@chara Doesnt Pluto have an atmosphere, couldnt we just arbitarly decide that an atmosphere of x ammount is what makes it a planet or not
Conversation
Notices
-
Laurelai Bailey (laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution.org)'s status on Sunday, 31-Mar-2019 03:38:07 UTC Laurelai Bailey -
Mx. Chara Dreemurr (chara@mastodon.starrevolution.org)'s status on Sunday, 31-Mar-2019 03:41:16 UTC Mx. Chara Dreemurr @Laurelai don't even need to bother with that. it goes around the Sun, and it's round
the whole "dwarf planet" thing was because of some business about "clearing the neighborhood of the orbit" based on whether a planet's big enough to influence other objects near it or not, I dunno, it's always seemed a bit dodgy to me
and it's been pointed out that we can't even apply that criterion to exoplanets, like, planets around other stars, because we can't observe them well enough to know whether they've "cleared their orbits" or not
so I'm honestly in favor of the simplest definition. if it's round and it's orbiting a star, it's a planet. never seen what the big deal was with having lots more planets, like that was too "complicated" or something
Laurelai Bailey repeated this. -
Laurelai Bailey (laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution.org)'s status on Sunday, 31-Mar-2019 03:42:09 UTC Laurelai Bailey @chara LIke i said, everything is made up XD
-
Mx. Chara Dreemurr (chara@mastodon.starrevolution.org)'s status on Sunday, 31-Mar-2019 03:44:18 UTC Mx. Chara Dreemurr @Laurelai it's some weird hangover of when old astronomers who were half mystics thought that the planets fell into, like, a perfect mathematical series or some shit like that. look up "Titius-Bode Law" (wow I actually remembered that). also Kepler had some whizbang perfect geometrical scheme that...sort of didn't work and he was _disappointed_
Laurelai Bailey repeated this. -
Laurelai Bailey (laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution.org)'s status on Sunday, 31-Mar-2019 03:44:57 UTC Laurelai Bailey @chara The universe is as mad as a bucket of coked up ferrets
-