Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Oh the moon certainly influences our orbit, that's how we get the second tide of the day, just not as much as Charon
And Venus and Mars both have measurable effects on our orbit, just again not to the degree of Pluto.
See this is what pisses me right the fuck off, arrogant people spewing words they don't understand.
OK, my bad. I should have used "to a vastly different degree".
Sorry for being an arrogant mouth-spouter.
You can't help it, hardly anyone including science educators ever really look deep into things.
I will give you this: What the meaning of 'planet' has been has changed over time and shrank and grown until in our modern understanding of astronomy it is hard to rectify our image of the solar system. We used to think our local space was empty except for a handful of traveling lights that moved against the relatively still galactic background and we gave spiritual and mythical importance to those lights because we thought such objects uncommon.
But the truth of it is there's quite a lot of objects that qualify for the original definition of 'planet', as in literally every astronomical body out to the heliopause which includes an obscene amount of mass from the Oort cloud. And even I will consider that ridiculous and worthy of revision.
For the longest time it was just the easiest to see objects, then Lowell predicted the existence of Pluto it made the discovery unusual as it wasn't from direct observation, and personally I think this is the root of astronomers' reason to exclude it. In their minds there is a primacy assigned to the bodies discovered with the naked eye and primitive telescopes as they represent some symbol of the true nature and majesty of the human effort to understand the heavens, and not because excluding Pluto in any way benefits the classification system.
I get that, but it is not a valid reason to downgrade a disproportionately favorite planet for many people. The added requirement is meaningless as it can very well apply to Earth, downgrading our status as well, but of course everyone just makes a silly face and handwaves despite being reminded twice a year in spectacular fashion that Earth has yet to clear its orbital path.