I rarely trust top results from google, since I’m uncertain if I somehow missed the tiny gray text saying that it’s an add.

Sure, people have taken the matter way too personal. That’s mostly people who have a nostalgic relationship to their childhood classes about “the 9 planets”.

As I’ve read, they made the definition in the particular way to remove gray areas of inaccurate meassurements. A celestial body shouldn’t be wrongly classified due to being a few kilometres larger than some limit, then be reclassified later due to better meassurements. Planets need to be somewhat spherical, orbit a star and clear their orbit from significant debris. They made a great system which doesn’t leave big gray areas. A planet is defined in a well thought out way by people way smarter than me.

And then they go and call the non-planets “dwarf planets”.

The “big” deal is that a ton of celestial bodies of comparable size to pluto would have to be considered either as planets or as general debris. Finding a clear definition which would include pluto as a planet and not include other stuff would be very impractical and possibly nearly impossible.

But the biggest fuck up was to name a non-planet a “dwarf planet”.

Hence how the artist was able to choose that the time machine in this context rewinds time while conserving the universal position(?)… Relative to the center of the universe(??)… assuming eucledian space(???)