@MorningStarMilitia its not its considered a Dwarf Planet. But some people have suddenly developed strong feelings for pluto and declare it a planet a still no matter what scientist say.
Please Reply To This If You No.. You See,If Pluto Is Getting Smaller And Moveing Away...Jn 100 Years Or So...Will The Same Thing Happen To The Other Planets?
@tokyochi Pluto is NOT getting smaller. Neither is it moving away. They just decided that Pluto was too small to ever have been a planet in the first place, so they demoted it.
Great music, I'm downloading this. BTW, I, like most of the 6 billion people on this planet, was PO'd when they demoted Pluto. I still hate it when I tell people it's the last planet, then they say, "No it's not a planet!!!". The IAU should either change its decision or be nuked.
As I know Pluto is not Solar System planet anymore but I absolutely disagree with it. Pluto must be counted no matter how small it is. Moreover, I think Planet X (10th planet) exists
This will throw a monkey wrench in calling Pluto a Dwraf planet with all that icey frozen ocean like atmophere with having a hot core causing hot pockets under the frozen water thrawing it and finding aquadic life living on Pluto now what will they call Pluto.? ! I bet it will be back as A REAL Life supporting Planet !
too right that thing is the fastest probe nasa ever made it can go from san fransisco to new york in less than 3 minutes and it managed to reach jupiter in 13 months now that is hella fast
Well my main point is that it would be great to find life out there other than Earth.I guess we can call Pluto a real life supporting " Dewarf " Planet if there is life there hopping Pluto wan't crash into Neptune in the future with its obit crossing paths with Neptune being there witch that can happen Millons of years from now .
i dreamt many moons ago that myself and a team of deep space astronauts were sent to throw a switch on a planet and at the last second i threw mine down, much to the disappointment of the team. then later in waking life i heard Pluto had been demoted. i nearly fell off my chair. so sorry Shiva, who am i to try to stop the wheel.continue on your journey.
I think they were angry because Pluto lost face among some scientists who claimed it wasn't a true planet. The planets are a proud and haughty race, and they expect their peers to maintain the highest standards. But we all know Pluto still counts as a planet...
In science Pluto is not considered as planet. But for God Pluto still represent one of the highest individual that are living on heaven. The Sun and Ten Commandment in holy tent represent God him self. Mercury and Venus or the two statue angel in the holy tent represent the 2 archangel in the third heaven. And the seven planets or seven candle sticks in holy tent represent the 7 archangel in second heaven.
Which is precisely why we need a rational classification system that tells us, unambiguously AND NOT DEPENDANT UPON CONSENSUS WHICH MEANS NOTHING what is a planet and what isnt.
There is no such objective classification system, and this is what I object to. You cannot go and rewrite reality just because of consensus, for that is the quickest road to an Orwellian Future.
Truth is not some fiat decree of experts. They cannot reclassify Pluto until they create a system to do so.
A quick Google search reveals to me that there is such a thing. A planet must be larger than 2000km in diametre. It must be massive enough so as to have enough gravity to pull itself into a sphere, and it must have cleared its own neighbourhood. It wasn't that they got together and decided that Pluto was not a planet, it was that they got together, and agreed upon new rules, and Pluto happened not to have met the standard.
But the new standard appears arbitrary. Why 2000km & not 3000km or 1000km? Is there a particular significance to the chosen figure, & if so, why not tell us what the significance is? If 2000km is not significant, why is it used as the standard?
This appears to me to be a test case for orwellian reality engineering. Try to change first an innocuous fact, like pluto being a planet or not, & see if this goes over without objection. After this sucessful test, political facts can be changed
>> if the previous comment seems extreme, consider this. Scientific facts are subject to change all the time as new evidence & data comes to light. Facts change to reflect such new understandings. But the way that pluto was so publicly demoted, even among the unscientific masses who really dont care either way, tends to indicate this whole thing is more about Mass Opinion than about astronomy.
Such reality re-enginering must 1st be used in the arena of scientists, the arbiters of reality
2000km is significant, as far as I can tell, because it reclassifies Pluto as a Kuiper Belt object, which is what it is, while leaving Mercury alone. Pure speculation, but I think it's more likely than an Orwellian Future.
"2000km is significant, because it reclassifies Pluto as a Kuiper Belt object"
Now you are using one arbitrary measure to validate another. Why 2000KM and not 2500KM?? Why? Why THAT number? Is this a threshold for planetary body behavior, where objects smaller behave 1 way & those larger behave another?
You comment show a pre-existent intent BEFORE THE RULES WERE SET to make Pluto a Kuiper Belt object at all costs. Therefore, 2000Km.
>> clearly, there is no rationale for the 2000km benchmark. Therefore, no rationale for the entire system you promote.
You did not even attempt to make a logical argument in favor of the classification system. You just repeat it over & over. That is exactly how things go in an orwellian world, or in Idiocracy.
"we should put water on the plants"
"but Brawndo has what plants crave - it has electrolytes"
I looked at a few more sites about the IAU definition of a planet, and it appears that at first I came across a dud. The site said it had to be a certain diametre, but REALLY, and more than one site confirms this, it just has to be orbiting around a sun. Ridiculous mistake on my part there, sorry, but now it makes a LOT more sense and the explanation does not require "Orwellian Future."
1) It must orbit a star, or stars in a binary system, & thus have a permanent gravitational anchor
2) It must be massive (mass not diameter) enough to hold itself into a spheroid shape
3) In cases where the object is at the lower end of the mass requirement, if it has a satellite which is massive enough itself to be spheroid, it is a planet. If it does not has such a satellite, it may not be a planet.
The gravity hierarchy is more important than size. Because Pluto has a large moon, it is a planet. It cannot have such a moon were it not a planet.
Diameter is irrelevant. Distance from the sun is irrelevant. Only gravity is relevant, because it is the essential nature of the relationship between the sun, planets, & all other bodies. Therefore, an object which is of considerable mass which is NOT at the bottom of the gravity hierarchy (has a large moon beneath it) MUST be a planet.
If you would take the time to stop ridiculing my concerns (I notice how you ridicule but not rebut), you would see that what I am saying is more scientific, objective, and consistent than anything you have said.
There is no logical justification for the new system of classification, because it fails to address the central issue, which is GRAVITY, not SIZE or DISTANCE, which are irrelevant. And by gravity I mean the gravity hierarchy that exists within all bodies orbiting stars. Moons matter
The new system of classification DOES address gravity. The second rule is that it's massive enough to pull itself into a sphere, which it does using gravity, and that that it has to have "cleared its neighbourhood." That means that it must gravitationally dominate its own orbital zone.
What I am saying is that when we find a body that is borerline in its mass, that we use the presence or nonpresence of any large moons to determine these borderline cases. Since Charon is a pretty good sized moon, this makes PLuto a planet. If Charon were only the size of Phobos or Deimos, you could say that Pluto is not a planet. But because of Charon, Pluto must be a planet.
The issue with Pluto's mass isn't that it's borderline when it comes to whether or not it's a sphere. There are other spherical dwarf planets and satellites that are much less massive. The issue with its mass is that it's much less than that of all the other stuff that's floating around in its orbit.
"other spherical dwarf planets and satellites that are much less massive"
Why is it soooo scary for you people to imagine that we could have dozens or hundreds of plantes? What is wrong with that?
Look. It is simple. If it orbits the sun, is spheroid, and has at least 1 sphereoid moon: IT IS A PLANET. If that means there are 294 planets, then there are 294 planets. But making these capricious judgments as part of a supposedly scientific taxonomy is ridiculous & unscientific
But that would make Mercury a dwarf. Under that definition, Venus, with its thick, dense, cloudy, hot atmosphere (complete with sulfuric acid rain that boils before it hits the ground), even a planet the size of Earth could be a dwarf while something smaller than our moon is a planet. My definition is if it's round, orbits a star, and is larger than 2000 km ACROSS (not from surface to core) (making a 1000 km radius, when Pluto is 1100 km from surface to core) it's a planet.
The first two are the accepted rules, fine, but the third one works, except that you get "may not be a planet" which is what they were trying to fix when they came up with the definition.
What do we do when we discover a new planet in another system that has a 1500km diameter but is dense enough to have the mass of Neptune, and it has 4 moons? 'Not a planet'? Are you kidding me? Your defense of this classification system is irrational.
Well, we've already established that diametre is irrelevant, so I don't know why you'd include it here, but the planetary status of this body would have to depend upon what else is sharing its orbit, but give that its mass is the same as Neptune's, then it's safe to assume that it meets the criteria.
1) has moon(s), so as to be a distinct level in the gravitational hierarchy of the solar system
or
2) lacking moons, it is so large (like Venus/Mercury) as to be easily capable of possessing them were they formed in a region of the solar system whose excess primordial matter was not stripped away by the sun.
Only that's not the definition at all. If you want to argue this, then there are asteroids and already-established dwarf planets that you have to argue for.
Colin Matthews did write one Pluto addition to Holst's work (at least he did according to BBC). Is it not this one? A different one? Or are you saying Matthews fibbed? Just wondering. Hmmm, now I'll have to try and find the Matthews piece and give it a listen.
Matthews wrote a different one. It's really not that good. The one featured in this video is a different composer - i would really like to find out who, and possibly find a score.
Yes, this is the music that was written after the discovery of Pluto (and Holst was aleady dead). It was written by another composer to augment Holst's compositions.
whoa pluto is almost more brutal than mars
acidbath32 1 week ago
Ceres is in the asteroid belt,Charon is one of Pluto's moons
gianttrex17 1 week ago
0:14 was Eris
gianttrex17 1 week ago
From my 6 years old i knew Pluto is not a planet, he is Mickey's pet, a crazy dog you fools..!
DaMatta11 5 months ago
So who wrote this? It wasn't Holst, and definitely not Colin Matthews. Who? I want to know, so I can get a score from them.
werothegreat 6 months ago
USA is larger than Pluto :D
declaration963 6 months ago
we would all have sex with pluto
501alistair 6 months ago
second image is of Eris, not pluto.
toon10001 10 months ago
DEAR VIEWERS, FOR INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT PLANETS, JUST TYPE IN THE BOX:
Quran and Science
SEVEN PARTS!
gulfland 10 months ago
i thought that pluto isnt considered a planet anymore
MorningStarMilitia 1 year ago
@MorningStarMilitia its not its considered a Dwarf Planet. But some people have suddenly developed strong feelings for pluto and declare it a planet a still no matter what scientist say.
ZombiesAteMyKat 1 year ago
Please Reply To This If You No.. You See,If Pluto Is Getting Smaller And Moveing Away...Jn 100 Years Or So...Will The Same Thing Happen To The Other Planets?
tokyochi 1 year ago
@tokyochi More like a million...
bestjonbon 1 year ago
@bestjonbon But it will still happen?
tokyochi 1 year ago
@tokyochi It is conceivable, but life as we know it will surely have disappeared by then. Don't worry. That's a long, long time from now.
bestjonbon 1 year ago
@bestjonbon more like a *a few 100 trillion* or more
SaturnAndItsRings 11 months ago
@bestjonbon more like *a few hundred trillion* or more lol =D
SaturnAndItsRings 11 months ago
@tokyochi Pluto is NOT getting smaller. Neither is it moving away. They just decided that Pluto was too small to ever have been a planet in the first place, so they demoted it.
JonathanJanzen 4 months ago
@tokyochi Please Dont Type Like This. It Is Very Annoying
jnvr10 1 week ago
Do you have videos on uranus
pumkin246 1 year ago 3
@pumkin246 I'll send it to you.
bestjonbon 1 year ago
@bestjonbon can u plz send the vid of uranus 2 me too?
shadowthededgehog2 1 year ago
let! pluto! be! a! planet!
rosario3gomez 1 year ago 2
4:01 Celestia!
5:08 Celestia again!
Great music, I'm downloading this. BTW, I, like most of the 6 billion people on this planet, was PO'd when they demoted Pluto. I still hate it when I tell people it's the last planet, then they say, "No it's not a planet!!!". The IAU should either change its decision or be nuked.
3DPlanets 1 year ago
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
thatsMrSmileytoyou 1 year ago
As I know Pluto is not Solar System planet anymore but I absolutely disagree with it. Pluto must be counted no matter how small it is. Moreover, I think Planet X (10th planet) exists
DanikaK2 2 years ago
This will throw a monkey wrench in calling Pluto a Dwraf planet with all that icey frozen ocean like atmophere with having a hot core causing hot pockets under the frozen water thrawing it and finding aquadic life living on Pluto now what will they call Pluto.? ! I bet it will be back as A REAL Life supporting Planet !
2015 is the year NASA probe will reach Pluto
1968DodgePolara 2 years ago
I can hardly wait.
bestjonbon 2 years ago
too right that thing is the fastest probe nasa ever made it can go from san fransisco to new york in less than 3 minutes and it managed to reach jupiter in 13 months now that is hella fast
kosta1987 2 years ago
Wrong.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
Wrong about what ?
1968DodgePolara 2 years ago
Pluto's a rock.
And even if it had life, having life has nothing to do with being called a planet.
There are moons on which scientists suspect there could be life.
Gonna call those planets too?
337336324317313306 2 years ago
Well my main point is that it would be great to find life out there other than Earth.I guess we can call Pluto a real life supporting " Dewarf " Planet if there is life there hopping Pluto wan't crash into Neptune in the future with its obit crossing paths with Neptune being there witch that can happen Millons of years from now .
1968DodgePolara 2 years ago
Should be funny?
MagisterHoratio 2 years ago
I LOVE PLUTO!! is my favory planet (I now is not a planet for our solor system but i still thing pluto is a planet for me)
xXDarkxAngelxLifeXx 2 years ago
This isn't even the real song for Pluto. It was done by some guy named Colin Mathews and it sounds a gazillion times better than this.
IwantaBarqsrootbeer 2 years ago
pluto has storms
falafil12 2 years ago
It was discovered nearly 80 years ago. At least three generations grew up learning that there were nine planets in the sloar system.
dynasue77 2 years ago
No wonder he's frozen, no one likes him... Nice vid btw!
Pontios25 2 years ago
Terrific piece! Poor Pluto, what do human's know anyway?
123wendykins 2 years ago
Dude Pluto Roxx!!! I want it 2 still b a planet...its lonely out there. It doesnt fit in cuz its all ice. )~: so sad.....
imagesk8r6969 2 years ago
Yes, but underneath all that ice beats a warm heart!
bestjonbon 2 years ago
haha yeah. [-:
imagesk8r6969 2 years ago
Pluto's still a planet in MY book... :)
CharlieBladeRemus 2 years ago
Mine, too.
bestjonbon 2 years ago
i dreamt many moons ago that myself and a team of deep space astronauts were sent to throw a switch on a planet and at the last second i threw mine down, much to the disappointment of the team. then later in waking life i heard Pluto had been demoted. i nearly fell off my chair. so sorry Shiva, who am i to try to stop the wheel.continue on your journey.
jgalaxygal 2 years ago
A wild (and slightly prophetic) dream! Thanks for stopping by...
bestjonbon 2 years ago
what were the planets saying at 6:22?
solarsystemKND 2 years ago
I think they were angry because Pluto lost face among some scientists who claimed it wasn't a true planet. The planets are a proud and haughty race, and they expect their peers to maintain the highest standards. But we all know Pluto still counts as a planet...
bestjonbon 2 years ago
it is not a planet
falafil12 2 years ago
In science Pluto is not considered as planet. But for God Pluto still represent one of the highest individual that are living on heaven. The Sun and Ten Commandment in holy tent represent God him self. Mercury and Venus or the two statue angel in the holy tent represent the 2 archangel in the third heaven. And the seven planets or seven candle sticks in holy tent represent the 7 archangel in second heaven.
maklash85 2 years ago
Do you all believe we are the only sloarsystem ..
because i dont.
Space cant just end at us , if you think about it .
There cant be like an invisible barrier that just stops after our solarsystem.
It must go on forever with other planets and solarsystems and it might have other life etc..
KobrasClan 2 years ago
I agree! We would have to be very egocentric to believe we are the only ones. It's a huge universe...
bestjonbon 2 years ago
Psst. We've discovered other solar systems. Many of them.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
Which is precisely why we need a rational classification system that tells us, unambiguously AND NOT DEPENDANT UPON CONSENSUS WHICH MEANS NOTHING what is a planet and what isnt.
There is no such objective classification system, and this is what I object to. You cannot go and rewrite reality just because of consensus, for that is the quickest road to an Orwellian Future.
Truth is not some fiat decree of experts. They cannot reclassify Pluto until they create a system to do so.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
A quick Google search reveals to me that there is such a thing. A planet must be larger than 2000km in diametre. It must be massive enough so as to have enough gravity to pull itself into a sphere, and it must have cleared its own neighbourhood. It wasn't that they got together and decided that Pluto was not a planet, it was that they got together, and agreed upon new rules, and Pluto happened not to have met the standard.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
But the new standard appears arbitrary. Why 2000km & not 3000km or 1000km? Is there a particular significance to the chosen figure, & if so, why not tell us what the significance is? If 2000km is not significant, why is it used as the standard?
This appears to me to be a test case for orwellian reality engineering. Try to change first an innocuous fact, like pluto being a planet or not, & see if this goes over without objection. After this sucessful test, political facts can be changed
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
>> if the previous comment seems extreme, consider this. Scientific facts are subject to change all the time as new evidence & data comes to light. Facts change to reflect such new understandings. But the way that pluto was so publicly demoted, even among the unscientific masses who really dont care either way, tends to indicate this whole thing is more about Mass Opinion than about astronomy.
Such reality re-enginering must 1st be used in the arena of scientists, the arbiters of reality
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
The big deal was that scientists finally had a precise definition of a planet. that definition happened to have kicked Pluto off the list.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
2000km is significant, as far as I can tell, because it reclassifies Pluto as a Kuiper Belt object, which is what it is, while leaving Mercury alone. Pure speculation, but I think it's more likely than an Orwellian Future.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
You are either being obstinate, or very obtuse.
"2000km is significant, because it reclassifies Pluto as a Kuiper Belt object"
Now you are using one arbitrary measure to validate another. Why 2000KM and not 2500KM?? Why? Why THAT number? Is this a threshold for planetary body behavior, where objects smaller behave 1 way & those larger behave another?
You comment show a pre-existent intent BEFORE THE RULES WERE SET to make Pluto a Kuiper Belt object at all costs. Therefore, 2000Km.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
>> clearly, there is no rationale for the 2000km benchmark. Therefore, no rationale for the entire system you promote.
You did not even attempt to make a logical argument in favor of the classification system. You just repeat it over & over. That is exactly how things go in an orwellian world, or in Idiocracy.
"we should put water on the plants"
"but Brawndo has what plants crave - it has electrolytes"
"but what are electrolytes & do they help plants"
"Brawndo has what plants crave"
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
Okay. I made a mistake.
I looked at a few more sites about the IAU definition of a planet, and it appears that at first I came across a dud. The site said it had to be a certain diametre, but REALLY, and more than one site confirms this, it just has to be orbiting around a sun. Ridiculous mistake on my part there, sorry, but now it makes a LOT more sense and the explanation does not require "Orwellian Future."
337336324317313306 2 years ago
If you want a decent definition:
PLANET - a mass which adheres to these rules:
1) It must orbit a star, or stars in a binary system, & thus have a permanent gravitational anchor
2) It must be massive (mass not diameter) enough to hold itself into a spheroid shape
3) In cases where the object is at the lower end of the mass requirement, if it has a satellite which is massive enough itself to be spheroid, it is a planet. If it does not has such a satellite, it may not be a planet.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
The gravity hierarchy is more important than size. Because Pluto has a large moon, it is a planet. It cannot have such a moon were it not a planet.
Diameter is irrelevant. Distance from the sun is irrelevant. Only gravity is relevant, because it is the essential nature of the relationship between the sun, planets, & all other bodies. Therefore, an object which is of considerable mass which is NOT at the bottom of the gravity hierarchy (has a large moon beneath it) MUST be a planet.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
If you would take the time to stop ridiculing my concerns (I notice how you ridicule but not rebut), you would see that what I am saying is more scientific, objective, and consistent than anything you have said.
There is no logical justification for the new system of classification, because it fails to address the central issue, which is GRAVITY, not SIZE or DISTANCE, which are irrelevant. And by gravity I mean the gravity hierarchy that exists within all bodies orbiting stars. Moons matter
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
The new system of classification DOES address gravity. The second rule is that it's massive enough to pull itself into a sphere, which it does using gravity, and that that it has to have "cleared its neighbourhood." That means that it must gravitationally dominate its own orbital zone.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
Right now I am unclear as to what you're saying. Are you speculating, regarding your "revised" definition?
337336324317313306 2 years ago
What I am saying is that when we find a body that is borerline in its mass, that we use the presence or nonpresence of any large moons to determine these borderline cases. Since Charon is a pretty good sized moon, this makes PLuto a planet. If Charon were only the size of Phobos or Deimos, you could say that Pluto is not a planet. But because of Charon, Pluto must be a planet.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
The issue with Pluto's mass isn't that it's borderline when it comes to whether or not it's a sphere. There are other spherical dwarf planets and satellites that are much less massive. The issue with its mass is that it's much less than that of all the other stuff that's floating around in its orbit.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
"other spherical dwarf planets and satellites that are much less massive"
Why is it soooo scary for you people to imagine that we could have dozens or hundreds of plantes? What is wrong with that?
Look. It is simple. If it orbits the sun, is spheroid, and has at least 1 sphereoid moon: IT IS A PLANET. If that means there are 294 planets, then there are 294 planets. But making these capricious judgments as part of a supposedly scientific taxonomy is ridiculous & unscientific
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
What's so bad about having only eight?
The rules that were made up in 2006 are just as simple as the ones you propose, only they happened to have demoted Pluto. I don't see a problem.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
The rules made in 2006 are irrational and arbitrary. That is the difference.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
How are they irrational? How aren't yours? What, specifically, makes your third rule superior to the official one?
337336324317313306 2 years ago
What makes my rules superior is that they are non-parametric. And it is the introduction of these abitrary parameters (2000km) which is the problem.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
Oh, you mean the parametre of 2000km that I admitted was a mistake on my part and that doesn't actually exist.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
@PhilosopherEight
But that would make Mercury a dwarf. Under that definition, Venus, with its thick, dense, cloudy, hot atmosphere (complete with sulfuric acid rain that boils before it hits the ground), even a planet the size of Earth could be a dwarf while something smaller than our moon is a planet. My definition is if it's round, orbits a star, and is larger than 2000 km ACROSS (not from surface to core) (making a 1000 km radius, when Pluto is 1100 km from surface to core) it's a planet.
3DPlanets 1 year ago
The first two are the accepted rules, fine, but the third one works, except that you get "may not be a planet" which is what they were trying to fix when they came up with the definition.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
What do we do when we discover a new planet in another system that has a 1500km diameter but is dense enough to have the mass of Neptune, and it has 4 moons? 'Not a planet'? Are you kidding me? Your defense of this classification system is irrational.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
Well, we've already established that diametre is irrelevant, so I don't know why you'd include it here, but the planetary status of this body would have to depend upon what else is sharing its orbit, but give that its mass is the same as Neptune's, then it's safe to assume that it meets the criteria.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have the Matthews piece in a video on my channel. Check it out, I think you'd like it.
bladebloodykill 2 years ago 2
Planet:
an object which orbits the sun and which either
1) has moon(s), so as to be a distinct level in the gravitational hierarchy of the solar system
or
2) lacking moons, it is so large (like Venus/Mercury) as to be easily capable of possessing them were they formed in a region of the solar system whose excess primordial matter was not stripped away by the sun.
By this superior definition, Pluto IS a planet.
PhilosopherEight 2 years ago
I'm with you.
bestjonbon 2 years ago
Only that's not the definition at all. If you want to argue this, then there are asteroids and already-established dwarf planets that you have to argue for.
337336324317313306 2 years ago
Neil killed Pluto..
johnsmdm 2 years ago
pluto is so cuddly
solarsystemKND 3 years ago
Even if it's cuddly, it's probably too frigid to cuddle. Maybe we can just blow a kiss...
bestjonbon 2 years ago
me lo figuraba, ya.... no es el, con diferencia
Nimenicamine01 3 years ago
Comment removed
solarsystemKND 3 years ago
lol the second image with the planet and the sun is declared as the dwarf planet eris in the german wikipedia...
UFailedAgain 3 years ago
the picture at 6:22 rules... poor pluto
UFailedAgain 3 years ago
i like this music...mostly i listen to rock, rap, country...i like this, too...pluto will always be my planet
jdawgsworld 3 years ago
Yes, I like lots of other music genres, too. But this sounds right for outer space. Heh, heh.
Cheers, John
bestjonbon 3 years ago
Does anyone know who composed this? I would really like to know - I definitely know that it wasn't Colin Matthews.
werothegreat 3 years ago
Colin Matthews did write one Pluto addition to Holst's work (at least he did according to BBC). Is it not this one? A different one? Or are you saying Matthews fibbed? Just wondering. Hmmm, now I'll have to try and find the Matthews piece and give it a listen.
Cheers, John (bestjonbon)
bestjonbon 3 years ago
Matthews wrote a different one. It's really not that good. The one featured in this video is a different composer - i would really like to find out who, and possibly find a score.
werothegreat 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have the Matthews piece in a video on my channel. Check it out, I think you'd like it.
bladebloodykill 3 years ago 2
Can you make this comment again? It's valuable.
"I have the Matthews piece in a video on my channel. Check it out, I think you'd like it."
It's currently marked as spam and I can get the "spam" designation removed.
Cheers, John
bestjonbon 2 years ago
That should be "I can't" get the designation removed...
bestjonbon 2 years ago
I'll keep my eyes and ears open...
bestjonbon 3 years ago
This version is so much better than Colin Matthews' pathetic attempt.
werothegreat 3 years ago
I hope this music is the original music written to augment Gustav Holst's "The Planets"! Its not no much dark as neomilitarism?
Stuarty505 3 years ago
Yes, this is the music that was written after the discovery of Pluto (and Holst was aleady dead). It was written by another composer to augment Holst's compositions.
bestjonbon 3 years ago
What I say in the last comment. The meaning of Pluto is perhaps historic. You made this video perfectly !! Nobody can make it better !
BTW they found Eris and will find others which are bigger than Pluto in the Kyiper but have they an own moon ...???
10 ****************
hoffmann9471 3 years ago
Plute is definitely in an area called the Kuiper belt. Plute is a wonder, and an angel.
thank you.
visitationvirginmary 3 years ago
hi my name is joe, i luv this mars video and ur neptune and some other videos u have all cool..
u watched my slow motion video i hope u enjoyed it...
urluvpac 3 years ago