Comment

I understand the exception created for Neptune. But they had to create this exception… for their own brand new rule… in order to classify 8 things. Notice the exception is written very specifically just to keep pluto from “clearing” is orbit.

Another IAU rule is that the body must assume hydrostatic equilibrium(nearly round). Mercury does NOT assume hydrostatic equilibrium. They knew this.

Guess what? They just…decided…Mercury doesn’t have to follow that rule.

It was all done very unscientifically.

source

Sort:hotnew top

mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Notice the exception is written very specifically just to keep pluto from “clearing” is orbit.

There are tons of other Kuiper Belt objects in Pluto’s orbit. This wasn’t an exception written to spite Pluto. If you can attribute any malice to the definition, it comes from not wanting to include Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Quorua, and 200+ other Kuiper Belt objects as planets. Pluto was just caught in the crossfire because it fits with the other Kuiper Belt objects because it is one.

“orbit the Sun”. Not a star but very specifically the Sun.

This is a level of knitpicking that is completely childish. Grow up.

source
- nexguy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Can you explains the knitpicking? They specifically decided that only objects orbiting our star can be Planets. It wasn’t an oversight but intentional. How can that be explained? Why do that?
  
  Also, how can mercury be explained? It clearly violated one of the 3 rules with no given exception other than they just decided it can be a planet. Why?
  
  25% of the 8 objects they wrote rules for needed an exception to make the cut. That doesn’t seem odd?
  
  source