12 ms·
I'm not talking about edge cases like asteroids or planetoids or dwarf planets. I'm talking about actual planets. Like a gas giant orbiting a star. It's obvious
by hparadiz 4mo ago
I'm not talking about edge cases like asteroids or planetoids or dwarf planets. I'm talking about actual planets. Like a gas giant orbiting a star. It's obviously a planet even if it's not orbiting Sol.
- ben_w 4mo agoIt's perfectly coherent to argue that gas giants should count failed stars rather than as planets, given the boundary between them is under debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISE_0855%E2%88%920714 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISE_0855%E2%88%920714
- jibal 4mo agoIt's perfectly irrelevant to the thread.
- ben_w 4mo agoThis thread is ~ "Exoplanets also aren't planets": discuss As the easiest to discover exoplanets (and all the early ones except pulsar planets) are gas giants, and the comment I was directly replying to had "Like a gas giant orbiting a star. It's obviously a planet", therefore "gas giants are failed stars and shouldn't count as planets" is not at all irrelevant. Even further up to the point of if these are or are not cell, it illustrates how taxonomical categories are made by humans for humans. Historically, any connection to natural laws in taxonomies is often mere coincidence.