Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 255 posts

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#81

Post by ludicrousdispla »

Planktonne wrote: post #30

The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IAU definition) should be used in non-astronomical contexts. Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. An IAU classification shouldn't be used to try and retroactively change that, because the IAU does not have control over history and culture.…

While reading your comment it occurred to me that virtually all reporting on (or talking about) science involves applying it to an unsuitable context. Schrödinger's cat is probably the most prolific example of this.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#82

Post by orwin »

baggy_trough wrote: post #48

The correct planet criteria are, IMHO: - not a star - not orbiting a planet - roundish - greater than 1000km radius That would restore Pluto to its rightful place and add Eris.

Why 1000 km radius? I know that 1000k diameter might be important for cold bodies to keep their equilibrium, but what does 1000km radius give?

Because honestly anybody who played stuff like KSP RSS or any space game taking place in our solar system represented at scale with adequat orbit weirdness probably told themselves "that's Pluto? Ok i get it, not a planet".

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#83

Post by jerf »

zdragnar wrote: post #56
Planktonne wrote: post #30

The actual problem here is weirdly aggressive nerds who are incapable of nuance, and insist that an astronomical classification (Pluto is not a planet by the IAU definition) should be used in non-astronomical contexts. Historically and culturally, Pluto is considered a planet. An IAU classification shouldn't be used to try and retroactively change that, because the IAU does not have control over history and culture.…

Peanuts, cashews, almonds, walnuts, pecans, Brazil nuts and pistachios are culinary nuts but NOT botanical nuts. Botanical berries: Bananas, tomatoes, grapes, cucumbers, eggplants, avocados and peppers, but NOT strawberries, raspberries, blackberries or mulberries. Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words.

"Scientists really should have made up their own categories instead of using our words."

If they could do it all over again probably most of them would. The sciences all grew organically too. Some of these things like "berries" aren't even just the product of one reclassification, they're the product of several over the course of decades or centuries, which is how they get so common-sense silly over time.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#84

Post by jerf »

vova_hn2 wrote: post #65
hn_submit wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They saw a problem with the discovery of other Kuiper Belt Objects and came up with a pseudo-scientific definition to "solve" the discrepancy.

> pseudo-scientific definition How is it pseudo-scientific?

Or alternatively, how would any conceivable definition not be equally "psuedo-scientific"? There isn't going to be a bright, shining line. Our own Solar System is complicated enough and if we could see out into the cosmos with equal detail the lines would get even fuzzier. Judgment calls are inevitable.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#85

Post by baggy_trough »

orwin wrote: post #82
baggy_trough wrote: post #48

The correct planet criteria are, IMHO: - not a star - not orbiting a planet - roundish - greater than 1000km radius That would restore Pluto to its rightful place and add Eris.

Why 1000 km radius? I know that 1000k diameter might be important for cold bodies to keep their equilibrium, but what does 1000km radius give? Because honestly anybody who played stuff like KSP RSS or any space game taking place in our solar system represented at scale with adequat orbit weirdness probably told themselves "that's Pluto? Ok i get it, not a planet".

It's just a nice round number to use as a clear boundary.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#86

Post by 5555624 »

As fare as I'm concerned, Pluto is a planet. I've got a hand-written note from Clyde Tombaugh that says so. Back in the mid-1990s, a year or two before he died, I write him asking about some astronomers who were starting to question it.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#88

Post by bryanlarsen »

odyssey7 wrote: post #76
bryanlarsen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative was to announce "we now have 10 more planets, and there are probably a bunch more, and we'll probably never really get a definitive number". That would also have had an impact on the public view of science. Perhaps not as bad, but it would have had an impact.

Planets predate modern astronomy. You have to negotiate with the public if you want to change what “planet” means. To most people, in most contexts, it means 8 or 9 specific things that they have specific ideas about, not a theoretical category of infinite objects.

Few things sound more like more science than "planets". Telling people "Well actually 'planet' isn't a scientific term, it's a historical / cultural term" will also significantly reduce their trust and interest in science.

Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting

#90

Post by Aachen »

Sharlin wrote: post #24

This seems like the least important issue in the world to keep complaining about.

Deciding the color of the bike shed is easier than making important decisions about the building it sits next to. It's a well-known phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
Post reply on HN