- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I cannot respect people 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 they just cling onto nostalgia, no.
I cannot respect them because Pluto does not care and trying to white knight perceived attacks against it will not impress it, they are just being pathetic.
I’m partial to Tom Cardy’s view: Pluto isn’t a planet, but that doesn’t matter because it’s still hot shit.
It’s only a planet if we could walk on it. What would the name for that one be?
Pedestrian
All those who wander are planets.
Love it, especially the alt text.
only pluto is a planet, I am spiteful
I’m partial to the simplistic view: big enough to be round, not big enough to fuse hydrogen
Since people have fused hydrogen on earth, I choose to believe it’s not a real planet
That’s messed up.
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.
You can hide behind fancy words but clearly this is just being simplistic
noun ?
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
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.
What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria.
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.
deleted by creator
What is “surface”?
Also, what is “landed”? And why is Jupiter out? (Edit: Or the Sun, for that matter.)
What is “surface”?
In this context, I believe this is limiting to planets whose water is not deep inside the planet’s crust somewhere, but exposed to its atmosphere.
Ok, but the gas giants should have that. We just can’t see them.
Unless you want pure water. But then, how pure?
What planet has Jupiter landed on?
