• Zerush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 month ago

      Correct, it’s called planet when it orbits arround the Sun AND has cleaned it’s orbit from asteroids, not the case of Pluto, whose orbit is still full of other objects, some even bigger than Pluto itself.

      If it orbits an Planet instead of the Sun, it’s a Moon, even if it is bigger than some other planets.

      • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        when it orbits arround the Sun AND has cleaned it’s orbit from asteroid

        Jupiter, largest of all dwarf planets, shares its orbit with some i don’t know million asteroids.

        • ContriteErudite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’ve often thought that ‘clearing’ it’s orbit is misleading. I believe the definition ought to be changed to ‘controls’ or ‘governs’ its orbit. This allows for objects in stable L4/L5 locations without inviting the caveats that ‘clearing’ needs.

      • nexguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Jupiter has a permanent cloud of asteroids that follow it and neptune crosses the orbit of pluto so neither of those have cleared their orbits so of course they made exceptions so that their contrived definition fits.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        Pluto is a dwarf planet, which is still a planet.

        Also, they absolutely should have just made an exception for Pluto so science teachers everywhere could have used that as a fun teaching point.

        • Small_Quasar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 month ago

          Considering it’s in a double tidally locked orbit with its own moon Charon and the point that both rotate around is outside Pluto’s volume I would argue that the Pluto/Charon system is actually a dwarf-binary-planet.

        • GraniteM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Also they shouldn’t have called the category of “things that aren’t planets despite being in some ways planet-like” “dwarf planet,” they should have called them “planetoids.” Star Trek had been referring to small planet-like objects as planetoids for decades, so the work in the popular consciousness had already been done. Dwarf planet not being a planet makes it sound like they’re saying dwarf people don’t count as people, and I don’t care for that at all.

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

  • skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Weird how many people seem to think it’s like a competition or something. It’s a descriptive label.

    The whole Pluto thing taught us a lot about the psychology of letting go of something taught at a young age. People getting proper frothing at how they shoulda just let Pluto keep it, just to save themselves the extremely minor cognitive dissonance.

    • Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Have you seen the lengths people go to in order to not have to change their world view even a smidge? To not have to correct themselves about anything at all? I’ll give you a hint, literally every right wing party in the world doing well is because weak people can’t change a damn thing about themselves.

    • Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I really doubt more than .001% actually care if it’s called a planet or not, it’s just a meme to pretend that you care. Like pineapple on pizza.

      No one actually cares if you put pineapple on pizza. No one actually cares about Pluto being a planet. But there are many people who see themselves as some sort of white knight defenders of the truth against haters that don’t actually even exist.

      • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        I care if you put pineapple on pizza. Please put it on yours. Please. That means less on mine. Not that i dislike it, i just lack the parts to digest it properly.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    People fighting for Pluto that it should be a planet instead of a dwarf planet

    Ceres: 🥺

    Context: Ceres is now considered a dwarf planet, and used to be considered just an asteroid, but when it was first discovered it was considered a planet. That was in 1801. There is no objective criteria for what a planet is and isn’t. Like a lot of things in nature, things just exist, and as humans we categorize them. Ceres is round like a planet like Pluto. I’m not saying it should be considered a planet, I think dwarf planet fits them both nicely. As late as the 1950s Ceres was still sometimes considered a planet by some people.

    I have a sort spot for it. I love it.


    Edit: Because two people have misunderstood me now I’m going to say it more explicitly. I’m fully aware there is a scientific definition for dwarf planets. I’m not saying there isn’t. I’m just saying compared to something else like prime numbers there isn’t an obviously correct way to categorize them and the definition has changed over time. By stating the current definition of planets and/or dwarf planets you’re missing my point. Those definitions change. See here for the history.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m fighting for jupiter to also be a dwarf planet because it has not cleared its orbit of a few million asteroids.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      it blew my tiny mind when i found out that there are multiple dwarf planets in long solar orbits in our system

      they might be small and enjoy solitude but why are we forgetting about them???

      and now apparently there’s also a dwarf planet in the inner solar system that nobody talks about??? rude

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Exactly! It’s right there past Mars! It’s not like it’s some weird thing off in the cold dark past Pluto.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      There is no objective criteria for what a planet is and isn’t.

      There is, though, or rather there should be another one.

      The official definition says

      But I also said,

      Like a lot of things in nature, things just exist, and as humans we categorize them.