Pro to Lemmy Be [email protected]English • 1 month agoBe like Pluto.programming.devimagemessage-square85fedilinkarrow-up1917
arrow-up1917imageBe like Pluto.programming.devPro to Lemmy Be [email protected]English • 1 month agomessage-square85fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•1 month agoThe current classification is a mess. IMO, it should be a planet iff it can hold an atmosphere. I.e., it doesn’t actually have to have an atmosphere, but if it had any, it should have enough surface gravity to hold that one. If you define it that way, Pluto is just barely a planet.
minus-squarezqpslinkfedilink8•1 month agoSo whatever hypothetical density constitutes an atmosphere becomes the arbitrary line in the sand.
minus-squareSpzilinkfedilink1•1 month agoSimilar to the arbitrarily defined density of other stuff in the same orbit. We need to draw lines somewhere to impose categories on nature.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•1 month agoWell, yeah. But even so, it’s still better than the current definition. Many “planets” have not, in fact, cleared their orbit.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink10•1 month agoPlanet has never been very well delineated. The Sun was a “planet”. Ceres was a “planet”. When we find enough things to break up the classification, we make a new classification. Like “asteroid” or “dwarf planet” or “gas giant”.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•edit-21 month agoThat’s very heliocentric of you. The definition of ‘planet’ has changed a lot in the last few millennia.
The current classification is a mess.
IMO, it should be a planet iff it can hold an atmosphere. I.e., it doesn’t actually have to have an atmosphere, but if it had any, it should have enough surface gravity to hold that one.
If you define it that way, Pluto is just barely a planet.
So whatever hypothetical density constitutes an atmosphere becomes the arbitrary line in the sand.
Similar to the arbitrarily defined density of other stuff in the same orbit. We need to draw lines somewhere to impose categories on nature.
Well, yeah. But even so, it’s still better than the current definition. Many “planets” have not, in fact, cleared their orbit.
Planet has never been very well delineated. The Sun was a “planet”. Ceres was a “planet”.
When we find enough things to break up the classification, we make a new classification. Like “asteroid” or “dwarf planet” or “gas giant”.
I don’t think the sun is in orbit around the sun.
That’s very heliocentric of you.
The definition of ‘planet’ has changed a lot in the last few millennia.