Planet Definitions

Am I missing something, or are the images for "Traditionalist" and "Modern" swapped?
- Did they fix it? I currently see Pluto highlighted in Traditionalist and not in Modern.
  
  I believe in the freedom of information, and to that end, enjoy this rare XKCD misprint
  
  Yup, they did. Cool.
- I think you’re right.
  
  No the comic is correct. Pluto is not considered a planet anymore.

All those who wander are planets.

only pluto is a planet, I am spiteful

Love it, especially the alt text.

It's only a planet if we could walk on it. What would the name for that one be?
- Pedestrian

I cannot respect people who call Pluto a planet on internet forums whenever this topic comes up. Not because I agree with NASA, think their definition is perfect, or think those people just cling to nostalgia and hate change, no.
I cannot respect them because Pluto does not care and trying to white knight perceived attacks against it will not impress it, those people are just being pathetic.
- You are wrong. Pluto is hot shit and knows it.
  
  Pluto won't fuck you bro.
  
  Wrong. Pluto is actually one of the coldest bodies in the solar system at an average of -232c
- It's not white knighting a planet. I'm literally from where it was discovered. I went on field trips to Lowell Observatory as a kid. Fuck all y'all who won't accept my planet.
  All dwarf planets are planets. Don't discriminate.

That's messed up.

Since categorizing something as a planet means nothing then traditionalist is the only way to go. If Mercury is in the same category as Jupiter and a sudden orbit change can mean a thing might no longer be called a planet then there is no scientific value in calling things planets. They are just traditional names given to fairly random objects like constellations.
- So, expansive then.
- I would personally categorize everything with a high enough gravity as a planet, i.e. everything that can hold an atmosphere or sth.

I’m partial to the simplistic view: big enough to be round, not big enough to fuse hydrogen
- Since people have fused hydrogen on earth, I choose to believe it's not a real planet
- Technically tiny amounts of Hydrogen fusion will happen in the gas giants.
  
  I’m sure there’s a sensible line to be drawn somewhere

I'm partial to Tom Cardy's view: Pluto isn't a planet, but that doesn't matter because it's still hot shit.

Empiricist is a very solid take tbf
- Simplistic was basically the original proposal for a planet before it was highjacked on the last day of the convention by a bunch of scientists with an axe to grind.

Who put all this color in my XKCD?

I'm a Universalist. It is all the same thing at different phases of matter at various temperatures and pressures combined with the gravity to hold onto various materials. Keep stacking Earths over and over and you will eventually get a gas giant then a star then a black hole.
What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria. If a gravitationally bound world is acted upon in a way that shifts its orbit, the object cannot be redefined. This is a definition of a state, not an object. Planet, as defined by the IAU is not a noun. Such is what I expect when a highschool teacher wrote a definition instead of actual planetary scientists. I suppose such draconian nonsense was intended to show the backwardness and medieval state of the science of astronomy.
- You can hide behind fancy words but clearly this is just being simplistic
  
  noun ?
- What I will never support is the stupidity of defining any object by external criteria.
  https://lemmy.world/comment/15686674.
  https://lemmy.world/comment/15687018
  
  No valid arguments there either. Your car does not become a bicycle because it is in the bike lane. No object is ever defined by external factors. Only states can be defined by external factors. This is fundamental elementary language 101. The definition of an object is not related to a definition of state. There is absolutely no excuse for this blunder. Any obfuscation is nonsense. The conceptual foundation is fundamentally flawed.
  There were no planetary scientists consulted whatsoever in this definition. There is no scientific basis. The paper in question is coauthored and the idea of a Highschool teacher in Temecula California. It has no grounding as a scientific concept. It is draconian in logic and completely baseless in science. It is reflective of dogma in the scientific community when it is defended.

They forgot about bofa . They are the only planets

What is "surface"?
Also, what is "landed"? And why is Jupiter out? (Edit: Or the Sun, for that matter.)
- What planet has Jupiter landed on?
- What is "surface"?
  In this context, I believe this is limiting to planets whose water is not deep inside the planet's crust somewhere, but exposed to its atmosphere.
  
  Ok, but the gas giants should have that. We just can't see them.
  Unless you want pure water. But then, how pure?

I've been in the Expansive camp for a while.

...the highlighted bodies under Lunar are wrong. Charon isn't a moon it's a dwarf planet in its own right. The barycenter of it's orbit isn't inside Pluto. Pluto and Charon are binary dwarf planets not a planet moon pair.