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.
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.