Comment on [deleted]

givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I wouldn’t put it past an awful lot of people given the stupidity I see on a daily basis.

  Pluto is a strange relic that basically got considered a planet only due to the time and method by which it was observed. But it turns out that there are a lot of things in the solar system that are about the size of Pluto or even larger which would require us to either declare there are dozens and dozens of planets or, the slightly more sane avenue, come up with a slightly more specific definition of what a planet actually is which by necessity excludes Pluto.

  All the hype about is basically just down to people refusing to change what they learned in elementary school. But the thing about science is that it changes and is refined over time as we gain understanding of the universe and how things work. This is what makes science science. Anything less is simply dogma.

  source

  • Lumidaub@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    All the hype about is basically just down to people refusing to change what they learned in elementary school

    And it’s baffling because how does that even affect anyone in any way unless they work in astronomy? People don’t know and don’t care about the difference between solar system, galaxy and universe, but Pluto being recategorised is STILL causing them intolerable agony?

    source

    • Saleh@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Well, someone said this was knowledge important to have in general education, so people learned it in school.

      Now people are told what they learned in school is either wrong, or not important, so they shouldn’t concern themselves with it.

      This raises some important implications about education and its purposes and the role of schooling in manufacturing consent in Democracies, the question of how much an individual should trust the state and so on.

      If you cannot express or understand these properly or if they contradict other core ideological believes of you, ending up with arguing about Pluto rather than these issues, is normal.

      source

      • wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Here’s the thing with “facts”. Every scientific explanation is just our current best explanation. They’re not all perfect and as we learn more the explanations change.

        The lesson of Pluto is that science evolves and you have to stay up to date. They’ll be a bunch of stuff you learned as facts that has now been revised, corrected, reclassified or revoked. The other obvious one is how much the appearance of dinosaurs has been revised over the last few decades.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      All because of a cartoon dog.

      I don’t think they’d care if Neptune and Pluto swapped names.

      source
  • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    the thing that was actually influencing Neptune’s orbit, whatever that might be

    Calculation error due to Einstein not being available (in Lowell’s case, at least; Tombaugh should’ve known better) and margins of error in the measured masses of the planets at the time (the Voyagers took care of that bit), if I’m not mistaken.

    source
  • Nollij@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The explanation I heard back then was that Pluto wouldn’t qualify as a planet, EXCEPT that it has a moon. I’m not sure why that exception would apply, but it seems it’s no longer good enough.

    source

    • dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Well, there are seven other known sub-planetary bodies (dwarf planets) in the solar system that also have moons: Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, and Salacia. Eris in particular is larger than Pluto. So then Eris would have to be promoted to being a planet, too. Along with the other six, plus any more we might discover later. At the time of its discovery I don’t think anyone had yet observed that Pluto has a moon, and it wasn’t discovered until even later that Pluto actually has five moons.

      source
    • zqps@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      That was an attempt to preserve the order of planets, but a failed one since there are other non-planets with moons. xkcd.com/3063

      The modern definition doesn’t depend on moons. Which is good because not all planets have them.

      source
• iasmina2007@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    That’s correct by definition, but the reason the definition was changed to exclude pluto was because our knowledge changed.

    We found more Pluto-like objects and it became clear they weren’t the same thing as the other 8 planets. They needed their own classification. So we created one (Dwarf Planets) and put Pluto in it along with its brethren.

    source
  • sxan@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    And also because if we included Pluto, we’d have to include another half dozen Pluto-sized dwarves we’ve discovered since.

    But, yeah, my understanding is that it’s really about dominance. Pluto is too submissive. Not alpha enough, if you will.

    source