Is Pluto a Planet?
Articles Blog

Is Pluto a Planet?


You know what a planet is, right? A big round thing that orbits a star. Uh, not so fast. The surprisingly vicious debate over the planetary
status of Pluto has given us a fascinating glimpse into what a scientific definition
really is. And perhaps the word planet is too vague to
be used as a scientific definition at all. We love to classify things. Labels help us keep stuff organized in our
heads. In science, categorization provides a fast
and easy way to know the properties of a member of the group just by knowing what group it
belongs to. Chemists group elements on the periodic table,
those groups exhibit similar chemical behavior that reflect outer-shell electron number. Biologists group organisms by similar physical
characteristics, and this taxonomy reflects genetic relationships. Astronomers are all about space taxonomy. We classify galaxies based on their shape,
black holes based on how they feed, stars based on their colour and brightness, and
planets by… well, by a set of criteria that has caused more tension and heartbreak than
any made-up grouping scheme really should. Because a change in that scheme demoted Pluto
from planet to not-planet. Today we’re going to settle whether this
was reasonable, and whether we should keep the word “planet” at all. The definition of “planet” has changed
a lot. If you were an ancient astronomer like say,
Ptolemy, the planets were the asteres planetai, the wandering stars. These included Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter,
and Saturn, but also the sun and the moon – basically anything that moved relative to
the background stars. Note that this does NOT include the Earth. This definition of “planet” was the most
sensible classification for thousands of years based on our observations and understanding
of the universe. But understanding improves. In 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus published “On
the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” which cast the Sun, not the Earth, as the
center of the universe and the Earth in its proper place among the planets. This picture was cleaned up by the observations
of Galileo and Brahe and the mathematical models of Kepler and Newton. Newton’s Laws of Gravity led to consistent
predictability of the motion of the heavenly bodies. The solar system finally made observational
and theoretical sense: there were now 6 planets orbiting the sun in perfect mathematical harmony. But new discoveries were about to mess up
this beautifully simple picture. See that’s the thing about science. No so-called fact is ever perfectly safe. Everything is subject to revision if evidence
turns against it. That’s the beauty of the scientific process. Keep this in mind for when we get to Pluto. New wandering stars were discovered in the
centuries following Newton. Uranus had been spotted many times throughout
history, but was only identified as a planet after William Herschel recorded its movement
in 1781. That same motion almost perfectly reflected
the clockwork predictions of Newtonian mechanics. “Almost”. Slight deviations in Uranus’s orbit betrayed
the existence of Neptune, which was discovered first in the mathematics and then with a telescope
in 1846. Between these two discoveries, four other
bodies joined the planets. At the beginning of the 1800s Vesta, Juno,
Ceres and Pallas were all spotted between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter and classified
as planets. But astronomers kept finding more and more
objects in that vicinity, and eventually realized that a new group was needed in our taxonomy. So the class of asteroids came into being. You might argue that Ceres, Juno, Pallas,
and Vesta were unfairly demoted from planet. After all, Ceres is 20% the diameter of Mercury,
so it’s in the planetary ballpark. But where do you draw the line? How many asteroids should we then classify
as planets? Or do we drop Mercury, which is, after all,
only 50% larger than our own moon and smaller than Saturn’s moon Titan. Our taxonomy had to evolve as our understanding
of the solar system grew, and so the term planet was reserved for the now-familiar 8
– Mercury through Neptune, although the definition of the word was still vague. This is where Pluto finally comes into the
story. Even with the discovery of Neptune, the orbit
of Uranus still appeared a bit off – at least in some calculations. So began a feverish search for yet another
planet to resolve this discrepancy. The search for the so-called Planet X became
the grail quest of Percival Lowell, businessman turned astronomer, and he built the Lowell
Observatory in Arizona with that singular goal. In 1930, 14 years after Lowell’s death,
but still powered by his observatory and his family’s fortune, Planet X was finally discovered. Or so we thought. Clyde Tombaugh, a 22 year old Kansas farm
boy, spotted a moving speck of light in a series of photographic plates taken under
the guidance of Vesto Slipher, Lowell observatory’s director. Orbital calculations put the object beyond
the orbit of Neptune, and it appeared within 6 degrees of one of Slipher’s predictions
for the location of the mysterious planet X. Astronomer’s were expecting a planet – and
one roughly in the location of the new discovery – so perhaps it’s not surprising that Pluto
was hailed as a planet without due scientific process. That’s not to say everyone agreed. The orbit of this new object was far more
elliptical – stretched out – than any other planet. It also seemed too faint to possibly have
the mass required to explain Uranus’s orbital discrepancies. By 1931, astronomers had figured out that
there didn’t need to be a ninth planet to account for Uranus’s orbital discrepancies. But because Pluto was the only such object
yet discovered at that distance, it kept its classification as a planet. New astronomy textbooks included distant Pluto
and generations of students memorized 9 rather than 8 planets. Fast forward several decades. With the advent of giant telescopes and digital
cameras, we began to find more and more objects that muddied the definition of “planet”. In the late 80s the first brown dwarf was
discovered. These giant orbs of gas aren’t massive enough
to ignite nuclear fusion in their cores like a true star, but still seemed too massive
to be called planets. And yet some brown dwarfs orbit other, more
massive stars just like planets do. Our overly vague definition of “planet”
left these brown dwarfs in taxonomical limbo. Also through the 1990s more and more moving
specks were discovered within our solar system, beyond Neptune’s orbit. They were all much smaller than Pluto, but
appeared to form a belt of countless objects – what we now call the Kuiper belt – that
encompasses Pluto’s orbit. Pluto became to the Kuiper belt what Ceres
was to the asteroid belt. The biggest fish in the pond. Big enough to cling to its title of planet. Or so we thought. Telescopes got bigger and our mapping of the
Kuiper belt became more thorough, and in the early 2000s a number of objects in the Kuiper
belt and beyond were found to be similar in size to Pluto. Quaoar, Makemake, Orcus, Sedna, Eris, and
more. Eris was the last straw. It’s 28% more massive than Pluto, which
spurred NASA to initially hail it as the tenth planet. But theoretical predictions suggested that
we’d only seen the tip of the Kuiper belt iceberg – there must be hundreds more objects
in the mass range of Pluto – and perhaps up to a couple of thousand. If we classed them all as planets, schoolchildren
would need a novella-length mnemonic to remember them all. And so, despite the anger of schoolchildren
everywhere, it was in their own interests that astronomers decided to act. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union,
the governing body of all astronomy names, designations, and definitions, met to finally
define what it meant to be a planet in our solar system. A number of definitions were debated. They eventually voted and agreed to the following. A planet must: be in its own orbit around the Sun, not around
another planet like a moon Have sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic
equilibrium, meaning be roughly spherical Have “cleared the neighborhood” around its
orbit. While Pluto satisfies the first two, it doesn’t
meet the third. “Planet” got redefined to something Pluto
just isn’t. In this same process the IAU created an entire
new class of object – dwarf planet – an object which has its own orbit and is spherical-ish,
but is not massive enough to clear its orbit. Pluto, Eris, Ceres, Haumea, and Makemake were
all promoted to dwarf planet, and many similar objects will no doubt follow. While this definition was meant to settle
the debate, some still argue that Pluto should be grandfathered in as a planet. Even the current NASA Administrator, Jim Bridenstine,
is declaring Pluto a planet once more saying “it’s the way I learned it.” Well, political appointees declare lots of
things and not everything we learn as kids is true. Fortunately the actual scientific process
is more rigorous than that. Scientific definitions require careful thought,
precision, and broad, expert consensus, and are subject to revision. Sure, we could add a fourth requirement to
the definition of planet, like: 4: ignore all of the above if changing things makes
people sad. But because we are all curious and open-minded
scientists here, perhaps it would be more fun to think about WHY this reclassification
is so contentious. Why all the sentimentality? The reclassification from planet to dwarf
planet DOES seem like a demotion. Look, Pluto – I’m afraid you haven’t cleared
your orbit of debris this quarter. We’re going to need to reevaluate your role
in this taxonomy. Don’t think of this as a demotion – it’s
more of a … reincentivizing horizontal pivot. That conversation would make anyone cry. But let me assure you – the 13 sextillion
kg ball of rock and ice that is Pluto doesn’t have strong opinions about its own taxonomic
status among a few classification-crazy bipeds several planetoids away. We perceive this reassignment as a demotion
because we anthropomorphize everything. But with such powerful imaginations, can’t
we just reframe this? As we’ve peered deeper into our universe,
we’ve realized that it’s full of weird, beautiful, and important worlds, some we now
call planets, some not. For example, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn
are active worlds that may prove to be the only other homes for life within our solar
system. And Pluto itself proved far more interesting
than “just another planet”. We already knew about planets – but Pluto’s
discovery revealed the existence of the Kuiper belt, which is of fundamental importance to
our understanding of how the solar system formed. Pluto went from being the least of the planets
to one of the greatest of a new class of object. And what about the term planet? Despite our attempts at improving the rigor
and usefulness of the term, there’s still some ambiguity. The inner, rocky planets are very different
from the outer gaseous planets. Should they receive different names? There’s no single perfectly-correct way
to classify groups of objects. Taxonomy is, by nature, a somewhat arbitrary
art. And the new IAU definition of planet, while
being more precise, was somewhat tuned to a pre-determined desire – to eject Pluto and
retain the 8 other planets. A touch arbitrary perhaps, but the new definition
is scientifically useful. The eight solar system bodies currently defined
as planets certainly share plenty enough in common – similarities in the way they formed
and the way they behave make it *useful* to categorize them under a single label. And like any aspect of the scientific process
it’s subject to revision. Maybe at some point in the future, as we learn
more about how different worlds form, astronomers will change the definition of planet again. The language we use to describe the universe
becomes more precise as we learn about its nature. And anyway, the word “world” still applies
to Pluto – a rather more poetic label for one of the greatest dwarf planets in known
spacetime. OK, some announcements. First up, we’ve launched a Space Time discord
– the perfect place to ponder and discuss the fundamental nature of the universe, 24/7. It’s open to Patreon contributors of all levels. You guys know that we have a Patreon, right? We’d love you to join the conversation there. Get your cosmic questions answered by the
smartest people on the internet – that is to say, other spacetime viewers – and sometimes
by me. We’re also starting a newsletter that’s open
to everyone to make sure you get notified when there’s a new episode and of other news
and events – like special content or if I’m giving a talk somewhere. To get on that, follow the link in the description. Oh, and back to Patreon for a moment – today
I wanted to give a shoutout to David Boyer, who’s sponsoring us at the big bang level. David, in honour of your invaluable help we’re
naming a dwarf planet after you. Dwarf planet David is frigid, lifeless ball
of ice and rock half the mass of Pluto and orbiting at the outer rim of the Kuiper belt. It’ll be discovered in the late 2050s, at
which point it won’t be considered remarkable in any way. Except for the fact that it’s yours, David. And that makes it special. So, last time we looked at the harsh realities
of what it would take to terraform Mars. Long-story-short – it’s sort of possible,
but is really insanely difficult. There were questions, comments, and lots of
ideas for alternatives. Kazeshi wants to do O’Neill cylinders or rotating
habitats. The argument is compelling: why would we want
to go back down gravity wells after getting off this one? Fair point. A rotating habitat or cylinder in space can
produce the effect of gravity for its inhabitants, but without an actual powerful gravitational
field limiting our access to space. These structures would be much, much smaller
than a planet so presumably easier to protect from radiation and asteroids than the entire
surface of Mars. We’d also need far less material than it would
take to rebuild the Martian atmosphere. Also they’re super-science-fictiony, which
is an added bonus. Kholdaimon and other would prefer to terraform
Venus. After all, it’s closer in mass to the Earth
and has an atmosphere – albeit a searing hot, horribly acidic one. So the main issues with terraforming Venus
are 1) its day is … months long, and that’s a long time for any photosynthesizing life
to survive without sun, and 2) it has essentially no water, so that would all have to be brought
in. Venus also has no geomagnetic field. The magnetic field it does have comes from
the interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere. But presumably we’d need to massively alter
that atmosphere, which would probably kill the field. On the other hand, covering venus with floating
cities still seems like a fantastic idea – but that’s more akin to paraterraforming. For Mars I say why build a sky if you can
build a roof – in the case of Venus, why build a sky if you can build a sky-city? Soeaking of roofs, a few of you point out
that the best Martian option may be underground cities. A couple of meters of Martian rock above your
head is plenty to protect against space radiation and micrometeorites. Again, this isn’t really terraforming, but
if those tunnels were really extensive, perhaps we could eventually build an underground world
down there. Loren Husky has misgivings about my plan to
build a swarm of self replicating robots to capture and toss comets into the inner solar
system to terraform Mars, suggesting that this could, in some way, backfire. Lol. Lol indeed! I can’t imagine what could possibly go wrong. It’s not like previous life-obliterating comet
swarms because this one will be controlled by mindless robots.

100 thoughts on “Is Pluto a Planet?

  1. Where is the current location of the singularity at which the Big Bang initially took place? Is at this location still being created space and time out of nowhere?

  2. Just because there are 'too many to memorize' is just as illogical 'it makes us sad to demote it'. Jupiter has 79 known moons and no one is saying we should redefine what a moon is because there ate too many of them. There is no logical reason not to include Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris as planets. Eight is not inherently more logical than 13 or even hundreds. "Clear its orbit' seems too vague. Why not just choose a size, mass, and roundness measure that can be clearly defined?

  3. 13:02 I would say it is incorrect to say it was tuned to tune out Pluto, it was designed to tune out Pluto and all other similar objects of which you said yourself there are thousands and which is the reason of this whole debate.

  4. Did Pluto ever bother how we classify it? Or it maybe anything scientists do? For example lion and tiger are different species, but they can intermate and have a cub. So is the nature bothered about how we perceive it?

  5. I don’t think regular people need to stop calling Pluto a planet. The same word can have multiple definitions because there are many subjects. “Organic” means completely different things to chemist and non-chemists; regular people see organic as food that is not processed. Tomatoes are a fruit in botany but a vegetable in many states for tax purposes.

  6. "@1:30 Today we're gonna settle…." – I got $10 says we don't settle anything, and the debate will keep raging until all the former school-children who learned "there are 9 planets!" have returned to the earth…

  7. They invented a reason
    That's why it stings
    They don't think you matter
    Because you don't have pretty rings
    I keep telling you I don't care
    I keep saying there's one thing they can't change

    I'm your moon
    You're my moon
    We go round and round
    From out here, it's the rest of the world that looks so small
    Promise me
    You will always remember who you are

    Let them shuffle the numbers
    Watch them come and go
    We're the ones who are out here
    Out past the edge of what they know
    We can only be who we are
    It doesn't matter if they don't understand

    Who you were
    Long before
    They said you were
    No more

    Sad excuse for a sunrise
    It's so cold out here
    Ice and silence and dark skies
    As we go round another year
    Let them think what they like, we're fine
    I will always be right here next to you

  8. If we're always changing things to be more scientific and accurate than how come the hippies got to change the definition of gender? Or how the word sentient now seems to include chickens and cows so vegans can win arguments?

  9. Well the current NASA administrator is an idiot. He thought that climate change was a lie perpetrated by evil scientists and maybe still does, so him declaring Pluto a planet is just childish.

  10. I say adopt a planetary classification like in Star Trek. Because we might see current definitions might not be sufficient with the IAA's ideal definition of planet.

  11. Yup. I've always said that due to it's long standing rank as a planet, Pluto should have been kept as one via a grandfather clause. It has been, therefore it will continue to be with no standing on future objects which would be subject to the newly defined classification. This would easily settle the whole thing. I don't disagree with what you've said but I'll be waiting for Planet 10's discovery, we already have our 9th.

  12. I believe a planet should be anything that orbits a star and not another planet and that has gravity strong enough to force itself into a sphere. Why is that so hard? So what if we have 2000 planets? We only have maybe 9 or 10 that matter anyway. We can't see the other ones. Just because we don't want school kids to not remember the 2000 planets by name doesn't mean we aren't still going to learn about them eventually.

  13. All the shows i have seen, seem to talk about our solar system as complete, bar the sun getting old, fat and a bit red in the face 😛 . But is it? Is Pluto possibly an incomplete planet or planets – if you include Charon too – that are still working through the process of planet forming or the gas giants still gathering fuel before becoming dense enough to become a young star giving us the second sun we seem to lack compared to most other systems we have discovered? And if so how would we know?

    I do like shows that leave me with questions!

  14. It's important to know that Pluto was once considered a planet as there are many movies and literature around that references Pluto and/or 9 planets. The movie "Epoch" , for example, references nine planets and their locations were required to unlock the ship's door.

  15. It's important to know that Pluto was once considered a planet as there are many movies and literature around that references Pluto and/or 9 planets. The movie "Epoch" , for example, references nine planets and their locations were required to unlock the ship's door.

  16. First of all Pluto wouldn't give two hoots to what you call it (except if it is the talking dog 😏). Even I for that matter, as I don't influence the IAU. If someone asks about solar system planets I would include Pluto with a debated note 😄. After all 'planet' is as yet not well defined.

    This BTW makes it interesting for Pluto, right!? Though the exception does prove the rule, Pluto Rules ☺️, just by being ambiguous.

  17. I dont understand the sentimentality for Pluto. It is a piece of rock in space. It baffles me how much people care that it ISN'T a planet.

  18. How many IAU members or what percentage voted to demote Pluto. Not many I have heard. I read somewhere that the issue was brought to a vote during a poorly attended meeting. Mercury and Mar wouldn’t have enough mass to clear a path in the Kuiper Belt so demote them as well. 😎

  19. Rigorous my ass. If we actually cared about rigorous definitions we would be using tau instead of pi, electron flow instead of conventional current, numbered notation instead of staff notation, binary or base 12 instead of base 10, Toki Pona or Esperanto instead of English, decimal time instead of sexagesimal time, republican calendar instead of Gregorian calendar, and on and on and on and on…

    What you failed to consider is the cultural and historical significance of Pluto, it's the reason why we have Pluto the Dog, Plutonium, Plutia, and the countless novels that feature the Greco-Roman God of the Underworld. Brainless ideologues are using Pluto's demotion as an excuse to remove her from posters and textbooks. We've lost something without gaining anything.

  20. If pluto was a planet, we'd have to class all the other similar sized bodies (which there are thousands) as planets too. That ain't gonna work.

  21. @Matt if the black hole in milky way is exerting enough force to keep our solar system in the galaxy, then why doesn't that force mess up the orbits of the planets? Shouldn't planets/objects that are far away like Pluto (and beyond) should drift away?

  22. I wonder if it is possible or even inevitable that over the next few billions of years for objects to collide within the Kuiper Belt and form planets. Specifically im talking about a situation where Pluto or another dwarf planet attracts other Kuiper Belt object with its own gravity to gain more mass in a similar way the eight current planets have formed.

  23. Earth shares it's orbit with an object of notable size, actually too big and massive to be considered a moon as such, despite it being orbiting around our planet, the gravity from both objects is strong enough to affect each other's orbits and rotation, however it ain't strong enough to clear each other from their neighborhood, technically that would make both earth and luna form part of 'earth' binary planetary system, pretty similar to what happens between pluto and charon.

    Meaning…. can earth be considered a planet when like pluto, we only fill 2/3 of the established criteria to be one? PLOT TWIST.

  24. Sounds like you're saying dwarfs aren't humans because they are tiny. Also, you guys ever notice that plutos a planet? It's literally in its title dwarf ”planet”…

  25. CERES is the Best Option… 700,000 km2 of surface area almost identical to TEXAS…..and no pesky Gravity well to fight.

    Gravity wells are a TRAP. Build your space civilization in space.
    Easy to dig in and build a city larger than anything on earth without worrying about the radiation of space.

  26. CERES is the Best Option… 700,000 km2 of surface area almost identical to TEXAS…..and no pesky Gravity well to fight.

    Gravity wells are a TRAP. Build your space civilization in space.
    Easy to dig in and build a city larger than anything on earth without worrying about the radiation of space.

  27. Newest hypothesis is planet 9 (from outer space) might actually be a fist-sized primordial black hole with a mass around that of Neptune and an orbital period around 15,000 years. If true, it is not unrealistic to conjecture some interaction with oort-cloud/kuyper-belt objects might send it hurtling toward the sun. If that were to happen, there would surely be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth, however… because time dilation, would it not appear to take forever for the sun to be swallowed up?

  28. It’s not just the NASA administrator who thinks this, Alan Stern who heads the New Horizon project has repeatedly discredited the idea that Pluto isn’t a planet, why don’t you mention his redefinition of a planet, he is a planetary scientist, not just an astronomer.

  29. The classification of pluto is a question of philosophy and not of science. The physical characteristics of pluto did not change before or after its reclassification. Rather, based on the new evidence of other like bodies, a majority of astronomers decided it would be BETTER to reclassufy pluto. They then set their criteria to achieve this goal. Science cannot make value judgements. Science observes the reality that exists and is repeatable. Whether something is good or bad or better is purely philosophical/theological. Which then bring us to expediency, if a majority of the astronomers who have to use this term agree who are we to argue? But that is a political analysis. Science seeks truth that is not accountable to majority rule. Even though Copernicus was the only man in the world who believed the earth orbits the sun, he was right. The consensus never mattered. So if the reclassificatiin of pluto is about what is better and what is the consensus than it is not science. That is the real reason for the outcry. People sense that this is not actually science even though we are told it is. That undermines the credibility of the entire scientific community.

  30. Can't we just give Pluto a life time achievement award, just to say that "you didn't make the list but we still love you"

  31. Pluto got what it deserved. It never liked us. Ever since we first met, it's always been terribly cold and distant.

  32. Cool episode. The first definition of 'planet' as a celestial body moving relative to the background stars is perfectly clear and I agree it includes "too much." The definition referred to at the 4:44 as vague is never given. A non-definition isn't a vague definition. Example instances do not provide a definition. Then at 6:50 you say we found more objects that began to muddy the definition, but no definition had been given since talking about Ptolemy. Finally at 9 minutes in we get our second definition. It seems perfectly fine to me although "clearing its neighborhood" does seem open to future vagueness problems when we are able to map other star systems. EDIT: why in the world is the definition of a planetary body given in terms of the sun? The only planets that exist are in our solar system?

  33. Might be a dumb question but what does clearing it orbit mean also did the recent probe sent there not open this up again when it found Pluto had some stuff going on there

  34. Is a Planet, was a Planet and will always be a Planet no matter what a bunch of stuck-up Astronomers and Astrophysicists said at a meeting where only about ¼ of the membership was present.
    Take THAT, Neil (Pluto Hater) DeGrasse Tyson.

  35. I'm afraid to be a scientist there's a list of three things that must be fulfilled: 1. Use the scientific method. 2. Make sure it's reliable and valid. 3. Wear the appropriate clothing. You see a real scientist would have worn a red shirt and not a blue shirt. Hate to break it to you, but, my Science Committee, has determined you're not a real scientist.
    That's how people sound talking about Pluto and the other small planets. It's a little foolish.

  36. Hah, we're not falling for your obvious propaganda. It is clear that you sold Pluto to the lizard aliens and now you're trying to make us forget it ever existed. -.-

  37. people are upset about pluto because they think reclassifying it made our solar system smaller, but they don't understand it actually made it bigger, because now we can add all the other dwarf planets in as well as the kuiper belt

  38. Just my 2cents and not saying the new classification is wrong or write I would like to point out Pluto was calculated to be there pretty early in astronomy which did lead to the discovery of the kuiper belt, I'm not all that educated but in my opinion that is worth something. It was significant enough to be one of the first discovered. Not sure if I got my point across well though.

  39. I think it was Issac Arthur whom had a good plan for terraforming Venus.

    Part of it involved bombarding the planet with ice asteroids, always hitting the same edge of the planet, not only adding water, but increasing the spin, and in theory, by the time you have enough ice mass to make oceans, you'll have also increased the spin enough to the point that it has a reasonable day length.

    keep in mind this isn't a Quick fix for colonisation, it's a long term terraforming plan. I'm fairly sure the thick atmosphere was addressed too, but it's been a while since I watched it.

  40. No mention at all of the very real scientific ongoing debate on this. Check out: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/the-latest-battle-over-pluto-why-for-many-its-still-a-planet/

  41. Quality shade being thrown at this dump of an administration we have in office.

    I came here to have a question answered, I left head over heels in love

  42. Its ok that Pluto isn't a planet, but if you are going to classify something as a non-planet then don't put planet in the name! Its your job to classify things, IAU! Its like you are trying to confuse people!

  43. Great information in this video, and I like that the guy narrating this sounds like Terence Stamp. Just listening to him, I keep expecting him to shout out, “You will bow down before me! Both you, and then one day your heirs!”

  44. Everything that's roundish under its own gaavity is a planet unless it undergoes fusion or other kind of stellar remnant style celestial

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top