Comment

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

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.

source
- 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.
  
  source