double-dwarf planet

This may turn out to be the case, but my understanding is that they've so far only officially labelled Pluto, Ceres, and 2003 UB313 as dwarf planets. I wasn't at the meeting, so I couldn't provide any further details.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top