Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "The Secrets of the Universe" channel.

The problem is that the IAU's definition is not based on actual science. The part about clearing the orbit is based on a since disproven theory of gravity only mentioned in single 1802 publication. Dr. Philip J. Metzger (Ph.D.) of the University of Central Florida has done a deep dive to find the source of the IAU's criteria and found it lacking. Further, he points out that Gallello called the four celestial bodies around Jupiter "the planets of Jupiter". Further, he demonstrated that Pluto around a red dwarf like Proxima Centauri would fit the criteria, but if you put Jupiter around a large star like Sirius or Vega, it would NOT pass those criteria.
10
@DundG Who said we wanted to exclude them? That is the very problem of the IAU. They DON'T want to include anymore because of their own pride and arrogance. Do keep in mind that Mercury is SMALLER than the moons Ganymede and Titan. By the IAU's size obsession standard, Mercury shouldn't be a planet because those two moons are bigger.
2
@DundG First, Wikipedia is a horrible source as it is often used to launder OPINION pieces as if they are objective statements of fact. Again, you failed to address the point made by Dr. Metzger that "clear the orbit" criteria is based on disproven THEORY, not hard science. And the persistence on using that flimsy justification can only be explained by an emotional rational rather than one based on logic and reason. Finally, don't respond to an argument if you are not willing to back up your position. "I don't want to argue" is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy, one that is used when the argument is weak and indefensible. Debate me or keep your opinions to yourself if you can't defend them.
1
@JeremyCaron Was that a joke? Dewey's system was hardly scientific. It was an example of 1930s socialist ideology. There is a reason why most libraries have dumped it since going to digital card cateloges.
1
Part of the problem is that the "reclassification" is based on bad science. Dr. Philip J. Metzger (Ph. D.) of the University of Central Florida located the source of the criteria "clear the orbit" is comes from a single publication dated 1802 and that it is based on a since disproven THEORY of gravity. Further, he has demonstrated how Pluto around a Red Dwarf like Proxima Centauri would meet those criteria, but Jupiter around a star like Sirus or Vega would not.
1
@julioseviltwin2304 By what definition? The IAU standard comes from a single 1802 paper and is based on a disproven theory of gravity. That isn't science, that is laziness on the part of the "experts". Dr. Philip J. Metzger of the University of Central Florida has demonstrated why their criteria fails spectacularly when you put Pluto around a Red Dwarf like Proxima Centauri or Jupiter around a large star like Sirus or Vega.
1
@MD-pl4ww Try looking at the responses closer. No two are exactly the same. Hardly a cut and paste job. And certainly more sophisticated than a bot account posting.
1