• AnIndefiniteArticle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    Ā·
    10 days ago

    I like what youā€™re trying to do, but I disagree with merging brown dwarfs with planetary class objects because their interior structures and evolution are so different. Brown dwarfs are closer to stars than planets. The only difference between brown dwarfs and fusing stars is whether fusion occurs at the core. Planets are very very different in structure, morphology, and evolution.

    This is how I suggest we classify things:

    Letā€™s start by splitting things into two classes: planetary class and stellar class with Saturn at the boundary. This is a separation based on internal morphology and dynamics.

    Stellar class objects then get split into two further subclasses: fusing stars (suns) and non-fusing stars (brown dwarfs).

    Saturn exists at the boundary between the planetary class and the stellar class. Jupiter is solidly within the ā€œbrown dwarfā€ non-fusing stellar class of objects. The sun is a ā€œfusing starā€, which is also within the stellar class.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      Ā·
      10 days ago

      I mean, you can choose to define things however you want for your personal headcanon.

      But for communication to work, people need to agree upon meanings. Iā€™m guessing you donā€™t have a PhD in astrophysics, so your opinions are very unlikely to sway the consensus opinion on how these things are defined. And itā€™s their definitions that most lay people are going to take our cues from.

      But even from the perspective of trying to come up with your own definitionsā€¦itā€™s rather poor practice to define things by presupposing your desired outcome. They didnā€™t define a planet vs dwarf planet by reference to Pluto, even though their desired goal was to exclude Pluto. They found actual criteria and used those. The definitions youā€™re giving, by stating ā€œstellar class with Saturn at the boundaryā€ does not work as a very good definition. Though again, youā€™re free to use that for yourself if you wantā€¦so long as you understand you will have severe difficulty communicating with others.

      • AnIndefiniteArticle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        10 days ago

        Iā€™m guessing you donā€™t have a PhD in astrophysics,

        Most of the thesis is written, and the definitions I am giving are common among my colleagues. This is the growing consensus post-Cassini/Juno.

        Iā€™m not choosing these definitions with any presuppositions. Iā€™m using Saturn as a useful marker of the boundary because of its hybrid internal structure as revealed by kronoseismology.