• Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 months ago

    Pluto will always be a planet to me, and you’ll pry that definition from my cold, dead hands!

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    2 months ago

    You know, this post made me realize something. Some people are viewing it in terms of “rank”, instead of an arbitrary scientific classification designed to efficiently communicate ideas in a clear and concise way.

    It’s like … mythology or something, and the planet(oid) being anthropomorphized.

    Do people also view kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species as “ranks” of some sort, with some intrinsically greater value being given to some over others?

    • Squorlple@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s like … mythology or something, and the planet(oid) being anthropomorphized.

      I mean, the planet(oid)s are named after gods.

      The personification of its classification is probably related to the exclusivity of the title and “bigger is better” mentality. Since every life form has a taxonomy for domain to species, there’s not really an exclusivity to each echelon. I don’t imagine anybody really thinks like this meme below, for example:

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        This makes me want to devise a tiered, inclusive classification scheme for space objects.

        We could start with orbital objects, any object that normally experiences regular, periodic orbits with minimal deviation. So, everything in the galaxy would be one except potentially Sag A, and the galaxy itself. Perhaps the next branching subsets could be things undergoing continuous fusion somewhere in their body or not?

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Do people also view kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species as “ranks” of some sort, with some intrinsically greater value being given to some over others?

      Well, for humans we most certainly do

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        So, “homo” is better than “sapiens”? And “animal” is better than homo sapiens?

        Or do I have it backwards, and “lower” ranks are better? So, “pinus ponderosa” would be better than “plant”?

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thing is everyone has one of those.

      Compare it to non-sentience, sentience, and sapience, to properly anthropomorphize it.

        • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah but no one just has a kingdom or phylum.

          Every living creature gets an entry from domain to species.

          Celestial bodies aren’t a hierarchy, a planet isn’t also a dwarf planet or an asteroid.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’ll matter a bit more once (if) we get to explore our solar system for real. I feel like right now the concept of “planet” is still rather distant in our minds and a lot of people just base it on vibes

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    When ever Eris isn’t on screen everyone should be asking “Where’s Eris?”

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Alright, if I ever talk about this planet this is what I’m calling it from now on.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 months ago

      They found more evidence for its existence recently, but no. Nobody has ever seen it or even found out in which direction to look. The evidence is that the other planets move in ways that only makes sense if there is some mass somewhere pulling their orbits.

      Sort of like having to discover the moon from watching the tides in the sea.

      • DigitalDruid@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        this method is how we discovered Neptune and Pluto and many exoplanets. Kepler’s laws are extremely specific about orbits, so once you pin down the disturbances the planet makes you significantly narrow down the places it can be.

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, but that new evidence is way less distinguishable from noise than the one for Neptune.

          At this point, the most likely is that there isn’t anything there.

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, the difference being that the existence of Neptune and Pluto could be visually confirmed through telescope more easily. They’re also not visible to the naked eye, but they can be found in telescopic images by comparing to a map of the sky at other times. Later on they were visited by probes.

          I don’t know what counts as a discovery of a planet. Personally, I’d like to see any kind of real data from the planet before claiming it discovered.

          The calculations can be 100% correct, but they’re not verified until there’s some kind of external proof.

          The planet X (or 9 or whatever) has yet to be seen in any kind of way.

          So far the calculations have been confirmed by other calculations showing the same thing, and they’re most certainly correct, but the “solid” proof is still missing.

          (It doesn’t have to be solid or visual, I don’t know the English word for it; it just needs to originate from the actual existence of the planet and not only from the effects of its theoretical existence.)

        • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well we figured out where to look for it, and it is definitely the sky. We tried looking the last place we left it, and then we looked all around the basement from top to bottom. Yup, we can say with confidence folks, Planet X is hiding somewhere above us.

  • Nounka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I believe there was a mathematical constant to find the space ( km/ lightyaers from the sun ) where a planet should be. Do’nt remember the name tho. Is pluto on the next ‘free space’ ?