| ▲ | Teever a day ago |
| To me this subject is just a combo of bikeshedding[0] lumper and splitter[1] stuff by people who aren't domain subject experts. I find people do this a lot with space stuff because they're interested in it but don't really know much about it. It's ultimately irrelevant to the subject at hand and detracts from the conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters |
|
| ▲ | mr_toad 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Speaking of lumping and splitting: in the nebular hypothesis planets accreted from the protoplanetary disk. Out in the Kuiper belt objects were too far apart to properly accrete, and remain separated. |
|
| ▲ | cwillu a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And a spattering of domain subject experts being offended that they don't have veto power over colloquial terminology |
| |
| ▲ | klez a day ago | parent [-] | | You can just keep calling it a planet in everyday conversation if that's your jam. There's no astronomy police that will come to get you if you do. Just expect to be corrected and "well, achually"-ed by people who follow the current naming system, especially in science circles. | | |
| ▲ | mturmon a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Right. Somewhat similar to other dual-use words like “work”, “energy”, “power”, “momentum”. With such “well, ackshually”s as “you didn’t really do any work at all when you were pushing on that tree trunk” and “you specified watts, but you really wanted to use lumens”. | |
| ▲ | cwillu a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm amused that you described a group policing terminology right after saying there's no group policing terminology. | | |
|
|
