/sci/ - Science & Math

77.7

>>11020777
If you want to dismiss 'arbitrary' planet rules you could call all the asteroids in the 2 belts planets and we'd have a fuck ton.

>>11020793

The further you get from the Sun, the more mass you need to clear your orbit. If Earth was a 100 times its current distance from the Sun, it wouldn't have cleared its orbit and it wouldn't be considered a planet by that rule.

>>11020800
Because it wouldn't be a planet, it would be an asteroid.

It can be a planet if it wants to.

The definition of planet IS arbitrary. That's like asking how many colors are there.

>>11020959
you can literally tell how many colors are there in that picture

>>11020777
If we assume that planets are merely natural objects orbiting the sun that have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, we’ve got maybe hundreds

>>11020971
Cyan is just blue to me.

>>11020777
I don’t get why people are upset about Pluto not being called a planet. It’s a dwarf planet, “planet” is in the fucking name.

>>11020971

>>11020985
>tfw this was probably an interesting and unique reaction image but some newfag autist had to make an epic redditfrog edit to “fit in”

>>11020983
Why even call it a dwarf planet and not just “planet”?

>>11020983

Because the convention that it was a planet was in place for about 80 years beforehand. People don't like change, especially when it seems to come from without (an international scientific community) imposing standards which minimize the achivement of their own country (Pluto was discovered by an American).

The "lol nope" announcement is also counter-intuitive in the following sense: most people are familiar with the notion of adding planets, via discovery. A process which has several precedents. Subtracting planets-by-definition on the other hand is not only unprecedented until the Pluto situation, but it also /feels/ like a philosophical/legal trick, an underhanded subterfuge-regardless of the scientific legitimacy of the definition which excludes Pluto.

>>11020800
So?

>>11021012
Because it was decided there should be a distinction.
>>11021017
So basically people are butthurt because they don’t like change? Got it.

>>11020971
>orange isn't a colour but teal is

>>11021024

If we were to discover a planet as big or bigger than Earth beyond Neptune, it wouldn't be considered a planet because it wouldn't be massive enough to clear its orbit of debris.

>>11021024

If we were to call an Earth-sized object beyond Neptune, would you be happy by calling it "Dwarf Planet"?

>>11021030
Again, so?
>>11021034
That would be the definition, so I would call it that. I'm not overly emotionally invested in sticking labels to things, and neither should you be. What a stupid thing to fret about.

>>11021026
>Because it was decided there should be a distinction

Why? Such a change is arbitrary, baseless, and does not increase our knowledge or understanding of reality. It’s retarded and unscientific.

>>11021056

It's a definition that it is scientifically useless. Better just dropping the term "planet" altogether.

>>11021034
Sounds like some yahoos screwed up the definition of planet.
>>11021012
Yeah, language is a democracy, "unironically."
>>11020983
So was husband and wife.

I think Pluto could've been grandfathered in under the new rules. Some poor sap found that fucker In the 1930s. Probably a bunch of 95 year olds out there who were really excited about it and a bunch of numb nuts take it away. I don't appreciate that we shit on our past through revision and nitpicking and call that science. Fuck spelling and American spelling reform while I'm at it. Fuck BCE and CE too.

>>11020777

The definition of a planet is an object orbiting the Sun. By that definition object orbiting other stars can't be planets (they are exoplanets).

>>11021316
>The definition of a planet is an object orbiting the Sun
That would mean the sun has an uncountably huge number of planets. It would include comets, asteroids, even satellites if we got to it. A useless definition.

>>11021066
Why is it scientifically useless?

It's 1851 all over again. Back then we had 23 "planets" (including Ceres). Then they defined the new classification of asteroids.

>>11021028
Adding orange makes the model asymmetric and wrong.
>>11020981
Cyan is lies perfectly between 255 Blue and 255 Green. If cyan is blue, then yellow is green, and magenta is red. Clearly they aren’t.

Primaries:
Red
Yellow
Green
Cyan
Blue
Magenta

Secondary:
Orange
Chartreuse
Malachite
Azure
Purple
Cerise

>>11022287
You sound like a fag and your shit's all retarded

>>11022287
> he limits himself to 3 times 8 bit RGB
So brown is not a colour? What colour does your shit have? Red? Magenta? Yellow?

>>11022294
Do you have autism? I never said those didin’t exist. Brown is literally just a dark orange. I only pointed out the most ”unique” colors.

>>11022313
You're presenting one way out of several to define a colour circle with main and secondary colours. The one used in your computer monitor. Yet you don't see how arbitrary that is.

>>11022317
The RYB color model is literally wrong though. Nothing scientific uses it, and it doesn’t fit with what we see in reality. The CMY model replaces it perfectly and actually conforms to reality.

the term planet is in itself arbitrary, like any other terms. so a rule like "must have cleared its orbit of debris" or a size/mass requirement are necessary to define and thus be able count them
what the fuck is even going on in this thread

>>11022419
lol red/yellow/blue is not wrong you dipshit, especially in theoretical terms, it's just not good for real world applications because colors get darker and darker as you mix them so you want to start with the lightest possible base colors, ie CMY

>>11022419
Imagine being this narrow minded. Are you the guy who's butthurt that Pluto isn't a planet?

Exactly 7:
Sun
Moon
Mercury
Venus
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn

>>11022432
Why would I? Pluto is by definition a dwarf planet.

>>11022469
Because you—and I'm being completely serious—sound like a retard. Not someone you want to insult via the internet, you sound like someone with the wrong number of chromosomes or someone who didn't get enough oxygen during birth.

>>11022429
In practice it is ”wrong” because it’s inefficient and shouldn’t be used. Inefficient models shouldn’t be taught, especially when it doesn’t match how we see the world. According to RYB, Green and Red are opposites. However when they are mixed (in pigment) they produce a brownish color, which itself is a dark orange-yellow. This matches with light, as in light Green and Red appear ”Yellow” to our eyes. Cyan is the real opposite to Red, which when mixed produce white. Plus, when you stare at red or cyan and look away, it will appear as it’s opposite due to the cones being ”overstimulated”. RYB also claims that mixing yellow and blue create green, which they dont. Mixing a ”perfect” blue and a ”pefect” yellow would create white or grey, as they’re opposites. In reality you mix cyan and yellow to get green. The reason people think mixing yellow and blue makes green is because they’re not actually using ”blue” but rather some form of azure, which is a mix of blue and cyan.

If RYB states that the primaries are RYB, and it’s opposites are GPO (Green, Purple, Orange), then it is objectively ”wrong”.

CMY is objectively ”correct” because it tells us that the primaries are CMY and that it’s opposites are RGB, which does actually match how we percieve the world. If RYB was ”right” then printers would be using it.
>>11022476
I’m retarded because I challenge a system from the 1600s built by myths?

>>11022558
>I’m retarded because I challenge a system from the 1600s built by myths?
No because you react so violently to such a trivial topic. Exempli gratia your long post just now

>>11022583
It is a fundamental descriptor of what we see, and a fundamental guide to all visual design. How is it trivial?

>>11020777
Lots of arguing in this thread. Can we just appreciate our minor planets out there in the dark? The last time Sedna visited in 9400 BC it would’ve looked down and seen no light, nothing

>>11022617
This, the minor / dwarf planets are important too.
Quaoar, Orcus, Salacia, Eris, Pluto, Makemake, Haumea, Ceres, Sedna and all the others.
And their moons Vanith, Actaea, Dysnomia, Charon, Namaka, Hi'iaka and all the others.

>the IAU decided to rename all trans-Neptunian dwarf planets as plutoids.

Who made these guys boss?

Ceres is a planet

>>11021124
>However, there is a rule stating that all objects orbiting outside Neptune’s orbit have to be named after a creation of mythology.

Sticking with some traditions. It would be nice to call "planet nine" "planet X" as the schizos named it long ago, or nabiru.

>>11022287
>Cyan is lies perfectly between 255 Blue and 255 Green.

Doesn’t matter at all, since color is qualia and not some shit on a chart.

> If cyan is blue, then yellow is green, and magenta is red.

Nope. There is no requirement whatsoever for consistency.

>>11022676
IAU is retarded and their shitty rules are completely ignored for extrasolar objects. They should all be shot

>>11022467
>sun
>planet

>>11022717
>Sun
>Orbits the barycenter of the solar system
(Literally nothing orbits the sun, and the Moon doesn’t orbit Earth either. The barycenter is just inside of the larger body in either case. Jupiter’s barycenter with the Sun is OUTSIDE of the sun, meaning under the IAU definition, Jupiter is NOT a planet. Another reason the IAU is retarded and should be beaten to death.)
>Has attained hydrostatic equilibrium
>Has cleared its orbit

Under this definition, the Sun must be a planet. QED

>>11022717
those are the 7 original "planets" as described by the greeks/romans

>>11020971
Here;s what I see though. Un-circled areas are too vague for me to call.

>>11020971
But anon, this is what I see.
Anything not circled was too hard for me to distinguish.

>posting anything besides this

>>11020971
based

>>11022783
Based ancients.

>>11020777
a whole fucking lot

i cringe whenever people pick sides on whether pluto is a planet or not like it is the trump vs hillary election

>>11020777
>"must have cleared its orbit of debris"
Anon I...
http://stuffin.space/

That's a rule? Isn't Saturn covered in orbiting debris technically in it's orbit?

>>11022703
>post-truth

>>11022842
Literally meaningless in design and in describing how we percieve reality

"A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals."

>>11023868
Qualia is as close to truth as we’re getting

>>11020971
>orange is red
>hot pink is violet/purple
Brain damage

>>11020992
That feeling when you could have typed all of that normally but you were so much of a faggot that you had to misuse the quote function to try to fit in with all of the other faggots here.

About the same quantity as the amount of letters that there are in the word "assburger"

What are Rouge planets?