Comment on Can you think of any now?

• Arioxel@jlai.lu ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Part of the reason Pluto’s classification hit so hard in the US is that it’s the only ‘planet’ ever discovered by an USian astronomer. That national pride made the 2006 decision sting more than elsewhere. Some of the top figures from the AAS even challenged the legitimacy of the decision afterwards.

  US pride, again.

  source

  • smh@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Huh. I don’t think national pride that was a factor in my disappointment. I was more sad because 9 is a better number than 8, and Pluto is just a cute little guy.

    source
  • j4k3@piefed.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I care that it is draconian nonsense. It wasn't created by planetary scientists, or by consulting any. It was primarily created by a highschool teacher in Temecula California. It is temporally incongruent. Saying it is not a planet then calling it a planet in the following name is an oxymoron, or rather just moronic. And it impedes real science and science communication depreciating the era and discoveries that have happened.

    The real definition of worlds is by gravitational differentiation and the point at which a body is dominated by geology.

    No object is ever defined by external factors. It is a fundamental elementary logic failure to attempt to do so. If you drive your car in a bicycle lane and clear out all the cyclists, what the &%$# object is defined. Absolutely nothing! You may define a condition here, not an object, not a noun! The fact that this definition even exists is an epic embarrassment that makes the entire field look like a bunch of dogmatic clowns.

    source

    • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      That definition exists because if you want to include Pluto and be consistent you have to include dozens of other bodies.

      source

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        So it was basically laziness on the part of the international astronomical community.

        source
      • j4k3@piefed.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Because those other bodies are worlds. In centuries to come, every one of these will be important and uniquely valued.

        What kind of argument is "reality too hard to science." – Dogmatic clown level arguments. Anyone stating this should be purged from academia. This is the culture of the crisis academics talk about. This is the collapse. Fundamental contextual logic has failed. Planet is a verb, by the IAU definition, used incorrectly as a noun, in an oxymoron, with recursion. That is epic 16th century level nonsense. Nouns and verbs are what, 3rd grade level skills?

        source