▲ 184 ▼ New dwarf planet spotted at the edge of the solar system (www.newscientist.com) submitted 1 year ago by neme@lemm.ee to c/astronomy@mander.xyz 33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 10 points 1 year ago (3 children) Dwarf or not, Pluto is STILL a planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 24 points 1 year ago (2 children) It's not, actually. "Planet" and "Dwarf planet" are disjoint sets, according to the IAU. Is a sea lion still a lion? Same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Well, screw the IAU. What the hell does "clearing your neighborhood" even mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 1 year ago This article goes into great detail about the various methods that one can use to measure or calculate the orbit-clearing capability of an orbiting body. It turns out that for all of these different methods, you will find an extremely clear bimodal distribution that groups the 8 planets together as being highly capable of clearing their orbits whereas everything else falls into a statistically distinct non-clearing group. This is because there's sound dynamic reasons for why objects would fall into one group or the other with nothing lasting long in the "grey area" between them. Once an object becomes significantly better than its orbital neighbors at clearing the neighborhood it snowballs due to the feedback loop of scattering or absorbing its neighbors into itself. That makes this a good criterion for classification. As the old saying goes, "cleave nature at the joints." permalink fedilink source parent [–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago There are so many nasty potential jokes I decided not to get involved. Fuck it I ain’t touching that with a 30-foot pole. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 1 year ago it means that either pluto isn't a planet, or basically the entire fucking asteroid belt it's part of is all planets permalink fedilink source parent [–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago Jerry? permalink fedilink source parent [–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Previous comment of mine seems relevant… permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 24 points 1 year ago (2 children) It's not, actually. "Planet" and "Dwarf planet" are disjoint sets, according to the IAU. Is a sea lion still a lion? Same thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Well, screw the IAU. What the hell does "clearing your neighborhood" even mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 1 year ago This article goes into great detail about the various methods that one can use to measure or calculate the orbit-clearing capability of an orbiting body. It turns out that for all of these different methods, you will find an extremely clear bimodal distribution that groups the 8 planets together as being highly capable of clearing their orbits whereas everything else falls into a statistically distinct non-clearing group. This is because there's sound dynamic reasons for why objects would fall into one group or the other with nothing lasting long in the "grey area" between them. Once an object becomes significantly better than its orbital neighbors at clearing the neighborhood it snowballs due to the feedback loop of scattering or absorbing its neighbors into itself. That makes this a good criterion for classification. As the old saying goes, "cleave nature at the joints." permalink fedilink source parent [–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago There are so many nasty potential jokes I decided not to get involved. Fuck it I ain’t touching that with a 30-foot pole. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 1 year ago it means that either pluto isn't a planet, or basically the entire fucking asteroid belt it's part of is all planets permalink fedilink source parent
[+] LanguageIsCool@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Well, screw the IAU. What the hell does "clearing your neighborhood" even mean? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 1 year ago This article goes into great detail about the various methods that one can use to measure or calculate the orbit-clearing capability of an orbiting body. It turns out that for all of these different methods, you will find an extremely clear bimodal distribution that groups the 8 planets together as being highly capable of clearing their orbits whereas everything else falls into a statistically distinct non-clearing group. This is because there's sound dynamic reasons for why objects would fall into one group or the other with nothing lasting long in the "grey area" between them. Once an object becomes significantly better than its orbital neighbors at clearing the neighborhood it snowballs due to the feedback loop of scattering or absorbing its neighbors into itself. That makes this a good criterion for classification. As the old saying goes, "cleave nature at the joints." permalink fedilink source parent [–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago There are so many nasty potential jokes I decided not to get involved. Fuck it I ain’t touching that with a 30-foot pole. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 1 year ago it means that either pluto isn't a planet, or basically the entire fucking asteroid belt it's part of is all planets permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 1 year ago This article goes into great detail about the various methods that one can use to measure or calculate the orbit-clearing capability of an orbiting body. It turns out that for all of these different methods, you will find an extremely clear bimodal distribution that groups the 8 planets together as being highly capable of clearing their orbits whereas everything else falls into a statistically distinct non-clearing group. This is because there's sound dynamic reasons for why objects would fall into one group or the other with nothing lasting long in the "grey area" between them. Once an object becomes significantly better than its orbital neighbors at clearing the neighborhood it snowballs due to the feedback loop of scattering or absorbing its neighbors into itself. That makes this a good criterion for classification. As the old saying goes, "cleave nature at the joints." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago There are so many nasty potential jokes I decided not to get involved. Fuck it I ain’t touching that with a 30-foot pole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 1 year ago it means that either pluto isn't a planet, or basically the entire fucking asteroid belt it's part of is all planets permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Previous comment of mine seems relevant… permalink fedilink source parent