939
Sad Ganymede noises
(mander.xyz)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Size doesn't matter
Correct, it's called planet when it orbits arround the Sun AND has cleaned it's orbit from asteroids, not the case of Pluto, whose orbit is still full of other objects, some even bigger than Pluto itself.
If it orbits an Planet instead of the Sun, it's a Moon, even if it is bigger than some other planets.
"All right, Ganymede. You can be a planet, but first you have to clean up your orbit. Start with Jupiter."
Villain origin story
Jupiter has a permanent cloud of asteroids that follow it and neptune crosses the orbit of pluto so neither of those have cleared their orbits so of course they made exceptions so that their contrived definition fits.
Do you mean the asteroids at the Lagrangian points? Every single planet has asteroids there because math/physics dictates those points to be stable. Jupiter has the most at its points because it's the largest planet.
Same with Neptune cleaning its orbit: It has collided with every single thing in its orbit EXCEPT those that synced their orbits to Neptune. An object that is gravitationally dominated by a single planet should not be a planet under any definition.
Sources because I had to read into your claims and I'm no astrophysicist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_trans-Neptunian_object
Yes, that's the made up exception. And for neptune not clearing its orbit due to pluto crossing that orbit? Well we have to make an exception for that so...um...the resonance between neptune and pluto. Exception achieved!
The rules are so contrived that it would not make sense for almost any other system except exactly ours. Whatever it takes to keep Earth's category of "planet" important... you know... for reasons.
Very unscientific but very human.
What rules do you believe make for a definition that isn't contrived? How do you exclude asteroids from your definition or reject other dwarf planets like Ceres without making up contrived exceptions of your own?
Planets are round, naturally formed bodies orbiting a star. (I know no planet is perfectly round and you can call any defined tolerance "contrived", but at that point there are no useful and universally fitting definitions for anything in nature. Definitions are always categorizations by human standards)
I propose a better definition:
Planets are very large objects orbitting a star that dwarf everything nearby
I'm pretty sure this is the intent of the IAU's definition. It's just more specific.
Many asteroids are round. The list of planets, under your definition, would be so large it isn't useful anymore. Even when Ceres, Pluto, and Eris were called planets the list was getting too long, and there are several larger than Ceres. Including every nominally round object would be insane.
No.
Lets try a more simple metaphor.
One person is navigating through a crowd, occasionally bumping into other people, having to juke and dodge their way around.
Another person has an entourage or body guards to their front, and two gaggles of papparazzi following behind them, at each 45 degree angle to their rear, as they walk through an entire empty street 4 lane street, with some occsional people walking past the whole scene on the sidewalk.
Pluto and Charon are basically an awkward, clumsy couple trying to get through a densely packed mall or convention.
Neptune is Taylor Swift, as an entire parade float, just, herself, body guards, papparazzi. And I guess she also can have some literal ingroup orbiters who manage to stick around, their lives revolve around her the same way their walking patterns do.
And then maybe, by chance, that awkward couple leaves the convention, gets lost, walks the wrong way to a restaurant, and end up just directly crossing the street that Swift walked down, 6 hours ago.
There, is that a sufficiently relatable visual metaphor to illustrate the difference between the two situations?
Ah, yes. This is clearly justification for Pluto to become a planet! /s
If the only defense for your viewpoint is to throw out every definition and argument despite their validity, you aren't arguing in good faith and have no facts to stand on
Jupiter's Trojan asteroids sit at Lagrange points. Material found there is not counted in the 'clearing the orbit' criteria. They are in stable orbits caused by the mass of the planet in question, not in lieu of a massive enough body.
Pluto is a dwarf planet, which is still a planet.
Also, they absolutely should have just made an exception for Pluto so science teachers everywhere could have used that as a fun teaching point.
Considering it's in a double tidally locked orbit with its own moon Charon and the point that both rotate around is outside Pluto's volume I would argue that the Pluto/Charon system is actually a dwarf-binary-planet.
I'd okay with that. As long as it's still technically a planet. (what? it's my favorite!)
Everyone loves an underdog
Also they shouldn't have called the category of "things that aren't planets despite being in some ways planet-like" "dwarf planet," they should have called them "planetoids." Star Trek had been referring to small planet-like objects as planetoids for decades, so the work in the popular consciousness had already been done. Dwarf planet not being a planet makes it sound like they're saying dwarf people don't count as people, and I don't care for that at all.
Precedent for an exception would go to Ceres not Pluto.
You would think this is the case but they specifically decided through a vote that a dwarf planet is NOT a planet but a completely separate type of object. The whole vote was ridiculous and done at the very end of the conference so that only a fraction of the members were there to vote on pluto.
Edit: I'm down voted but every word of what I wrote is true. Dig into it and you will find out the same.
Jupiter, largest of all dwarf planets, shares its orbit with some i don't know million asteroids.
I've often thought that 'clearing' it's orbit is misleading. I believe the definition ought to be changed to 'controls' or 'governs' its orbit. This allows for objects in stable L4/L5 locations without inviting the caveats that 'clearing' needs.
Its because its a colloquial phrase that more or less the media picked up and ran with.
Actual astronomers and astrophysicists use math to describe what they're talking about, math that you can find and learn fairly easily on wikipedia.
Lay people tend to just evaluate a phrase for its extremely literal meaning, not realizing that it is at best just pop science jargon, short hand to refer to a pretty well defined and precise concept, that is difficult to summarize without losing specificity.
There are many, many other examples of this kind of thing happening with other phrases or terms used to refer to complex concepts.
But how do we define what orbits what? On the scale from the Sun to Earth, the Moon orbits the Sun, just a litle more wobbly than the Earth's path, by litle I mean well below the error when we imagine the Erath's path as an elipse.
We can try to define if something goes around as orbiting, but If I pick two planet from our solar system one will goes around of the other, thechnically orbiting it? We can try to restricting the distance... but that is a problem as well, even worst idea that "nothing" comes in between: multiple moons? What about the moons' moons?
Ahhh, humans and their need to neatly categorize things...
Help me understand the point you are trying to make. Are you trying to hand-waive categorization as superfluous to developing broader understanding?
Natural satellites fall within the primary body's Hill sphere, where the gravity of the larger mass dominates. The Earth/Moon system co-orbits the sun. Saturn has two satellites that orbit each other, and that system co-orbits Saturn.
Also thanks for mentioning the Hill sphere, I looking into that as well.
Unless you are Pluto.
Wasn't it more bc it doesn't clear it's surroundings?
And it has an orbit at a different angle than the 8 Planets and at it’s narrowest the ellipse of Plutos orbit is actually closer to the Sun than ~~Uranus~~ Neptune.
Edit: That moment when you‘re so done, you fuck up the order of our planets…
Do you mean Neptune? Pluto's perihelion is 29.7 AU while Uranus' aphelion is 20.1 AU.
Oh yea, sorry. I was tired, exhausted n stoned n fucked up the correct order of our planets
They did our boy dirty. Never forget!
That's what I tell my wife but she won't listen
Come on guys, laugh
We’re laughing with your wife.
What have I done
Oh honey it’s ok