Slashdot Mirror
Defining "Planet"
beardoc writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is running a story today about a controversial proposal to define what size a planet might be - depending on what the final definition of how big a planet is, we could end up losing Pluto (at 2300 kilometres) to the status of "asteroid" or gaining three more planets - Quaoar, Varuna and Ceres."
... agreed to be "Marlon Brando"
If someone bothered to name a Roman god after it, it's a planet. Pluto, Mars, Jupiter--all friendly planets.
Alpha Centauri? Bah--probably a reflection off that Hubble thingy.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
Planet: n. Any object orbiting a star, not orbiting a planet, and having a radius greater than the radius of Pluto minus one millimeter.
Why do they always need to complicate things. I thought size doesnt matter.
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
As a representative one of the nine planets, I find this proposal deeply troubling, especially since there are not any other representatives from the other eight. Once a planet is classified as an "asteroid" or "floating piece of shit with gravity", it not only loses its prestige, but also, it cannot apply for federal grants, and hence, usually suffers a major economic blow. Laugh you may, but I've seen planets go from a heavenly body to a drunk spinning horizontal and finally distingrate into an asteroid belt in no time. We must support our planets because if we don't, then who will?
Badly?