Yet Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter…as though they are similar in any way. “Planet” is one of the few times science has decided to change something for the sole purpose of keeping the Earth important in its classification. I suppose we could not have 15 or 20 or 40 planets because that would be confusing…yet we have almost 1000 moons. It is ONLY because it is the Earth’s classification…no other reason. It doesn’t make anything easier or less confusing.
They could have easily made mercury, pluto, and a dozen others dwarf planets, Venus Earth and Mars terrestrial planets and the others gas planets… but that would demote Earth.
Weird left over geocentrism remaining in science like it’s the 1300s.
Er… Are you saying that scientists won’t classify Earth as a Terrestrial Planet? Because they do.. The next 4 are Jovian Planets, while others including Asteroids are called Minor Planets.
I don’t see how it would be a demotion. Pluto is a planet, but not one of the terrestrial or Jovian Planets, but instead a minor planet, a dwarf planet. The people who insist on the 9 or 8 planets is less scientists and more about what we teach as the main planets in the solar system to like kids and such.
I’m a bit confused on your idea of scientists. They love being more specific about definitions, as do many other technical fields. Ask medicals scientists about Cancer or heart disease and they’ll explain they’re very broad terms that have many subcategories and differences, which is why there isn’t 1 easy cure. Similarly, “the common cold” is just a description of symptoms carried out by a number of different viruses from different families that our bodies just tend to react to in the same way, which is why a cure for the common cold is a ridiculous thing to hope for.
These definitions aren’t usually for scientists, but instead generalizations the public settle on because remembering everything would be too much for people who aren’t interested or involved.
I understand and completely agree wiyh your point except there are no sub categories of planets. This move was specially made (by a super minority of voters at a last minute end of the conference vote) to keep Earth’s classification as a planet more important. First of all, and frankly insane, Pluto is not under the classifocation of a planet. It is a dwarf planet that, contrary to logic, is NOT a sub category of a planet. If you look at the Euler diagram on the wiki page for dwarf planets you can see they specifically made sure planets were a stand alone category. Sub categories like you mentioned make perfect sense but would slightly diminish Earth’s “special” classification.
I would love for all of the bodies to be under a large hierarchical classification as you suggested but oddly they are not. It’s disjointed and I think done in a way specifically to spite others in a bit of a power fit.
Ahh, more a complaint about the International Astronomical Union (IAU), not science in general. No objections to that complaint. Your comment just kinda read as if it were all science and/or astrophysicists.
Yet Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter…as though they are similar in any way. “Planet” is one of the few times science has decided to change something for the sole purpose of keeping the Earth important in its classification. I suppose we could not have 15 or 20 or 40 planets because that would be confusing…yet we have almost 1000 moons. It is ONLY because it is the Earth’s classification…no other reason. It doesn’t make anything easier or less confusing.
They could have easily made mercury, pluto, and a dozen others dwarf planets, Venus Earth and Mars terrestrial planets and the others gas planets… but that would demote Earth.
Weird left over geocentrism remaining in science like it’s the 1300s.
Er… Are you saying that scientists won’t classify Earth as a Terrestrial Planet? Because they do.. The next 4 are Jovian Planets, while others including Asteroids are called Minor Planets.
If you check the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet you’ll notice some scientists consider Earth’s Moon, plus Io and Europa terrestrial planets as well.
I don’t see how it would be a demotion. Pluto is a planet, but not one of the terrestrial or Jovian Planets, but instead a minor planet, a dwarf planet. The people who insist on the 9 or 8 planets is less scientists and more about what we teach as the main planets in the solar system to like kids and such.
I’m a bit confused on your idea of scientists. They love being more specific about definitions, as do many other technical fields. Ask medicals scientists about Cancer or heart disease and they’ll explain they’re very broad terms that have many subcategories and differences, which is why there isn’t 1 easy cure. Similarly, “the common cold” is just a description of symptoms carried out by a number of different viruses from different families that our bodies just tend to react to in the same way, which is why a cure for the common cold is a ridiculous thing to hope for.
These definitions aren’t usually for scientists, but instead generalizations the public settle on because remembering everything would be too much for people who aren’t interested or involved.
I understand and completely agree wiyh your point except there are no sub categories of planets. This move was specially made (by a super minority of voters at a last minute end of the conference vote) to keep Earth’s classification as a planet more important. First of all, and frankly insane, Pluto is not under the classifocation of a planet. It is a dwarf planet that, contrary to logic, is NOT a sub category of a planet. If you look at the Euler diagram on the wiki page for dwarf planets you can see they specifically made sure planets were a stand alone category. Sub categories like you mentioned make perfect sense but would slightly diminish Earth’s “special” classification.
I would love for all of the bodies to be under a large hierarchical classification as you suggested but oddly they are not. It’s disjointed and I think done in a way specifically to spite others in a bit of a power fit.
Ahh, more a complaint about the International Astronomical Union (IAU), not science in general. No objections to that complaint. Your comment just kinda read as if it were all science and/or astrophysicists.