• nexguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    You would think this is the case but they specifically decided through a vote that a dwarf planet is NOT a planet but a completely separate type of object. The whole vote was ridiculous and done at the very end of the conference so that only a fraction of the members were there to vote on pluto.

    Edit: I’m down voted but every word of what I wrote is true. Dig into it and you will find out the same.

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Then YOU come up with a definition of a planet that manages to include Pluto while simultaneously excluding Ceres, Charon, Eris, Cedna, Makemake, and 200+ other objects in the solar system large enough to be spherical, some of which are larger than Pluto

      • nexguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        The definition of planet should be what it is, a traditional unscientific category based on history… like constellations. Calling Mercury a planet and Jupiter a planet as though they are similar in almost any way is silly scientifically.

        Perhaps leave the traditional planets category alone and create new categories that could pertain to all systems not just ours. Maybe something like terrestrial planets, gas planets, dwarf planets… etc. Categories that won’t have to change any time a new discovery is made.