Pluto’s downgrade was simply because we found potentially thousands of more Pluto’s.
The argument I’ve seen skips the step that the new definition was created to include those other Pluto like objects.
They jump right to how the planet definition was updated to not have overlap or ambiguity with Pluto and therefore was about creating a way to exclude Pluto rather than creating a definition that doesn’t lead to declaring there are now 50 planets.
It’s because the definition includes things that aren’t really about the object itself and more about where it is. And also how inconsistent it is, as Mercury isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium and yet is explicitly included as a planet by the IAU. Nevermind the fact that the new definition was speed voted and approved by less than 400 astronomers in a convention where 2500+ people attended, let alone not even being discussed with the larger scientific community.
But hey, if you’d rather dismiss my points because of an url, you do you. Not like this changes our everyday live anyway.
The problem is that the current definition makes no sense and is, frankly, bad.
400 people, for a huge scientific community like astronomy, is bad. Heck even if they were literally all the astronomers in the world, the fact that it was proposed and voted on basically the same day should be noteworthy at the very least.
And no one here is angry. I was just pointing out that name calling for no reason doesn’t really add to the discussion, even a low stakes one like this.
Except when you actually read about the change in Pluto’s status and how unscientific it actually is.
deleted by creator
The argument I’ve seen skips the step that the new definition was created to include those other Pluto like objects.
They jump right to how the planet definition was updated to not have overlap or ambiguity with Pluto and therefore was about creating a way to exclude Pluto rather than creating a definition that doesn’t lead to declaring there are now 50 planets.
deleted by creator
I’m not saying I agree with it, only trying to describe the logical leaps that get people there.
deleted by creator
Oh gods who forgot to take pluto in to get them neutered
It’s because the definition includes things that aren’t really about the object itself and more about where it is. And also how inconsistent it is, as Mercury isn’t in hydrostatic equilibrium and yet is explicitly included as a planet by the IAU. Nevermind the fact that the new definition was speed voted and approved by less than 400 astronomers in a convention where 2500+ people attended, let alone not even being discussed with the larger scientific community.
But hey, if you’d rather dismiss my points because of an url, you do you. Not like this changes our everyday live anyway.
deleted by creator
The problem is that the current definition makes no sense and is, frankly, bad.
400 people, for a huge scientific community like astronomy, is bad. Heck even if they were literally all the astronomers in the world, the fact that it was proposed and voted on basically the same day should be noteworthy at the very least.
And no one here is angry. I was just pointing out that name calling for no reason doesn’t really add to the discussion, even a low stakes one like this.
deleted by creator
Who stands to gain from Pluto not being a planet?
Jews.
Obviously.
/s?
Really? I need to clarify that I dont actually believe the Jews have a controlling interest in Neptune? Do some research man!
Have… Have you not seen the internet the past few years? You can’t assume sarcasm by this point
It’s about keeping the solar system small and simple. There would be tens of planets, in the old definition.