• @nexguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    Since categorizing something as a planet means nothing then traditionalist is the only way to go. If Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter and a sudden orbit change can mean a thing might no longer be called a planet then there is no scientific value in calling things planets. They are just traditional names given to fairly random objects like constellations.

  • @CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 day ago

    …the highlighted bodies under Lunar are wrong. Charon isn’t a moon it’s a dwarf planet in its own right. The barycenter of it’s orbit isn’t inside Pluto. Pluto and Charon are binary dwarf planets not a planet moon pair.

  • @Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    I cannot respect people who call Pluto a planet on internet forums whenever this topic comes up. Not because I agree with NASA, think their definition is perfect, or think those people just cling to nostalgia and hate change, no.

    I cannot respect them because Pluto does not care and trying to white knight perceived attacks against it will not impress it, those people are just being pathetic.

    • @RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      11 day ago

      It’s not white knighting a planet. I’m literally from where it was discovered. I went on field trips to Lowell Observatory as a kid. Fuck all y’all who won’t accept my planet.

      All dwarf planets are planets. Don’t discriminate.

    • Terevos
      link
      fedilink
      12 days ago

      Simplistic was basically the original proposal for a planet before it was highjacked on the last day of the convention by a bunch of scientists with an axe to grind.

  • @j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I’m a Universalist. It is all the same thing at different phases of matter at various temperatures and pressures combined with the gravity to hold onto various materials. Keep stacking Earths over and over and you will eventually get a gas giant then a star then a black hole.

    What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria. If a gravitationally bound world is acted upon in a way that shifts its orbit, the object cannot be redefined. This is a definition of a state, not an object. Planet, as defined by the IAU is not a noun. Such is what I expect when a highschool teacher wrote a definition instead of actual planetary scientists. I suppose such draconian nonsense was intended to show the backwardness and medieval state of the science of astronomy.

    • @adb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 days ago

      You can hide behind fancy words but clearly this is just being simplistic

        • @adb@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 days ago

          I’m sorry if you didn’t get my lame joke over the fact that the universalist and simplistic definitions of planets give the same result in the comic

          • @j4k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 days ago

            Sorry I missed it. This issue is a pet peeve. We’re in the golden age of discovery of new worlds and true extent of the Sol system, but are totally neglecting the significance of this one time in history.

      • @j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 days ago

        No valid arguments there either. Your car does not become a bicycle because it is in the bike lane. No object is ever defined by external factors. Only states can be defined by external factors. This is fundamental elementary language 101. The definition of an object is not related to a definition of state. There is absolutely no excuse for this blunder. Any obfuscation is nonsense. The conceptual foundation is fundamentally flawed.

        There were no planetary scientists consulted whatsoever in this definition. There is no scientific basis. The paper in question is coauthored and the idea of a Highschool teacher in Temecula California. It has no grounding as a scientific concept. It is draconian in logic and completely baseless in science. It is reflective of dogma in the scientific community when it is defended.