Comment on Truth hurts!
ameancow@lemmy.world 21 hours agoOh? Do explain, and pretend I don’t actually know a lot about planetary science.
Pluto’s downgrade was simply because we found potentially thousands of more Pluto’s.
The argument I’ve seen skips the step that the new definition was created to include those other Pluto like objects. They jump right to how the new planet definition was updated to not have overlap or ambiguity and therefor was about creating a way to exclude pluto rather than creating a definition that doesn’t lead to have declaring there are now 50 planets.
Oh gods who forgot to take pluto in to get them neutered
How is that unscientific though? We need to create definitions and classifications, and it makes more sense to create that definition in the simplest place possible. IE: it’s simpler to consider Pluto a dwarf planet along with many, many other dwarf planets, than create a new solar-system model that has 50 more actual planets.
And lets say that we went with the 50+ planet solar-system model… what would be the delineation point there? What standard should we use to preserve that number 50? What if we find 50 more small bodies in the coming years? Where does it end?
The reclassification of Pluto made more sense than just saying we don’t have a clearly defined solar system. Planetary science requires the terminology so we can say what we’re looking at. Planets? Dwarf planets? Trojans? trans-neptunian objects? There is a LOT of stuff out there, we can’t call it ALL planets. So where would you have drawn the line that makes it “more scientific?”
I’m not saying I agree with it, only trying to describe the logical leaps that get people there.
I don’t think the original user I was asking actually has logical steps as much as a desperate need to get negative attention online.
lorty@lemmy.ml 2 hours ago
It’s because the definition includes things that aren’t really about the object itself and more about where it is. And also how inconsistent it is, as Mercury isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium and yet is explicitly included as a planet by the IAU. Nevermind the fact that the new definition was speed voted and approved by less than 400 astronomers in a convention where 2500+ people attended, let alone not even being discussed with the larger scientific community.
But hey, if you’d rather dismiss my points because of an url, you do you. Not like this changes our everyday live anyway.
ameancow@lemmy.world 14 minutes ago
Okay you googled what classifies a planet and saw the line about mercury, I am familiar but not sure how that makes any of this “unscientific.”
I’m just confused how anyone has a problem with this, nothing is perfect, nothing has hard boundaries but we have to draw lines somewhere or we have solar system models where when we say “planet” we include 90 other objects that are very far removed from each other, besides being “somewhat roundish.”
I’m perfectly fine with 400 astronomers deciding to draw a line somewhere, they’re ones doing the goddamn work. I’m sure there’s a share of people seeking attention pretending to be outraged, but why give those voices power? If you’re an astronomer doing planetary science, you need to define different kinds of bodies, they’re not doing it to make people comfortable, and it shouldn’t make you uncomfortable, if it does that’s really, really weird. From the outside it screams some kind of issues with authority.
Yes, you are right it changes nothing in how we live, so I’m baffled why there’s always one out a hundred people just angry that people doing science changed something in the way they do work.