4 ms·
People made up those criteria for planethood. They are not immutable laws of nature. People com decide to use different criteria and categories.
by cratermoon 6mo ago
People 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.