• Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

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

    There are - exactly three.

    1. is in orbit around a star,
    2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
    3. has “cleared the neighbourhood” around its orbit.

    The last one means that its gravitational pull has removed any smaller objects that might be in its orbit, either by kicking them out of it, or by catching them as moons.

    Pluto’s orbit is full of debris.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      You’re the second person to ignore the sentence immediately following that.

      • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Because that sentence doesn’t really make sense. “Criteria” is a human concept. Nature doesn’t do “criteria”, nor “objective” for that matter. So, yes, there’s no “natural criteria” for when something is X or Y, we, humans, make those criteria. Doesn’t matter if it’s in relation to animals, plants, or planets.

          • Alaknár@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            16 hours ago

            The idea of a “category” is inherently human. Just like “objective” and “criteria”.

            Which means there is objective criteria for what is categorised as a planet - it’s whatever we, humans, define them to be.

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Not objective in the sense that aliens would come to the same definition for what is and isn’t a planet. Compare that to something like what the elements are.

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      The scientific community was basically backed into a corner: either create a new category for Pluto and similar bodies, or we go from 9 planets to over 3,000 (iirc), lol.

      The only sensible choice was made, imo.