@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 1 year agopluto plsmander.xyzimagemessage-square13fedilinkarrow-up1310arrow-down113
arrow-up1297arrow-down1imagepluto plsmander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 1 year agomessage-square13fedilink
minus-squareKerrigorlinkfedilink12•1 year agoThe “cleared its orbit” requirement is too arbitrary and non-scientific. We should’ve gone the other direction and classified more objects as planets.
minus-square@SkaryonlinkEnglish18•1 year agoFeels like we can agree to disagree on that one but I hope we can all agree that Neil deGrasse Tyson is fucking annoying.
minus-squareKerrigorlinkfedilink6•1 year agoWhile we can disagree on the latter portion, the first sentence is simply fact. The IAU does not provide any guidelines based on quantifiable data for this requirement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink5•1 year agowell yeah it’s quite readily admitted to be non-scientific, scientists generally just use “celestial object” afaik.
The “cleared its orbit” requirement is too arbitrary and non-scientific. We should’ve gone the other direction and classified more objects as planets.
Feels like we can agree to disagree on that one but I hope we can all agree that Neil deGrasse Tyson is fucking annoying.
While we can disagree on the latter portion, the first sentence is simply fact. The IAU does not provide any guidelines based on quantifiable data for this requirement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood
I like him.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
well yeah it’s quite readily admitted to be non-scientific, scientists generally just use “celestial object” afaik.
Unironically this