The scientific community was basically backed into a corner: either create a new category for Pluto and similar bodies, or we go from 9 planets to over 3,000 (iirc), lol.
The only sensible choice was made, imo.
Comment on Sad Ganymede noises
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 3 days agoThere is no objective criteria for what a planet is and isn’t
There are - exactly three.
- is in orbit around a star,
- has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
- has “cleared the neighbourhood” around its orbit.
The last one means that its gravitational pull has removed any smaller objects that might be in its orbit, either by kicking them out of it, or by catching them as moons.
Pluto is barely round and its orbit is full of debris.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 3 days ago
JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 days ago
You’re the second person to ignore the sentence immediately following that.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
Because that sentence doesn’t really make sense. “Criteria” is a human concept. Nature doesn’t do “criteria”, nor “objective” for that matter. So, yes, there’s no “natural criteria” for when something is X or Y, we, humans, make those criteria. Doesn’t matter if it’s in relation to animals, plants, or planets.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 days ago
So you’re saying things just exist, and as humans we categorize them? Because that’s what I said.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
The idea of a “category” is inherently human. Just like “objective” and “criteria”.
Which means there is objective criteria for what is categorised as a planet - it’s whatever we, humans, define them to be.