While we can disagree on the latter portion, the first sentence is simply fact. The IAU does not provide any guidelines based on quantifiable data for this requirement.
Then we’d have several hundred to a few thousand planets and need a new term for the larger celestial objects anyway. Seems silly. Planet is already arbitrary.
The “cleared its orbit” requirement is too arbitrary and non-scientific. We should’ve gone the other direction and classified more objects as planets.
Feels like we can agree to disagree on that one but I hope we can all agree that Neil deGrasse Tyson is fucking annoying.
While we can disagree on the latter portion, the first sentence is simply fact. The IAU does not provide any guidelines based on quantifiable data for this requirement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood
I like him.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
well yeah it’s quite readily admitted to be non-scientific, scientists generally just use “celestial object” afaik.
Then we’d have several hundred to a few thousand planets and need a new term for the larger celestial objects anyway. Seems silly. Planet is already arbitrary.
Unironically this