this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
937 points (97.3% liked)
Science Memes
18063 readers
1141 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Ah, yes. "very large", "dwarf everything", and "nearby" are very specific terms...
Yes, that is why I mentioned the IAU's definition was more specific.
Very large? Enough mass to have a round shape.
Dwarf everything nearby? Clear out its orbit by colliding with/capturing/ejecting shit.
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?
It's a fine metaphor but it doesn't work for scientific definitions which are exact. The IAU came up with the rule then had to make an exception to their own brand new rule in order to have Neptune remain a planet but not pluto even though both fail the rule. The exception is real and written down, not assumed.
Yet again another of the IAU rules is the body has to be assume hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round). Mercury is NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium and they knew this. So they just...decided... that Mercury is a planet anyway and does not have to follow that rule.
So two planets don't even follow the rules they made yet were unscientifically decided to be planets. Why? What was the point of it? Certainly wasn't done for any scientific reason.
Ok, so, Pluto is more spherical than Mercury, but the most important criteria is local gravitational dominance.
Which Mercury has, but Pluto does not.
I do not see how this is a difficult concept to grasp.
Yeah, sometimes you can make a hasty definition, and then refine it to a level of consistent clarity, after it is justly critiqued, though that refined definition may be multi tiered and somewhat complex.
Thats... thats how science works, thats like the entire fundamental concept of it, right there, improving the level of detail to which you understand reality, via empiricism, logic, participatory debate.
The primary purpose of the planet defition refinenment is to emphasize the importance of relative local gravitational dominance.
I'm trying to imagine you using this kind of logic with like, biological taxonomy.
There is nothing difficult to grasp. They made rules then decided for no reason to let mercury break the rule. Why? Why not make mercury a dwarf planet instead of allowing it with no rule exception other than...just because.
This is not bioligical... those MUST follow the rules. This was a traditional unscientific list.. Exactly like constellations. Why not start removing stars from constellations because they are too far away? Except a couple of them just because.
This IAU conference vote was not unanimous... it was very contentious and many wanted a more geological and broad definition rather than an earth centered definition that literally ONLY applies to our solar system. "Planets" can only exist around OUR Sun. Think about that.
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
If the definition of a planet is that it has cleared is orbit then how is Neptune a planet? It shares its orbit with the dwarf planet pluto therefore they should both be dwarf planets correct?
You could just look up the actual astronomical or mathematical definitions of a 'cleared orbit' if you wanted to, you know that right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood
Pluto and other plutinos are bodies whose orbits are significantly governed by Neptune.
Go look at all the numerical values provided by various algorithms that measure essentially the extent to which a celestial body is locally gravitationally dominant, the extent to which it has 'cleared its orbit'.
You may notice that everything considered a dwarf planet scores orders of magnitude less, by literally all the metrics, than actual planets.
I understand the exception created for Neptune. But they had to create this exception... for their own brand new rule... in order to classify 8 things. Notice the exception is written very specifically just to keep pluto from "clearing" is orbit.
Another IAU rule is that the body must assume hydrostatic equilibrium(nearly round). Mercury does NOT assume hydrostatic equilibrium. They knew this.
Guess what? They just...decided...Mercury doesn't have to follow that rule.
It was all done very unscientifically.
Edit: I want to add that now there are only 8 planets...in the universe. There are no other planets because the definition includes that they must "orbit the Sun". Not a star but very specifically the Sun. All this with exceptions for just 8 objects? I'm telling you it was a power trip thing more than a scientific endeavor.
There are tons of other Kuiper Belt objects in Pluto's orbit. This wasn't an exception written to spite Pluto. If you can attribute any malice to the definition, it comes from not wanting to include Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Quorua, and 200+ other Kuiper Belt objects as planets. Pluto was just caught in the crossfire because it fits with the other Kuiper Belt objects because it is one.
This is a level of knitpicking that is completely childish. Grow up.
Can you explains the knitpicking? They specifically decided that only objects orbiting our star can be Planets. It wasn't an oversight but intentional. How can that be explained? Why do that?
Also, how can mercury be explained? It clearly violated one of the 3 rules with no given exception other than they just decided it can be a planet. Why?
25% of the 8 objects they wrote rules for needed an exception to make the cut. That doesn't seem odd?
Because we're not going to be visiting any exoplanets anytime soon, so it's not like we can actually check how much they've cleared their orbits.
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.
Well of course that was the exception they had to come up with for their contrived rule. The exception is: "whatever it takes to make pluto not a planet". Since the vote was agenda fueled and not a scientific discussion.
Once something new is discovered and breaks the rules they will have to modify the contrived rule to keep pluto not a planet.
Hold on. What agenda wants Pluto to not be a planet?
Someone printed out a buncha shirts with only 8 solar orbits in the system. Obviously easier to lobby Pluto off the team than to reprint the shirts.
Tbf, if you were going to keep Pluto in the definition you'd have to include 200+ other orbits
What is going to be funny is if/when they discover planet 9, and all the apparent Pluto superfans just utterly lose their shit when they attempt to comprehend that there can be another actual planet, and no, pluto still doesn't count.
And they would have gotten away with it, if not for that one guy arguing about it on Lemmy in 2026.
"Something something something jews"
And what agenda is that? To mine the planet in secret so not to upset the environmentalists?
Yes, that's how science goes. Simple explanations and definitions often fall apart upon further discovery and require caveats that sometimes even reinforce the intention.
I agree except in this instance the goal was to keep Earth's classification important. No other scientific objective. Just seemed very geocentric to me.