4 ms·

> You identify that Pluto hasn’t cleared its orbit of asteroids and so you demote it. That wasn't really why it was demoted. Eris was discovered, and it was mo

by bnralt 3y ago

> You identify that Pluto hasn’t cleared its orbit of asteroids and so you demote it. That wasn't really why it was demoted. Eris was discovered, and it was more massive than Pluto, so a decision was to be made about whether we were going to say there were more than nine planets (and admit we don't know exactly how many planets there are in our solar system), or kick out Pluto and just say there are 8. The IAU made a decision about this, not for scientific reasons but for naming conventions (they have a different naming convention for planets and non-planets). Keep in mind that though some planetary scientists are in the IAU, most members of the IAU aren't planetary scientists, and my understanding is that most planetary scientists aren't members of the IAU (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). But the IAU is responsible for naming things in the night sky. The initial definition that was suggested didn't include the criteria for clearing the neighborhood, add a bunch of new planets to our solar system, and say we didn't know how many planets there were in our solar system. Members objected, and went with the simpler solution of just kicking Pluto out and saying there are now 8 planets (the definition with the vague "clearing the neighborhood" part of the definition). I have to say I prefer the original suggestion for the definition of planet; it does a much better job of conveying to people how much cool stuff is in our solar system and how much we still don't know. As far as I can tell planetary scientists aren't fond of the IAU definition and tend to ignore it (though Alan Stern has lead apublic campaign to get rid of IAU's definition).

aidenn0 3y ago
Did you hear about Pluto? Messed up, right?
dmix 3y ago
I had never heard of Eris, youtube had a good into to the 'planet' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxetIkth51I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxetIkth51I
- the-dude 3y ago
  You should check out Niburu, YouTube will blow your mind.
  - echelon 3y ago
    Dear god, don't do that to someone's YouTube suggestions.
  - petesergeant 3y ago
    GPT: Nibiru, or Planet X, is a hypothesized planet in our solar system that conspiracy theorists claim will collide with or pass close to Earth, causing catastrophic destruction. They assert that this event, often referred to as the "Nibiru cataclysm," is being concealed by governments and scientists worldwide.
- rootw0rm 3y ago
  Just wait until you read about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism
Someone 3y ago
> The IAU made a decision about this, not for scientific reasons but for naming conventions (they have a different naming convention for planets and non-planets). Reading https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#dwarfplanets https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#dwarfplanets, it says “The name is intended to reflect the characteristics of the body itself, and be an appropriate moniker derived from mythology. Objects, including dwarf planets, far beyond the orbit of Neptune are expected to be given the name of a deity or figure related to creation” Pluto is a Greek god related to the underworld, not to creation, so it doesn’t fit that pattern, does it? I also don’t see how Eris (the Greek goddess of discord and strife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology)) fits that pattern. Also, it’s not “non-planets”, it’s “dwarf planets”. Pluto still is considered a planet in the terminology of the IAU, but not a ‘planet planet’ (my term, not an IAU one)
- bnralt 3y ago
  No, according to the IAU Pluto and other dwarf planets are not a planet and there's only 8 planets in the solar system, and dwarf planets aren't considered planets. For example, from their site[1]: > The 2006 IAU Resolution means that the Solar System officially consists of eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. In the same resolution, a new distinct class of objects, called dwarf planets, was also defined. Dwarf planets not being considered planets is just one of the reasons why the current definition is viewed by some as less than ideal. [1] https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/ https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    >> dwarf planets aren't considered planets. I love the internal conflict contained in that statement. In any other context it would be ridiculous. Dwarf dogs aren't considered dogs. Dwarf humans aren't considered humans. The entire controversy isn't about definitions or scientific accuracy. It is about reclaiming history. It is about a small group of today's scientists wanting to assert their power through language. It is about asserting dominance by redefining language to create a break between those who are educated in the modern lexicon and the ignorant who came before. It is about declaring all previous works about the solar system wrong, or at least old hat, not through argument but by decree. It is the exact opposite of scientific pursuit.

by bnralt 3y ago

aidenn0 3y ago

Did you hear about Pluto? Messed up, right?

dmix 3y ago

I had never heard of Eris, youtube had a good into to the 'planet' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxetIkth51I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxetIkth51I

the-dude 3y ago
You should check out Niburu, YouTube will blow your mind.
- echelon 3y ago
  Dear god, don't do that to someone's YouTube suggestions.
- petesergeant 3y ago
  GPT: Nibiru, or Planet X, is a hypothesized planet in our solar system that conspiracy theorists claim will collide with or pass close to Earth, causing catastrophic destruction. They assert that this event, often referred to as the "Nibiru cataclysm," is being concealed by governments and scientists worldwide.
rootw0rm 3y ago
Just wait until you read about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

Someone 3y ago

> The IAU made a decision about this, not for scientific reasons but for naming conventions (they have a different naming convention for planets and non-planets). Reading https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#dwarfplanets https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/#dwarfplanets, it says “The name is intended to reflect the characteristics of the body itself, and be an appropriate moniker derived from mythology. Objects, including dwarf planets, far beyond the orbit of Neptune are expected to be given the name of a deity or figure related to creation” Pluto is a Greek god related to the underworld, not to creation, so it doesn’t fit that pattern, does it? I also don’t see how Eris (the Greek goddess of discord and strife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology)) fits that pattern. Also, it’s not “non-planets”, it’s “dwarf planets”. Pluto still is considered a planet in the terminology of the IAU, but not a ‘planet planet’ (my term, not an IAU one)

bnralt 3y ago
No, according to the IAU Pluto and other dwarf planets are not a planet and there's only 8 planets in the solar system, and dwarf planets aren't considered planets. For example, from their site[1]: > The 2006 IAU Resolution means that the Solar System officially consists of eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. In the same resolution, a new distinct class of objects, called dwarf planets, was also defined. Dwarf planets not being considered planets is just one of the reasons why the current definition is viewed by some as less than ideal. [1] https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/ https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> dwarf planets aren't considered planets. I love the internal conflict contained in that statement. In any other context it would be ridiculous. Dwarf dogs aren't considered dogs. Dwarf humans aren't considered humans. The entire controversy isn't about definitions or scientific accuracy. It is about reclaiming history. It is about a small group of today's scientists wanting to assert their power through language. It is about asserting dominance by redefining language to create a break between those who are educated in the modern lexicon and the ignorant who came before. It is about declaring all previous works about the solar system wrong, or at least old hat, not through argument but by decree. It is the exact opposite of scientific pursuit.