- cross-posted to:
- xkcd@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- xkcd@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Am I missing something, or are the images for “Traditionalist” and “Modern” swapped?
Did they fix it? I currently see Pluto highlighted in Traditionalist and not in Modern.
I think you’re right.
No the comic is correct. Pluto is not considered a planet anymore.
Pluto is highlighted on Modern and is not highlighted on Traditionalist.
Ah i see. Thank you. I had to zoom in to see that.
It’s only a planet if we could walk on it. What would the name for that one be?
Pedestrian
All those who wander are planets.
I’m partial to the simplistic view: big enough to be round, not big enough to fuse hydrogen
only pluto is a planet, I am spiteful
That’s messed up.
Love it, especially the alt text.
deleted by creator
I’m a Universalist. It is all the same thing at different phases of matter at various temperatures and pressures combined with the gravity to hold onto various materials. Keep stacking Earths over and over and you will eventually get a gas giant then a star then a black hole.
What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria. If a gravitationally bound world is acted upon in a way that shifts its orbit, the object cannot be redefined. This is a definition of a state, not an object. Planet, as defined by the IAU is not a noun. Such is what I expect when a highschool teacher wrote a definition instead of actual planetary scientists. I suppose such draconian nonsense was intended to show the backwardness and medieval state of the science of astronomy.
What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria.
No valid arguments there either. Your car does not become a bicycle because it is in the bike lane. No object is ever defined by external factors. Only states can be defined by external factors. This is fundamental elementary language 101. The definition of an object is not related to a definition of state. There is absolutely no excuse for this blunder. Any obfuscation is nonsense. The conceptual foundation is fundamentally flawed.
There were no planetary scientists consulted whatsoever in this definition. There is no scientific basis. The paper in question is coauthored and the idea of a Highschool teacher in Temecula California. It has no grounding as a scientific concept. It is draconian in logic and completely baseless in science. It is reflective of dogma in the scientific community when it is defended.
You can hide behind fancy words but clearly this is just being simplistic
noun ?
I’m sorry if you didn’t get my lame joke over the fact that the universalist and simplistic definitions of planets give the same result in the comic
What is “surface”?
Also, what is “landed”? And why is Jupiter out? (Edit: Or the Sun, for that matter.)
What is “surface”?
In this context, I believe this is limiting to planets whose water is not deep inside the planet’s crust somewhere, but exposed to its atmosphere.
Ok, but the gas giants should have that. We just can’t see them.
Unless you want pure water. But then, how pure?
What planet has Jupiter landed on?
