you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Then YOU come up with a definition of a planet that manages to include Pluto while simultaneously excluding Ceres, Charon, Eris, Cedna, Makemake, and 200+ other objects in the solar system large enough to be spherical, some of which are larger than Pluto

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago

    The definition of planet should be what it is, a traditional unscientific category based on history... like constellations. Calling Mercury a planet and Jupiter a planet as though they are similar in almost any way is silly scientifically.

    Perhaps leave the traditional planets category alone and create new categories that could pertain to all systems not just ours. Maybe something like terrestrial planets, gas planets, dwarf planets... etc. Categories that won't have to change any time a new discovery is made.

  • source
  • parent