i just found that charming analogy, that i want to share with you :p
https://columbiachronicle.com/metro/79ce17ec-ff01-5e3d-88f4-60f2480ce7fa/
i just found that charming analogy, that i want to share with you :p
https://columbiachronicle.com/metro/79ce17ec-ff01-5e3d-88f4-60f2480ce7fa/
The whole Pluto thing is it’s a strange arguement because we don’t have a good definition for planet anyway. Apparently a rocky world like earth is a planet, and a gaseous world like Jupiter is a planet, but a small rocky world like Pluto isn’t a planet. What?
The definition for planet seems to be, it’s round and we call it a planet. The arguement against Pluto seems to be that it isn’t much bigger than its own moon, which I don’t understand as an arguement, because no one ever said planets had to be big, just round, and Pluto is round. Also the term “double planet exists” and the key in that sentence is that it contains the word planet.
If the moon wasn’t in orbit of the earth, we would call it a planet. Mercury isn’t much larger and we’ve always called it a planet.
the definition i like best about what is a big enough object to be interesting is whether it is massive enough to hold an atmosphere. the minimum mass is roughly 10²² kg, which roughly aligns with our current classification of what is a planet.
the definition of planet is basically “the most noteworthy objects in the solar system, limited to a number that people can easily memorize”
The definition of planet is clear and unambiguous, people just pretend it’s confusing because they don’t like it.
It orbits a star.
Its gravity is greater than hydrostatic forces, causing it to be spherical.
It contains a majority of the mass in its orbit.
People don’t like that definition of planet because it’s terrible. Which is my point about the last criteria. If in order for it to be considered a planet it has to have absorbed the majority of all material then double planets can’t be planets, because they haven’t.
What about a planet that also has a large mass at its L3 point, can either of those objects be a planet if the other object also exists?
If a planet gets ejected from its star system, what is it now, a very large asteroid?
This definition of planet is problematic because it’s transitory and largely relies on factors that don’t have material effects on the object. Spherical objects can form in interstellar space, a star is not required. We just think that planets tend to form around stars because they’re easier to see in that scenario.
The entire thing comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of science. It annoys the everloving shit out of me.