Anyone who complains about this are the same people who whinged about the change of Pluto’s status as a planet.
In that, they are clinging to nostalgia instead of embracing a new, wondrous truth. Feathers and fur on dinosaurs shows an entirely new way of imagining the world before us, just like Pluto’s downgrade was simply because we found potentially thousands of more Pluto’s.
I think a lot of people broadly are insecure about change right now. Stability feels precious, and this nostalgic retreat is being leveraged by anti-science groups.
Pluto is a wonderful, amazing and beautiful world. I will never forget the awe I felt when I saw the first images when New Horizons blasted past it, the colors and textures and vivid landscapes and variety and hazy atmosphere layers, an utter treat, literally brought tears to my eyes that I got to see something I thought I would never see in my lifetime.
All that said, it’s fine it’s been reclassified, it takes nothing away from the world and the dwarf planets are ALL interesting and worth admiring.
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.
Okay you googled what classifies a planet and saw the line about mercury, I am familiar but not sure how that makes any of this “unscientific.” Mercury mostly fits the criteria, pluto definitely does not.
I’m just confused how anyone has a problem with this, nothing is perfect, nothing has hard boundaries but we have to draw lines somewhere or we have solar system models where when we say “planet” we include 90 other objects that are very far removed from each other, besides being “somewhat roundish.”
I’m perfectly fine with 400 astronomers deciding to draw a line somewhere, they’re ones doing the goddamn work. I’m sure there’s a share of people seeking attention pretending to be outraged, but why give those voices power? If you’re an astronomer doing planetary science, you need to define different kinds of bodies, they’re not doing it to make people comfortable, and it shouldn’t make you uncomfortable, if it does that’s really, really weird. From the outside it screams some kind of issues with authority.
Yes, you are right it changes nothing in how we live, so I’m baffled why there’s always one out a hundred people just angry that people doing science changed something in the way they do work.
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.
he problem is that the current definition makes no sense and is, frankly, bad.
You haven’t said why though, I have received zero good arguments why reclassifying a ball of ice and rock that crosses other planetary orbits harms science, it’s a dumb hill to even point at, much less die on.
Agreed. It always irked me that the ancestors of birds look more like lizards than birds, when the ancestors of crocodiles looked pretty much the same.
They look way more badass with feathers.
It’s time to grow up and accept the truth
Anyone who complains about this are the same people who whinged about the change of Pluto’s status as a planet.
In that, they are clinging to nostalgia instead of embracing a new, wondrous truth. Feathers and fur on dinosaurs shows an entirely new way of imagining the world before us, just like Pluto’s downgrade was simply because we found potentially thousands of more Pluto’s.
I think a lot of people broadly are insecure about change right now. Stability feels precious, and this nostalgic retreat is being leveraged by anti-science groups.
Pluto actually got a promotion to the King of the dwarf planets, rather than the least of the rocky planets.
Hey!! Don’t bash Team Pluto!!!
Pluto is a wonderful, amazing and beautiful world. I will never forget the awe I felt when I saw the first images when New Horizons blasted past it, the colors and textures and vivid landscapes and variety and hazy atmosphere layers, an utter treat, literally brought tears to my eyes that I got to see something I thought I would never see in my lifetime.
All that said, it’s fine it’s been reclassified, it takes nothing away from the world and the dwarf planets are ALL interesting and worth admiring.
For real though - people will insist that Pluto is a planet but not even know about Eris.
I’ve also just now decided that all those spiny backed donosors? They were just dummy thicc and they needed extra spine bone to support all that cheek
Except when you actually read about the change in Pluto’s status and how unscientific it actually is.
Oh? Do explain, and pretend I don’t actually know a lot about planetary science.
Edit: Looked at user history and .ml suffix. I shouldn’t be surprised at this kind of take, nor hold my breath for a smart answer.
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.
Okay you googled what classifies a planet and saw the line about mercury, I am familiar but not sure how that makes any of this “unscientific.” Mercury mostly fits the criteria, pluto definitely does not.
I’m just confused how anyone has a problem with this, nothing is perfect, nothing has hard boundaries but we have to draw lines somewhere or we have solar system models where when we say “planet” we include 90 other objects that are very far removed from each other, besides being “somewhat roundish.”
I’m perfectly fine with 400 astronomers deciding to draw a line somewhere, they’re ones doing the goddamn work. I’m sure there’s a share of people seeking attention pretending to be outraged, but why give those voices power? If you’re an astronomer doing planetary science, you need to define different kinds of bodies, they’re not doing it to make people comfortable, and it shouldn’t make you uncomfortable, if it does that’s really, really weird. From the outside it screams some kind of issues with authority.
Yes, you are right it changes nothing in how we live, so I’m baffled why there’s always one out a hundred people just angry that people doing science changed something in the way they do work.
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.
You haven’t said why though, I have received zero good arguments why reclassifying a ball of ice and rock that crosses other planetary orbits harms science, it’s a dumb hill to even point at, much less die on.
Agreed. It always irked me that the ancestors of birds look more like lizards than birds, when the ancestors of crocodiles looked pretty much the same.