Talk:3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-18T21:29:56Z

172.70.42.168: Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Condescending view

The one currently posted has Pluto highlighted in the second box and not highlighted in the first box. Too hard to tell if it's trolling or a genuine mistake. :-D

:Apparently a mistake since it's fixed now. [[User:HughNo|HughNo]] ([[User talk:HughNo|talk]]) 19:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And the first one also has a moon hilighted instead I think?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.5|162.158.126.5]] 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Was about to write the same. The coloring in the first two lines arund Pluto seem wrong (or mistankingly switched). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.246|172.71.222.246]] 16:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This, this is the hill I will die on. I was radicalised by this paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 Moons Are Planets: "Scientific Usefulness Versus Cultural Teleology in the Taxonomy of Planetary Science"]
In short; planets are what planetary scientists study. Round things with the *good stuff*: atmospheres, oceans, volcanoes (of lava or water ice) (see diagram page 53).
Pluto, Titan, Ceres, Io and Europa are all in the sweet spot where you're not so small you're just a lump of rocks who happen to be stuck together into a lump, and not so large you're just a mostly undifferentiated mass of fusing hydrogen/helium plasma.
And it's consistent with our pre-20th Century understanding of what a planet is, whereas the IAU definition is trying to preserve 19th Century astrology. An amazing read and a strong recommend for anyone who cares about this subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.138|172.69.79.138]] 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Ooh, thank you! That was fascinating and I'm head-canonizing that definition now. –[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 23:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this sort of count as pi-related for pi day? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 17:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:he doesn't do themed comics anymore 😔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:: Sure he does. [[2962]] and [[2969]] weren't too long ago. Seems like it, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.222|172.71.182.222]] 03:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't understand either the "he doesn't do themes" bit, or the full nature of the reply, frankly. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.122|172.68.205.122]] 22:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I was somewhat disappointed to get to the end of the table without seeing either an astrology or Sailor Moon joke. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that Uranus is marked under "Empiricist" because of the "Randall has seen Uranus" joke? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.178|172.70.42.178]] 18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The "{{w|Classical planet|Classical Planets}}" should be 7, including the Sun and the Moon.
:The average distance of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth must be slightly farther away than the orbit of the Sun around the Earth, since the Moon lags behind the Sun a little more each day, but the orbits must cross or we would never have a solar eclipse :P [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Regolithic one depend on the exact definitions of "dirt", "ice", and "covered"? It seems that an argument could be made that the giant planets also count there but have a much thicker atmosphere on the outside, and disqualifying because of the atmosphere could exclude others like Earth depending on the exact threshold used. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Has Randall not seen the sun before?
:I'm impressed that he has seen Uranus (unless that actually is a joke), especially if he saw it unaided (apparently it actually can be barely seen with the naked eye if the conditions are incredibly good). [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Could the sun be classified as a "world"? --[[User:MothWaves|MothWaves]] ([[User talk:MothWaves|talk]]) 19:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I assumed he meant "seen directly with my eyes", so that a photograph would not count, but looking through a telescope during an astronomy night at the local University would count. And he hasn't looked *closely* at the Sun, because of the need for eye protection. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically, spacecraft have landed on Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn. Just not in a survivable manner. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Have we really not sent anything directly into the Sun yet? [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::The most "into the Sun" we've done is [https://science.nasa.gov/mission/parker-solar-probe/ the Parker Solar Probe], and it hasn't attempted to 'land' there (apart from that being effectively impossible, even beyond the likes of Cassini's final fall "onto" Saturn). It's also ''very hard'' to even send things into the Sun, because the direct method would need you to send a craft from Earth backwards at the same speed as the Earth orbits forwards (or very close to that), otherwise all you can do is fall ''past'' it and loop back up again. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 01:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:No one even knows if Jupiter and Saturn have a *land* to land on. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::Sstill subject to further study, but the crushed and burnt (and probably unrecognisable) remains of the probes will be 'landed' (or floating on top of any layer that they're ultimately more buoyant than) down there, somewhere (unless they're totally ablated away, but there'll probably be ''some'' fragments of hi-tech metal frame, even if no circuit boards or metal foils survive) Should there be a form of life in existence down in the depths of the gas-giant's mass, with any curiosity to them, I imagine they'll be wondering what this new variety of 'space rain' is, that's totally unlike the usual ex-asteroidal/cometish stuff that they must occasionally get punching down through from the inaccessible upper reaches above their native environment. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68|162.158.74.68]] 19:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the Pluto error in Traditionalist and Modernist images were fixed. I now see Pluto highlighted in traditionalist and Pluto unhighlighted in Modern. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.91|172.68.7.91]] 19:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

indeed, it seems fine now, i removed my earlier comment--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.116|162.158.233.116]] 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

//Jean-Luc Margot wrote a serious planet definition proposal// in 2024 as a starting point for community conversations and welcomes feedback. In 2019 I wrote a small article myself on planet and moon classes simply by size. //Mondklassen "wwwahnsinn"// (in German).
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.108|162.158.159.108]] 19:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm disputing that there has never been a formal definition of "planet" prior to 2006 - the ancient Greek definition of "wandering [relative to seemingly-fixed stars] points of light in the night sky" seems formal enough to me. I marked it {{tl|actual citation needed}}. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 19:52, 14 March 2025‎
: I've reworded the sentence to say "in modern times" so we aren't making unfounded and likely-incorrect claims about antiquity. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else strongly dislike the term '''natural satellite''' replacing ''moon''? Under the new nomenclature, only Earth's moon is 'the Moon'. All other moons are now merely natural satellites. Phobos, Deimos, Ganymede, are no longer considered moons. My biggest problem with the new definition is that planets themselves are natural satellites of stars. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.225|172.71.182.225]] 20:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely that the Saturnian moon highlighted in the Maritime definition is Titan, since it has liquid seas and lakes on its surface. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.5|172.69.6.5]] 21:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I've noted in the Transcript that (despite apparently being ''identical'' pre-highlight drawings in all other ways, or at least very consistently reproduced), Saturn is given one moon ''most'' of the time, but two moons on occasion. Similarly, Uranus's moons (spread from upper-right to lower-left) do-or-do-not include the dot (in one case suffering a highlighting) moving across the face of the planet. From an analytical perspective, I'm wondering if Randall did indeed copypaste the 'normal' iillustration, but then have to manually add in "whoops, I forgot I need to highlight a further item thaat I haven't already drawn" into some of the established copies, touching up where necessary (and maybe where still not necessary too). ...But I'm not sure it matters what he did or did not do. It's just an observation about the result. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190|172.69.79.190]] 23:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, Titan's present in all the diagrams, and a second moon of Saturn shows up when highlighting is necessary. The bonus "Marine Biologist" planet is clearly Enceladus, but the bonus "Judgemental" planet doesn't line up with it: presumably it's one of Saturn's other moons. Which one? My wild guess is Iapetus. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.27|172.68.150.27]] 01:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you, but was it really necessary to include a snide dig at Baby Boomers? Not a BB myself - I'm gen X, if we're using those facile labels - but surely we don't need to encourage intergenerational resentment and conflict. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.116|172.68.174.116]] 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC) 
As a historian, I strongly disagree with the snide definition of tradition. (No, not a BB.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 07:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's a direct quote from a prior comic, that whoever wrote it in the first placce ysed, so I've rewritten it to perhaps ''not'' look quite so much like some editor's own grudge/snidiness (which it may or may not be, but not without Randall giving justifiable precedent to say it). Maybe can be tweaked further, but it might be a shame to lose the inter-comic referential humour that (regardless of tone) is staple for this site. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.109|162.158.74.109]] 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::I wrote it. No snideness intended. I thought the connection was topical. Unfortunately, thanks to the "Okay boomer" phenomenon, any reference to the generation comes across as condescending. The "Tradition" strip was published in 2011, and the phrase rose to popularity in 2019. It, like [[36]], is just one of those things that is not standing the test of time. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.89|172.70.47.89]] 20:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe we're currently missing part of the joke in the mouseover text. Not only is Earth now a star because of human fusion, it's also no longer a planet, because, due to human satellites and spacecraft, it no longer clears its orbit.
[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.42|198.41.227.42]] 06:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the usual singular of criteria criterion? According to my dictionary, a criterium is a type of cycling race.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.100|172.71.26.100]] 09:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:Indeed. Maybe a thinko, though, rather. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.139|172.69.79.139]] 11:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I am curious why only one of the Galilean moons counts as pretty, and I wonder which one (either Ganymede or Callisto, given where its drawn). They are all pretty to me, I like how surprisingly distinct they look from one another.
[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 13:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Re title text: With the launch of the JWST, Earth has no longer cleared its orbital neighborhood, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.57|172.70.176.57]] 14:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I tend to go by an expansive definition myself, considering all dwarf planets "planets" in my eyes. But I'm not like, arguing with the IAU's definition, this is just how I prefer to think of them, because dwarf planets are really cool. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.140|172.70.126.140]] 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

In the title text explanation, there's no mention of the inclusion of the phrase about Earth clearing its orbital neighborhood. I think this has something to do with all of our man-made satellites that have not been cleared from Earth's orbital neighborhood. Does anyone else think that's an important part of the title text and needs to be explained? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I like the "Recognizable" criteria. Something is a planet if it orbits the Sun and there exists at least one photograph of the object that a reasonably knowledgeable layperson can correctly identify. That would mean that all of the IAU defined planets are planets (except maybe Mercury), and that Pluto became a planet in 2015. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.141|172.68.245.141]] 14:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
:...there's a risk that Uranus and/or Neptune ("or both... hang on... which one's supposed to be bluer..? and is this one of those miscalibrated images or not..?") might drop out of the Recognisable grouping. And the Moon would be added, unless you arbitrarily banned near-side images, in which case it'd be demoted to "dunno" except by particularly adept selenophiles who probably even know the far-side, and limbs, like the back of their own hands. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 16:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

A definition I thought up a while ago that I'm pretty proud of is that a planet is an object that is not a star or moon, has a stable orbit around a star, and that has a larger mass than the largest moon in its solar system. (a moon is defined as having a barycenter inside an object that directly orbits the Sun). That way, there is a clear, natural, distinction of larger bodies and smaller ones that conforms to the public thinking of a planet as large and not a moon. By my definition, the planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. (Though Mercury is famously smaller in radius than the moons Ganymede and Titan, it has more mass -- and given that mass grants greater gravity, I consider mass to be more important). My wider category of a world is for all star-orbiters that have differentiated layers, so the worlds in the Solar System would be (I think) Mercury, Venus, Earth, the Moon, Ceres, Vesta, Jupiter, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, Io, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Charon, Quaoar, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Eris, and Sedna. This would be a harder category to assign than planet and a bit more fuzzy -- which plays in to the fuzzy use of world already existing -- but is still more clear cut than "gravitationally rounded" as no object is a perfect sphere and the strict definition of hydrostatic equilibrium means Mercury is not a planet. Of course, since no exomoons have been discovered as they are very hard to find, all exoplanets discovered would be planets -- which is nice and uncomplicated and natural for the human to assume that the bodies are planets. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.145|108.162.245.145]] 18:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
: Having the status of bodies be contingent on what is going on elsewhere seems even more problematic than current arguments over where artificial lines between categories should be drawn. In theory, Jupiter could capture a passing wandering planet and, under your system, instantly demote a bunch of the current planets to non-planets, even though nothing about them has actually changed.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.219|172.70.160.219]] 09:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
:: And, in a way, that's what happened to Pluto. Nobody was really bothered about it not having 'cleared' Neptune from its orbit (or, it appears, consider it a problem that Neptune hasn't cleared Pluto from its own, so already a partial fudge of meaning there) when it was an acceptible planet. Maybe the runt of the litter (comparing disfavourably against even some moons, including our own), but most people were happy to slide with it as one (with perhaps a bit more attention on Ceres, too, once more), even as it became clear that its own largest moon was more co-binary, and that there were a number of other (lesser) plutoids doing the same sort of thing. The 'sudden appearance' (i.e. realisation of) a larger (now dwarf-)planet changed that.
:: I mean, I'm not advocating for either turn of terminology (though I definitely grew up, and lived most my adult life, ''knowing'' that Pluto was a planet), but taxonomy of all kinds is tricky. Just ask Linnaeus. As more information overturns how we group things, even when the realities of the things we group don't themselves change. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.57|172.70.162.57]] 11:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

'''"Modern" vs "Current"'''. Does anyone feel frustrated when people confuse "modern", "contemporary", and "current"? "Modern" is post-1500, "contemporary" is the age someone lives in, and "current" is 'today'. Throughout 75 years of the modern era, Pluto 'was' considered a planet. Is anyone willing to shift non-canonical usage of "modern" to "current" in the article? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.28|172.71.95.28]] 15:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
: "''Modern" is post-1500''" -- '''Museum of '''Modern''' Art''', 1929/1930 until today (essentially Pluto's reign); works to 1885 --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I added a bunch of Wikipedia citations. I went by the WP rule (citation needed) of linking the first non-parenthesized instance of a word/phrase. That does make for some awkward things, like lists with only some of the items linked, and the {{w|natural satellite|moon}} link in a mention under '''Simplistic''' rather than on the more relevant '''Lunar'''.
–[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 22:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

According to the "simplistic" definition, the rings themselves (also round) are separate planets. If the simplistic definition had merely been "spheroidal" rather than "round", they would not be. I'd love to see a version of the chart where Saturn is green, but the rings are white. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.166|172.71.99.166]] 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Utratraditionalist version of the solar system have 7 planets (including the Sun and the Moon)? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.136|172.68.245.136]] 15:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that it is now considered a dwarf planet, and a lot of people, and perhaps the world itself, are unhappy, would it not be appropriate to rename it Grumpy?{{unsigned|Jmbryant|12:22, 18 March 2025}}

I wonder if this comic was tangentially inspired by the fairly recent discovery of a further 128 (suspiciously round number, that..!) moons of Saturn, making it now having well into the 200 'moons', on top of its ring-debris. And the possibility of the IAU having to weigh in and now officially decide what a ''moon'' is, especially in contrast to all the material in Saturn's rings (maybe broken up ex-moons, possibly raw material for future moon-clumps). One would suspect a version of "clear the area around the planet it orbits", and a (looser?) threshold of hydrostatic equilibreum/sphericity might be the starting point. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.221|172.69.43.221]] 13:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There should be a “Dayist” list of objects that have a day of the week named after them: Sun (Sunday), Moon (Monday), Mercury (Tuesday), Jupiter (Wednesday), Mars (Thursday), Venus (Friday), and Saturn (Staurday).
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.67.147|172.69.67.147]] 19:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was a proponent(ish) of the "Condescending" view "He said he'd take all four rocky planets in our solar system — Earth, Mars, Mercury and Venus — and call them dwarf planets rather than admit Pluto to the planet club."- https://www.space.com/29960-stephen-colbert-pluto-neil-tyson-video.html [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.168|172.70.42.168]] 21:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

2761: 1-to-1 Scale

2023-04-14T14:40:19Z

172.70.42.168: /* Explanation */ Clarified "today."

{{comic
| number = 2761
| date = April 10, 2023
| title = 1-to-1 Scale
| image = 1_to_1_scale_2x.png
| imagesize = 444x281px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = There's a version that shows the planets with no cropping, but it's hard to find a display that supports it.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DISPLAY THAT SUPPORTS THE PLANETS WITH NO CROPPING - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic is implied to be a part of a huge diagram that shows each of the eight planets at real size (as seen by the ant on Earth's surface). Each planet is represented by a circle thousands of kilometers in diameter. However, the planets have been awkwardly placed in an extremely tight circle, so that all eight planets touch (or nearly touch) a tiny central area of "space" a few inches large. This comic shows a fraction of this diagram, cropped so that we see this area of "space" and a little of the edge of each planet intentionally arranged next to it.

The joke of this comic appears to be that when planets are indeed displayed at a 1:1 scale, it is almost impossible to tell their relative sizes, even when the image technically shows (part of) each of the planets

The reason why each planet's circular border appears straight is because it's such a small area of each planet: you're only seeing a couple of square inches of the surface of each of the planets, and even though they are all round, the curvature would be invisible on this scale. The four gas giants are completely smooth, whereas the four rocky planets display features, most notably on Earth where grass and an ant are visible.

That it cannot have been an image of the real planets aligning is clear, as Mercury can be shown to be in front of Jupiter (implying that the latter is in the part of its orbit on the far side of the Sun from the viewer), yet Jupiter obscures Earth (which necessitates that it be in the arc of orbit ''nearest'' any given observer). In the title text it is made clear that this is just a small part of a larger drawing, so this is not an image taken from far away – they are only placed this way for scale.

The title text remarks that it is hard to find a display that supports a version of the image without cropping. This is because a true 1:1 scale image showing all of the planets would be at least as big as the largest one, Jupiter - far larger than any monitor or display currently available[https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/1164/how-big-is-the-solar-system/]. Furthermore, the amount of video memory that a graphics card would need to have in order to output to such a display, even as a 1-bit-per-pixel-image (i.e., all pixels are either black or white), is well beyond the capabilities of any graphic card that existed at the time of publication.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|The main panel itself is missing explanation. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[A frame with a central area of black 'space', bounded at various intersecting angles by eight 'straight lines' representing planetary surfaces, originating from various out-of-frame angles of 'down' and the white of some bodies obscuring some part of the others.]
:[There are labels indicating which line represents each planet.]
:[The four gas-giants' lines are simply drawn, near straight and featureless.]
:[The lines for the rocky inner-planets have variations to them, stereotypical of some part of their surface.]
:[The "Earth" line ('down' being out the top of the frame) has a profile indicating various small-scale vegetation and also features the white sillouette of an ant that may be of a realistic size for your display.]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:The solar system's planets at 1:1 scale

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Space]]
[[Category:Comics_with_inverted_brightness]]

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3063: Planet Definitions

2761: 1-to-1 Scale