3 ms·
NASA chief says he's in the camp of 'make Pluto a planet again'
- OutOfHere 6mo agoIt is shameful because Pluto really is better off being classified with the other Kuiper belt objects. It is a trans-Neptunian object. It doesn't fit any planet formation equation, and it doesn't have the attributes of a planet. It would be tragic if it were to be misclassified again. If Pluto becomes a planet, then Eris and Makemake probably should too. Ceres might also qualify. We could then keep naming planets all the way to the Oort Cloud. This is the insanity that happens when hicks gain power.
- jfengel 6mo agoIt's shameful because he's not a scientist, and his opinion is irrelevant. He was put in charge of NASA to administer it in a business sense, not to put a thumb on the scale of scientific decision-making. He's entitled to an opinion, same as anybody else. But most people's opinions don't make the newspapers and don't direct actual scientists in their jobs.
- cratermoon 6mo agoDo you apply the same criteria for who can decide to other billionaire entrepreneurs, like Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk?
- jfengel 6mo agoDecision-making is his job. There's no criteria for me to apply; it is a simple fact that he gets to decide things. If you're asking how I feel about a billionaire expressing an un-scientific opinion, then I say it's still shameful, but less consequential.
- cratermoon 6mo agoPeople made up those criteria for planethood. They are not immutable laws of nature. People com decide to use different criteria and categories.
- OutOfHere 6mo agoAs I noted, if you use the different criteria, then you will end up with a lot more planets to the point where the word planet loses meaning because there are tens or hundreds of new ones all the way across the belts and to the Oort Cloud. Consistency in scientific classification is important. Planet formation theory is different from asteroid and ice formation. This is not supposed to be a case of the ivory tower man vs the common man.
- cratermoon 6mo agoSo what if there are tens or hundreds. There are over 5000 known comets, and who knows how many hundreds of thousands out in the Oort Cloud. Does that mean “comet” has no meaning? What about the asteroids you mentioned, there are 1.2 million of those, yet we still consider the word to mean something, yes?
- OutOfHere 6mo agoLet me ask you a simple question: If Pluto becomes a planet, are you okay with these five also becoming planets: Ceres (sits between Mars and Jupiter), Eris, Makemake, Quaoar, Sedna, etc.? Think about it -- Jupiter will no longer then be the fifth planet; it will be the sixth. Also, will your bosses at MAGA endeavor to be scientifically consistent in this way? If not, then you have no debate. What you'll unwittingly end up accomplishing is to invent a new word that merely replaces the word planet in its current sense with a new name, e.g. cleorb/cleorbs, orbex/orbexes, etc. You will break every science textbook and every LLM. Is this what you want, because it is what you will get.