Since categorizing something as a planet means nothing then traditionalist is the only way to go. If Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter and a sudden orbit change can mean a thing might no longer be called a planet then there is no scientific value in calling things planets. They are just traditional names given to fairly random objects like constellations.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
366 points (98.9% liked)
Comic Strips
15184 readers
1427 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would personally categorize everything with a high enough gravity as a planet, i.e. everything that can hold an atmosphere or sth.
So, expansive then.
Am I missing something, or are the images for "Traditionalist" and "Modern" swapped?
Did they fix it? I currently see Pluto highlighted in Traditionalist and not in Modern.
I believe in the freedom of information, and to that end, enjoy this rare XKCD misprint
Yup, they did. Cool.
I think you’re right.
No the comic is correct. Pluto is not considered a planet anymore.
Pluto is highlighted on Modern and is not highlighted on Traditionalist.
Ah i see. Thank you. I had to zoom in to see that.
All those who wander are planets.
They forgot about bofa . They are the only planets
only pluto is a planet, I am spiteful
Love it, especially the alt text.
I cannot respect people who call Pluto a planet on internet forums whenever this topic comes up. Not because I agree with NASA, think their definition is perfect, or think those people just cling to nostalgia and hate change, no.
I cannot respect them because Pluto does not care and trying to white knight perceived attacks against it will not impress it, those people are just being pathetic.
You are wrong. Pluto is hot shit and knows it.
Pluto won't fuck you bro.
Since they are both dogs, even though Goofy is anthropomorphic, Pluto and Goofy could technically procreate.
Do with this knowledge as you seem fit...
While I'm jaded and cynical enough to not be moved by anything anymore and I have already heard that information, I'm somehow still disgusted that you invoked rule 34 here of all places.
I aim to please o7
Wrong. Pluto is actually one of the coldest bodies in the solar system at an average of -232c
It's not white knighting a planet. I'm literally from where it was discovered. I went on field trips to Lowell Observatory as a kid. Fuck all y'all who won't accept my planet.
All dwarf planets are planets. Don't discriminate.
It's only a planet if we could walk on it. What would the name for that one be?
Pedestrian
That's messed up.
I’m partial to the simplistic view: big enough to be round, not big enough to fuse hydrogen
Technically tiny amounts of Hydrogen fusion will happen in the gas giants.
I’m sure there’s a sensible line to be drawn somewhere
Since people have fused hydrogen on earth, I choose to believe it's not a real planet
Who put all this color in my XKCD?
Empiricist is a very solid take tbf
Simplistic was basically the original proposal for a planet before it was highjacked on the last day of the convention by a bunch of scientists with an axe to grind.
...the highlighted bodies under Lunar are wrong. Charon isn't a moon it's a dwarf planet in its own right. The barycenter of it's orbit isn't inside Pluto. Pluto and Charon are binary dwarf planets not a planet moon pair.
I'm partial to Tom Cardy's view: Pluto isn't a planet, but that doesn't matter because it's still hot shit.
I'm a Universalist. It is all the same thing at different phases of matter at various temperatures and pressures combined with the gravity to hold onto various materials. Keep stacking Earths over and over and you will eventually get a gas giant then a star then a black hole.
What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria. If a gravitationally bound world is acted upon in a way that shifts its orbit, the object cannot be redefined. This is a definition of a state, not an object. Planet, as defined by the IAU is not a noun. Such is what I expect when a highschool teacher wrote a definition instead of actual planetary scientists. I suppose such draconian nonsense was intended to show the backwardness and medieval state of the science of astronomy.
You can hide behind fancy words but clearly this is just being simplistic
noun ?
I’m sorry if you didn’t get my lame joke over the fact that the universalist and simplistic definitions of planets give the same result in the comic
Sorry I missed it. This issue is a pet peeve. We're in the golden age of discovery of new worlds and true extent of the Sol system, but are totally neglecting the significance of this one time in history.
What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria.
No valid arguments there either. Your car does not become a bicycle because it is in the bike lane. No object is ever defined by external factors. Only states can be defined by external factors. This is fundamental elementary language 101. The definition of an object is not related to a definition of state. There is absolutely no excuse for this blunder. Any obfuscation is nonsense. The conceptual foundation is fundamentally flawed.
There were no planetary scientists consulted whatsoever in this definition. There is no scientific basis. The paper in question is coauthored and the idea of a Highschool teacher in Temecula California. It has no grounding as a scientific concept. It is draconian in logic and completely baseless in science. It is reflective of dogma in the scientific community when it is defended.
No valid arguments there either.
Just to be clear, I agree with you, and those links are me doing so. Don't quote have the hang of cross posting here on Lemmy.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
I've been in the Expansive camp for a while.
What is "surface"?
Also, what is "landed"? And why is Jupiter out? (Edit: Or the Sun, for that matter.)
What planet has Jupiter landed on?
What is "surface"?
In this context, I believe this is limiting to planets whose water is not deep inside the planet's crust somewhere, but exposed to its atmosphere.
Ok, but the gas giants should have that. We just can't see them.
Unless you want pure water. But then, how pure?