[Edited for clarity.]
My issue with the IAU's definition is that the body must "orbit the Sun". I would prefer they said "star" instead, and excluded other stars (so a binary star means neither star is a planet).
Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
161–170 of 255 posts
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#162If the IAU had any sense they would have made Ceres a planet instead of axing Pluto. These decisions should be made in a way that makes funding exploratory missions as easy to sell as possible. Pluto the planet wis easier to sneak through congressional budgets than Pluto the Dwarf planet. Instead of waxing poetic on the Platonic form of planet, just draw a wide line around things people want to get probes sent too without going so broad as to lose the plot. Even better would have been to give Pluto a designation like the nearest Rim Planet, implying there are so many strange Rim Worlds for us to find and explore.
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#163The 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.…
The term "fish" is a case in point. Traditionally, the term means a creature which lives underwater, which would include whales and dolphins, and indeed used to, despite being mammals. It gets worse. Whales and dolphins are more closely related to certain fish than those fish are related to some other fish. (As are we by the way.) There are also some fish, such as lungfish or certain eels which can spend more time ou…
Your point is fishy. But if the IAU definition changes to "a body orbiting a star", we can rename them to "paparazzi".
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#164> “One of the biggest flaws with the IAU definition is that you can have the same object in two different orbits,” says Kornfeld. “In one, it’s considered a planet, and in the other, it’s not considered a planet.” No, there is no flaw in this, and moreover there is nothing new in this. This is how it has always been, it is not something invented recently. In the Solar System, there are 3 Mercury-sized satellites and…
Since the Moon's orbit is always concave towards the Sun, one could even argue that the Moon is a planet, not a satellite, it just happens to have an orbit that is closely coupled to that of another planet, Earth. As I understand it, in fact, there was discussion about defining systems like Earth-Moon as double planets, but that didn't make it into the final definition.
>the Moon's orbit is always concave towards the Sun
Huh?
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, don’t blame me, blame the IAU for opening that can of worms. I’m just happy calling Pluto a “planet” and would rather the IAU had left me in peace — they’re the ones who want to argue with me about what words I’m supposed to say and when I’m supposed to say them. I’d encourage you to think about the impact of science fiction on interest in science. Culture is an extremely powerful force. I don’t think your conce…
There was no do nothing option, the IAU didn't open the can of words. 10 new objects that would be called planets under the old definition were discovered. "Doing nothing" would have led to far more significant changes.
Even if they had to do something, they didn’t need to do what they ended up going for — it was a pretty bad option from a scientific standpoint and a needlessly controversial one.
As the article here explains, the 2006 IAU definition doesn’t really make sense or function as a useful model for what a planet is.
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#166The "battle" for Pluto is an interesting case study in indoctrination. A few generations of children grew up being taught a specific fact, saw it in textbooks, learned mnemonics about it, had memorable cartoon characters named after it, and then one day they were told – with sound reasoning and plenty of scientific evidence – that they should now update their views on the topic. You would think this group of well edu…
The thing is, there is no real evidence to back up the classification. The assignment between words and objects is arbitrary. A consistent definition for "planet" can be given and immediately after define the Solar System as being comprised of nine planets, with the understanding that a "planet" and a "planet of the Solar System" are similar but distinct concepts. The same is already done in biology with paraphyletic groups, with for example "reptiles" not including birds.
(I say this as someone who doesn't care either way whether Pluto is a planet or not.)
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you say the sky is blue I'm going to say it's green because I'm so smart. Flat-earthers are definitely wrong about the shape of the earth, but even they admit the sky is blue, assuming they aren't afflicted with some unfortunate variety of colorblindness. In my observations of flat-earthers, they're people who reject the consensus surrounding a particular fact because they haven't observed that fact for themselve…
But how could you be alive and not have observed that the earth is curved? Why does a mountain, building or ship disappear over the horizon if the earth is not curved? That alone should be sufficient evidence to believe that the scientific consensus on this is likely to be true. I have not observed directly that a human will die after 3 days without water but having experienced thirst & dehydration in limited amounts…
>But how could you be alive and not have observed that the earth is curved?
I know someone who is almost 40 years old that has never left his hometown. He's a reasonable person who holds gainful employment, but from our conversations, he's never been in a skyscraper, flown on an airplane, taken a road trip into the mountains, or even hiked up a large hill, for that matter. He also lives in a land-locked city, so he's never seen the ocean. As such, he has never directly observed the earth to be curved. With all due respect, many people like him do exist in the world, and perhaps you're not acquainted with people like him.
However, he is not a flat-earther because he spends much time on the Internet reading about the way the world works outside his hometown. Basically, he believes in the truthfulness of large institutions, which really is why you and I believe the earth is round; that is, we haven't actually performed a bona fide experiment (not just going in an airplane or up a mountain) to measure the curvature of the earth for ourselves, but we trust the results of those who have, and we also accept that certain technologies like GPS as it is currently implemented can only work if the earth is round (not just in satellite orbits but also the slight-but-critical relativistic shift from a geosynchronous satellite).
>when the contrary idea takes enormous leaps of faith to consider, it seems weird to me to believe something for the sake of it.
That's cool, but many people are capable of believing in something for the sake of it. One fact that stands out to me is that we all use some amount of faith to accept that the earth is round, though perhaps not quite a leap's worth.
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hardly on par in terms of stupidity, but one thing you learn from flat-earthers is that humans love disagreeing with a consensus. Nothing make a certain type of person feel smarter than disagreeing with everyone. If you say the sky is blue I'm going to say it's green because I'm so smart.
>If you say the sky is blue I'm going to say it's green because I'm so smart. Flat-earthers are definitely wrong about the shape of the earth, but even they admit the sky is blue, assuming they aren't afflicted with some unfortunate variety of colorblindness. In my observations of flat-earthers, they're people who reject the consensus surrounding a particular fact because they haven't observed that fact for themselve…
They are absolutely crazy. There is no defending it. It is something that makes stupid people feel smart. There are easy, verifiable experiments that can be done and they refuse to accept the outcome.
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. I’d have to point out that Pluto both is and is not a planet, depending on the context — it depends on whom you ask and the situation in which you ask. What would you say to scientists and laypersons who consider Pluto to be a planet? How would you persuade them to your own viewpoint? Please give at least three examples and use at least three paragraphs.
Pluto is a dwarf planet. It feels like less of a "is and is not" situation, and more of an "isn't, but was once thought to be" situation. Some people remember being told that it was a planet when they were kids and they cling to that even though we've learned that it doesn't make sense to call it a planet anymore. Apart from that it shows up as a planet in literature, almost all of which was written before we knew be…
A geocentric model is observably incorrect.
The word “planet” is neither true nor false. Different people use it to refer to different things.
Kind of like the word “tree.” Some things are trees and some things are not — and it really depends on whom you ask and when you ask them. Most people are able to get along and allow people to refer to whatever trees they want to, because it’s a free country and it really doesn’t make sense to try to control other people over something like that.
Re: Since it was stripped of planetary status, Pluto’s defenders have been fighting
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but how does using “swindle” in a way that’s completely divorced from how it’s normally used qualify as “grammar policing,” but comparing a small change to a scientific definition to a crime is somehow reasonable? Financial motives? Get a grip, man.
If you certify that you have discovered an exoplanet and you do not know whether it has cleared its neighborhood, that may be a crime under the IAU’s definition. Possibly a financial crime if research funding was involved. I’m not a lawyer, just someone who can spot a charade every now and then. My guess is the IAU would say, given the challenge, “ah, well of course we didn’t mean for our universal definition for pla…
A crime? Dude. Whatever you’re on, cut the dose.