No thoughts

  • 0 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle



  • I understand and completely agree wiyh your point except there are no sub categories of planets. This move was specially made (by a super minority of voters at a last minute end of the conference vote) to keep Earth’s classification as a planet more important. First of all, and frankly insane, Pluto is not under the classifocation of a planet. It is a dwarf planet that, contrary to logic, is NOT a sub category of a planet. If you look at the Euler diagram on the wiki page for dwarf planets you can see they specifically made sure planets were a stand alone category. Sub categories like you mentioned make perfect sense but would slightly diminish Earth’s “special” classification.

    I would love for all of the bodies to be under a large hierarchical classification as you suggested but oddly they are not. It’s disjointed and I think done in a way specifically to spite others in a bit of a power fit.


  • nexguy@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Be Wholesome@lemmy.worldBe like Pluto.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yet Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter…as though they are similar in any way. “Planet” is one of the few times science has decided to change something for the sole purpose of keeping the Earth important in its classification. I suppose we could not have 15 or 20 or 40 planets because that would be confusing…yet we have almost 1000 moons. It is ONLY because it is the Earth’s classification…no other reason. It doesn’t make anything easier or less confusing.

    They could have easily made mercury, pluto, and a dozen others dwarf planets, Venus Earth and Mars terrestrial planets and the others gas planets… but that would demote Earth.

    Weird left over geocentrism remaining in science like it’s the 1300s.