this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
334 points (99.1% liked)
xkcd
9974 readers
144 users here now
A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are doing the same thing, judging if a body is a planet by criteria external to the body (it's slanted orbit), and not characteristics of the body itself.
If Earth's orbit was 'weird and slanted', not on the ecliptic, would Earth stop being a planet? No, of course not.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Yes, we would recognise that there is something distinctly different between the Earth and the planets. Being a world is different from being a planet. Otherwise all the moons would be planets. Well, maybe except for the ones that look like potatoes.
Things can get defined separately from themselves. And they can be defined to be several things. I'm a Norwegian and a German because of my parents. If I had different parents my nationality could be defined differently. Doesn't make me less human.
Pluto is still a celestial body, a dwarf planet, a world to explore, a trans-neptunian object, an object in the Kuiper belt, that thing we called planet for a short time. Not being called "planet" doesn't make it any less interesting or special.
~~Removed duplicate comment.~~
Your political nationality doesn't stop classifying you as a human being.
You completely avoided the point I was making, that a body doesn't stop being a planet because it's neighborhood/orbit is crowded.
If the Moon got too close to Earth so that it broke up (Roche limit), so that now Earth has not cleared the space around it, it would stop being a planet for a million years or more until it "cleared out" it's local space/ orbit, based on the rule that disqualifies a Pluto from being a planet.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~