Since categorizing something a planet means nothing then traditionalist is the only way to go. If Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter and a sudden orbit change can mean a thing might no longer be called a planet then there is no scientific value in calling things planets. They are just traditional names given to fairly random objects like constellations.
Who put all this color in my XKCD?
Empiricist is a very solid take tbf
I’m partial to Tom Cardy’s view: Pluto isn’t a planet, but that doesn’t matter because it’s still hot shit.
I cannot respect people call Pluto a planet on internet forums whenever this topic comes up. Not because I agree with NASA, think their definition is perfect, or think they just cling onto nostalgia, no.
I cannot respect them because Pluto does not care and trying to white knight perceived attacks against it will not impress it, they are just being pathetic.
It’s not white knighting a planet. I’m literally from where it was discovered. I went on field trips to Lowell Observatory as a kid. Fuck all y’all who won’t accept my planet.
All dwarf planets are planets. Don’t discriminate.
You are wrong. Pluto is hot shit and knows it.
Wrong. Pluto is actually one of the coldest bodies in the solar system at an average of -232c
Pluto won’t fuck you bro.
Since they are both dogs, even though Goofy is anthropomorphic, Pluto and Goofy could technically procreate.
Do with this knowledge as you seem fit…
While I’m jaded and cynical enough to not be moved by anything anymore and I have already heard that information, I’m somehow still disgusted that you invoked rule 34 here of all places.
I aim to please o7
I now think the big problem in the definition is “dwarf” as that implies Pluto and the others are lacking or deficient in some way, which does not really work, especially if you start comparing tiny planets like Mercury to large moons like Titan… Maybe it would be better to call the “official” 8 planets, isolated planets, and the many smaller ones, communal planets.
I’m partial to the simplistic view: big enough to be round, not big enough to fuse hydrogen
Technically tiny amounts of Hydrogen fusion will happen in the gas giants.
I’m sure there’s a sensible line to be drawn somewhere
Since people have fused hydrogen on earth, I choose to believe it’s not a real planet
It’s only a planet if we could walk on it. What would the name for that one be?
Pedestrian
That’s messed up.
All those who wander are planets.
only pluto is a planet, I am spiteful
I’m a Universalist. It is all the same thing at different phases of matter at various temperatures and pressures combined with the gravity to hold onto various materials. Keep stacking Earths over and over and you will eventually get a gas giant then a star then a black hole.
What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria. If a gravitationally bound world is acted upon in a way that shifts its orbit, the object cannot be redefined. This is a definition of a state, not an object. Planet, as defined by the IAU is not a noun. Such is what I expect when a highschool teacher wrote a definition instead of actual planetary scientists. I suppose such draconian nonsense was intended to show the backwardness and medieval state of the science of astronomy.
What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria.
No valid arguments there either. Your car does not become a bicycle because it is in the bike lane. No object is ever defined by external factors. Only states can be defined by external factors. This is fundamental elementary language 101. The definition of an object is not related to a definition of state. There is absolutely no excuse for this blunder. Any obfuscation is nonsense. The conceptual foundation is fundamentally flawed.
There were no planetary scientists consulted whatsoever in this definition. There is no scientific basis. The paper in question is coauthored and the idea of a Highschool teacher in Temecula California. It has no grounding as a scientific concept. It is draconian in logic and completely baseless in science. It is reflective of dogma in the scientific community when it is defended.
No valid arguments there either.
Just to be clear, I agree with you, and those links are me doing so. Don’t quote have the hang of cross posting here on Lemmy.
You can hide behind fancy words but clearly this is just being simplistic
noun ?
I’m sorry if you didn’t get my lame joke over the fact that the universalist and simplistic definitions of planets give the same result in the comic
What is “surface”?
Also, what is “landed”? And why is Jupiter out?
What is “surface”?
In this context, I believe this is limiting to planets whose water is not deep inside the planet’s crust somewhere, but exposed to its atmosphere.
Ok, but the gas giants should have that. We just can’t see them.
Unless you want pure water. But then, how pure?
What planet has Jupiter landed on?
Love it, especially the alt text.
Am I missing something, or are the images for “Traditionalist” and “Modern” swapped?
Did they fix it? I currently see Pluto highlighted in Traditionalist and not in Modern.
I believe in the freedom of information, and to that end, enjoy this rare XKCD misprint
Yup, they did. Cool.
I think you’re right.
No the comic is correct. Pluto is not considered a planet anymore.
Pluto is highlighted on Modern and is not highlighted on Traditionalist.
Ah i see. Thank you. I had to zoom in to see that.
