Comment on Sad Ganymede noises
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days agoNo.
Lets try a more simple metaphor.
One person is navigating through a crowd, occasionally bumping into other people, having to juke and dodge their way around.
Another person has an entourage or body guards to their front, and two gaggles of papparazzi following behind them, at each 45 degree angle to their rear, as they walk through an entire empty street 4 lane street, with some occsional people walking past the whole scene on the sidewalk.
Pluto and Charon are basically an awkward, clumsy couple trying to get through a densely packed mall or convention.
Neptune is Taylor Swift, as an entire parade float, just, herself, body guards, papparazzi. And I guess she also can have some literal ingroup orbiters who manage to stick around, their lives revolve around her the same way their walking patterns do.
And then maybe, by chance, that awkward couple leaves the convention, gets lost, walks the wrong way to a restaurant, and end up just directly crossing the street that Swift walked down, 6 hours ago.
There, is that a sufficiently relatable visual metaphor to illustrate the difference between the two situations?
nexguy@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It’s a fine metaphor but it doesn’t work for scientific definitions which are exact. The IAU came up with the rule then had to make an exception to their own brand new rule in order to have Neptune remain a planet but not pluto even though both fail the rule. The exception is real and written down, not assumed.
Yet again another of the IAU rules is the body has to be assume hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round). Mercury is NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium and they knew this. So they just…decided… that Mercury is a planet anyway and does not have to follow that rule.
So two planets don’t even follow the rules they made yet were unscientifically decided to be planets. Why? What was the point of it? Certainly wasn’t done for any scientific reason.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Ok, so, Pluto is more spherical than Mercury, but the most important criteria is local gravitational dominance.
Which Mercury has, but Pluto does not.
I do not see how this is a difficult concept to grasp.
Yeah, sometimes you can make a hasty definition, and then refine it to a level of consistent clarity, after it is justly critiqued, though it may be multi tiered and somewhat complex.
Thats… thats how science works, thats like the entire fundamental concept of it, right there, improving the level of detail to which you understand reality, via empiricism, logic, participatory debate.
The primary purpose of the planet defition refinenment is to emphasize the importance of relative local gravitational dominance.
I’m trying to imagine you using this kind of logic with like, biological taxonomy.
nexguy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There is nothing difficult to grasp. They made rules then decided for no reason to let mercury break the rule. Why? Why not make mercury a dwarf planet instead of allowing it with no rule exception other than…just because.
This is not bioligical… those MUST follow the rules. This was a traditional unscientific last… Exactly like constellations. Why not start removing stars from constellations because they are too far away? Except a couple of them just because.
This IAU conference vote was not unanimous… it was very contentious and many wanted a more geological and broad definition rather than an earth centered definition that literally ONLY applies to our solar system. “Planets” can only exist around OUR Sun. Think about that.