The intent was to come up with a scientifically useful definition, but it was semi-political to the extent that the IAU board just threw up its hands and slapped together an awkward compromise definition when no clear consensus emerged.
how about Endor?![]()
I keep wondering... if there's an ice planet named Hoth, is there a jungle or desert world called Coldh?
With two moons: Cogh and SnizzI keep wondering... if there's an ice planet named Hoth, is there a jungle or desert world called Coldh?
I keep wondering... if there's an ice planet named Hoth, is there a jungle or desert world called Coldh?
Yeah, that would be political, too. As I said, the scientific thing to do is to create a useful definition and then categorize things without prejudice. Would biologists redefine mammal because we have too many mammals? Would botanists redefine flowering plants because we have too many flowers? Would mathematicians redefine prime numbers because they're getting too big? Definitions are good-- silly definitions are bad. If the purpose of the definition was to "keep the number small," then it's not science.It was made to keep the number small, but it was still a scientific decision because classifying things with definitions is the scientific thing to do. The political thing would be to call Pluto a planet and Eris a Dwarf Planet because people are used to Pluto as a planet.
Yep, knew exactly what the video was before I even clicked on it!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.