Slashdot Mirror
Pluto Decision Meets with Frustration
fuzzybunny writes "The BBC reports that the IAU's controversial Prague vote on demoting Pluto from planet status was irregular. 'There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon.'" On a less serious note, lx writes "Nonplussed by Pluto's recent downgrade from Planet Status, Fox News's own John Gibson does an incredible Stephen Colbert impersonation to correct the 'revisionist history' of the IAU's decision. Exemplifying 'truthiness,' from the article: 'Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?' "
He must have a hard time when we elect a new President.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
So wait.. let me get this straight. Fox News is trying to copy a show that is a direct parody of the Fox News network? There's got to be some irony in there somewhere.
After the ambush by the Dwarf Planet camp, on the last day, the IAU appears ready to fragment into smaller sub-unions, or dwarf unions.
Meanwhile, astrologers going out of their minds over the contentious issue of what constitutes a planet, how many of them there are and how it will impact births, weddings and divining portents, have finally had enough. This evening Seoul, Mumbai and San Francisco are in flames as astrologers and their clients rampage.
today's lesson: if you don't like the result of the last vote, wait until your opposition has left and then call another vote.
And what's this 472 of 2,700 being 10% stuff?
I want one of those bumper stickers. I mean, how geek!
Ah, here's more info on merchandising the Pluto debate and a place you can vote with your $.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Why are people so frustrated with this? I typically resist change, but I'm ok with this. If the definition of planet has been refined (that's my understanding) and pluto no longer fits the criteria, then this is fine.
We keep the new definitions, but still call Pluto a planet, just as an honorary title.
The BBC reports that the IAU's controversial Prague vote on demoting Pluto from planet status was irregular.
Well then, it sounds like they need more fiber.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
'Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?'
Don't fret it. Long ago Romans learned it was a god. They didn't have to unlearn it. Their empire simply collapsed.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
Correct me if I'm wrog.. but are they not also cosidering other "random" orbit rocks past pluto for planet status???
So if you still considering... Pluto is still a planet...
And its "My Very Eliagant Mother sent us nine pizzas" not "My very excellent mother sent us nachos".
Posted Anyono for no reason whatsoever....
We keep the new definitions, but still call Pluto a planet, just as an honorary title.
Much like how the United States still refers to Canada as a soveriegn nation, instead of a 51st state.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?
Because we were wrong. It's orbit is incredibly un-circular, it wildly off the plane of the solar system, and it's smaller than the moon! It never belonged in the pigeon-hole we've labelled "planet".
Part of science is accurate classification. We can't label something just because we want to.
Considering that Pluto orbits both inside and outside of Neptune's more circular orbit, even if on a slant to the ecliptic, what are the chances they could collide someday? Is there a common point both celestial bodies (note how cleverly I've avoided the use of the now obsolete term 'planet') have both passed through at some 4th dimensional offset (time for those of you in Rio Linda) from each other?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I don't understand the need to cut Pluto out as a planet. Why can't the 'rule' have just this one exception? You can still say that any given object that does not meet certain requirements, cannot be defined as a planet, with the only exception of Pluto that, for historical reasons (or backwards compatibility ;) is still named so.
Wow, frustration. Upset people.
Pluto is sooo damn far from here, you barely know it is there. If you are an astronomer, you probably know what Pluto is and do not really care if they call it a planet, a dwarf, a dwarf planet, a moon, or a damn piece of ruck orbiting that fireball some call the SUN.
And for the rest non astronomers: even if you care about that distant little ball of rock at the very edge of our solar system, does it really matter if you call it a planet?
I mean it was a planet for who knows how long, so why start messing with it now?
Besides: you should have already learned, that Planet Earth is flat and is orbited by the Sun.
Oh well, maybe it is wise sometimes to revise astronomy..... but that much dust around Pluto.
OMG who the fuck cares. Seriously. This whole Pluto thing has got to be the most ridiculous "news" event of my entire life. The only redeeming quality of it all is that it gives Stephen Colbert something to make fun of.
... on front paws only
"Most ridiculous", eh? I would point out that CNN's "Latest News" banner carries links to the following stories, any one of which will make you stupider than reading about a meeting of astronomers:
# JonBenet suspect to face court Monday
# Former President Ford undergoes angioplasty
# DNA shows woman held in 'dungeon' is missing girl
# Oprah's school opens in S. Africa
# Lost fishermen: No drugs, no cannibalism
# Cat goes for a walk
# It's real life CSI for dinosaur detectives
Look on the bright side, at least the Pluto story has the public thinking about planetary science. There's something about spaceflight that galvanizes public attention -- no need to be a curmudgeon about it.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
That it destroys a major plotline of Heinlien's clasic teen novel Have Spacesuit Will Travel
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Don't worry, Diebold has just announced the results of the recount, and 3,134 of the 2,700 delegates voted to make Pluto stay as a planet.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
"Most ridiculous", eh? I would point out that CNN's "Latest News" banner carries links to the following stories, any one of which will make you stupider than reading about a meeting of astronomers
That's the bed you made, America. Lie in it.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
(not to mention a laudable use of unicode), check out Tim Kreider. It's rather moving, actually: "Pluto has rented a tuxedo."
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
The Ballistic Equations remain unsolved.
Why don't they do something useful like work on these,
instead of arguing if a planet is a planet.
Losers.
While they're at it they should create a category of "minor astronomers." In their spare time these same busybody pinheads probably wander around their suburban neighborhoods measuring grass with rulers and checking their watches to see if anyone's leaving a trash can out on the sidewalk too long.
Personally I think Pluto makes a fine 9th planet.
Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?
Before five hundred years ago I learned that the Earth was flat and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?
yes, and that bed is coming to your country soon.
sadly.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A strong case can be made that these designations are arbitrary. There's plenty of stuff that revolve around the Sun.
You can place any set of criteria you want. At some point, there will be an arbitrary cut off.
Is something one mile around a planet? No.
25,000? Yes.
Any cutoff point could have something that is just under the cutoff point. So the Fox News guy has a point.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Because we were wrong. It's orbit is incredibly un-circular, it wildly off the plane of the solar system, and it's smaller than the moon! It never belonged in the pigeon-hole we've labelled "planet".
So you're saying tradition doesn't matter? 300 members of an internationalist labor organization can just tell the rest of us we've been wrong about the number of planets in the solar system and we should listen? I don't think so, chief. There are nine planets. Everybody knows that.
There were nine planets two days ago and there will continue to be nine planets, regardless of any sort of po-mo revisionism.
We can't label something just because we want to.
Of course we can. That's what language is. A planet is a planet because we call it a planet. We're humans. Things have names because we give them names. That's our god-given right. I'm not about to let these leftists in Czechoslovakia or anywhere else tell me my American schooling is wrong.
(Posting anonymously so I won't get raped by one of the socialist moderators around here.)
Whether Pluto is or is not considered a planet is not as important to me as the integrity of high-level guidance among senior scientists. When the arguments for or against a decision depend on popular vote rather than rational consensus, scientists reduce themselves to the level of lawyers. When the objectivity of scientific thought is bypassed by special interest groups and politics, science is no longer Science. This whole process has been a shameful exhibition of politics.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I usually don't comment much, but when a nationally-recognized news anchor makes stupid comments, I feel obliged.
He says, "All of a sudden Ringo isn't a Beatle? All of a sudden somebody changes a standard and Curly isn't a stooge, or Zeppo isn't a Marx, or Ari isn't one of the "Entourage"? Actually I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly."
My god. Yeah, because Ringo Starr's status as a Beatle hinges on statistics and his orbital ellipse, just like Pluto's. Look out for that 'Two Stooges' DVD also. John Gibson sounds like a prick -- if our understanding of the universe evolved John Gibson's way, we might still be afraid to fall off the edge of the world, or the Sun might still rotate around the Earth. The changing of 'standards' is inevitable as a better understanding of the universe becomes available. The more technologically advanced we become, you can bet laws, theories, and yes, even TEXTBOOK PRINT may become outdated.
(Note: this rant directed toward John Gibson's stupid 'rebuttal,' regardless of the IAU decision whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not.
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
I'll tell you why.
Ever look at the price tag on a Textbook?, those things are expensive.
To pay for the textbook publishers political action committee.
Think of the money that will need to be spent by schools for new science textbooks; just after they got done replacing them to give equal space to 'Intelligent Design'.
You might think it's unimportant, but when the federally mandated standardised test asks how many planets are in the Solar System...
In the grand tradition of choosing words like, "pluton," forever more, those of us who refuse to demote Pluto from planetary status shall forever be known as "Plutocrats!"
Unite Plutocrats!
--Ray
http://www.beanleafpress.com
He just has to learn that a planet must fit a rather more specific set of criteria. There's no "unlearning" needed. What the hell is that word, anyway?
This whole Pluto thing has got to be the most ridiculous "news" event of my entire life.
At least in my life, it was the Terri Schiavo "story".
As Manson said, "I was crazy when crazy meant something". Well, I remember when controversy was controversial.
I thought complaining about other station's news stories was mainly limited to comedy central. If fox news had any decency they'd start calling this guy a comedian or 'entertainer' (used loosley) instead of a journalist.
AccountKiller
I wouldn't expect anything else from this guy. He admits just glancing at a headline too.
... Gibson.
The prague convention reclassified it, they didn't "invent" anything, he just conjures up his own version of what happened and denounces it as a revisionist act based on no authority whatsoever. It's actually precisely the reaction I'd expect from a person like Gibson and he shows his superficial apreciation of the scientific process by publishing it. I bet he was pissed when the french standardised the meter too.
Oh, and the people at the convention in prague got the authority to reclassiy pluto (and others!) because they worked hard to gain real understanding of our solar system and the processes within it, they did something useful and noble with their lives instead of becoming a tool in the media like
The council of Nicea is probably something Gibson can identify with, I mean, who were those guys and who gave them any authority to change things!?
Damn revisionists!
So the 10% who cared about the issue voted, and those who thought it was more important to go out and drink a beer didn't vote. Doesn't that kind of voting actually *increase* reliability?
We keep the new definitions, but still call Pluto a planet, just as an honorary title.
I suggest the same thing and get verbally tarred and feathered.
This exercise has certainly explosed a great rift in the community. Now they've also seen that there are those within the community willing to "hijack" a decision.
Personnally I'm surprised the UN hasn't weighed in on this.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
(2) looks OK, but the IAU folks have taken the (IMHO) insane view that a "dwarf planet" is not a subtype of "planet" at all (contrast "dwarf pine tree" or "dwarf sunflower" or "dwarf hippopotamus", all of which are subtypes of their source nown). That destroys a potential way to finesse the Pluto issue -- by calling it a dwarf planet, they could have let everyone have their semantic cake, and eat it too.
On a different note, another scientist friend of mine just told me his six-year-old daughter burst into tears when she found out Pluto isn't to be considered a planet anymore. :-(
Ha! As long as they don't demote Uranus.
Only 10% voted? Mabye because most astronomers just don't care as much as the summer-starved media is hyping this?
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
There are not nine planets, there are probably hundreds. The voters at the IAU obviously had an emotional problem with there being more than a small number of planets, so they decided to dispense with science and permanently and arbitrarily cap the number of planets at eight. I say we ignore them.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Another thing I'd add: why is everybody even listening to a socialist astronomer's union meeting in a former Soviet republic? Next thing, the UAW will be telling us a pickup truck isn't a truck anymore. Personally, I'll listen to American astronomers, who are good enough at their profession they don't need to join a substandard organization like the IAU.
Well, I have to rethink my teenage stoned idea that maybe the solar system was a neon atom in a beer sign. Now it's a flourine atom... It's just not as cool.
A later vote downgraded the Earth, Mars, Venus and Mercury to asteriod status due to insufficent mass to be considered a planet. A final vote at the end of the day declared that the gas giants can't be considered planets due to their lack of a solid surface. At the end of the conference it was found our solar system in fact had no planets. All members were pleased with the final result since we now have a firm definition of what consitutes a planet. We still have high hopes of finding a planet somewhere in the Universe. Next we plan to attack the question of what constitues life. All are anxcious to find if there is infact life in our solar system but the lack of planets leaves that in doubt.
As s20451 points out, this has been a week full of idiotic bullshit. In a week where the JonBenet thing dominates the news, I think griping out Pluto getting a few minutes of coverage on the nightly news is really that much of a disaster.
But unlike the JonBenet crap, this Pluto case actually touches on something that *is* interesting. I didn't RTFA (c'mon, this is slashdot!) but the summary sounds pretty familiar. As stated above, conservatives see this as one more example of how the pinko-commie-liberals are revising history. Conservatives believe strongly in tradition and the status quo and their belief is that change has to be justified. That is, there has to be a damn good reason to change things. This touches on some timely political issues in an indirect and hidden way.
What concerns me, however, is that people consider this some sort of big chore to adjust their thinking that Pluto is no longer a planet. The quote from the summary is a prime example of this. The pundit complains "Hey, I've already done all that learning stuff. You mean I still have to continue to think and learn and possibily be open to new ideas once I'm an adult?" Yeah, I'm paraphrasing but I'm troubled by the idea that so many adults seem to have that learning ends once you're out of school. Think about it: it's really trivial to get it through your skull that Pluto isn't considered a planet anymore. But even this absolutely simple example of relearning draws groans from people who have a national stage to pontificate. What kind of example is this setting for our nation's youth? That it sucks to learn new stuff? That changing your mind in the face of new evidence is a chore that should be resisted and even hotly contested?
Don't think about this news story as the simple redefinition of a celestial body. Look at this story as one more facit in the anti-learning, anti-intellectual course that our country is going down. Then it becomes a lot more "news for nerds, stuff that matters." Does it really matter that Pluto has been downgraded. No, probably not for most of us. But it does matter a hell of a lot that there seems to be this outcry to keep things the way they are simply for the sake of tradition.
GMD
watch this
Will pluto be studied differently as a result of the status change? Will it physical properties change? What's the big deal?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
My Very Eager Mother Just Served Us Nothing
Gibson would've said the converse when they added Pluto:
"I grew up with eight planets. Now some know-nothing radicle tells me there are nine? This 'planet' Pluto is nothing but a rock of ice in space."
We stopped believing that the Earth is flat because better observations and measurements of the Earth contradicted the definition of "flat". However, what they're doing with Pluto is changing the definition of "planet". This is an entirely arbitrary process, and the definition they've come up with is entirely arbitrary. It has much less to do with science than with human psychology.
The people who want to stick with Pluto as a planet are at least as rational and justified in their belief as the people who want to change it.
So now, tell me what the IAU decalaration is if not an out-and-out attack on American culture. There is nothing "scientific" about the radical leftist politics of the IAU.
Look in the 'dead tree file' "Astrophysics with a PC", by Paul Hellings.
Item 4.7.3. "The case of Pluto and Neptune" explains why they will never collide, and gives the source code for implementing the simulation. Sorry, it's in BASIC, but you can easily reimplement it in Perl or Python, or whatever your favourite langage is, it's just one page of code.
Silly humans and your "Earth definitions".
~ Anonymous Alien
Almost forgot: Earth's Moon probably qualifies as a "dwarf planet" by definition (2). That is to say, it is (by many measures) in orbit about the Sun rather than the Earth, and it has not cleared its orbital vicinity (the Earth is nearby).
The Moon is in orbit about the Sun in the sense that the Sun exerts more force on the Moon than does the Earth. Viewed from above the solar system, the Moon's orbit is never concave out (away from the Sun), it is always concave in. The Earth just happens to be perturbing the orbit some.
Because it means that no Americans will have discovered any planets in our solar system :-)
If Pluto is not a planet because it hasn't cleared Neptune out of it's orbit path,
does that mean Neptune also isn't a planet because it similarly hasn't cleared Pluto out of it's orbit path?
Can we demote islands too?
shouldn't they have defined a planet as, "In the Solar System, one of [Mercury,...,Pluto]; out of the solar system, a celestial body ....", where the second clause is something along the lines of "spherical from its own gravity and not orbiting another planet." The subcategory of "double planet" could be defined by the barycenter being outside of either planet; the subcategory "dwarf planet" would, quite frankly, probably be arbitrary and something like "smaller than Mercury." You could then also have "minor planets" that are "smaller then Pluto."
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Pluto's orbit remains blissfully unchanged. I'm sure the Sun's classification has changed more than a few times in some alien lexicon. And yet we continue to put our shoes on in the morning.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
At first I thought for sure he was joking. It sounds pretty rediculous, but then again, this is Fox News so you never know. So I looked at some of his other "Words". Holy shit, I noticed, it looks like he's serious and is just retarded.
His other "Words" include:
-"NSA Wiretapping Program Not Strictly Legal, But Strictly Necessary" (wtf?)
-"Lieberman's Likely Win Will Be Embarrassing for Democrats" (Lieberman lost)
-"Jimmy Carter at it Again" (again, wtf?)
etc.
His most recent "Word" talks about how the JonBenet case is the most important news story in America. Suddenly I realize that Steven Colbert is much closer to reality than I originally thought.
Of COURSE there's a reason to avoid 'unlearning' it.
My Very Excellent Mother Just Made Us Nice Pie.
What about the pie?!? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE PIE?!?
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I was writing my beef with the definition, then I realized it included "...is in orbit around the Sun...", rendering my point about the definition not working for extrasolar planets having odd orbits moot. So anyways, heres the link to the IAU press release:
IAU
Much as I dislike Fox, the guy does have a point - the definition of 'planet' has absolutely no use whatsoever in science. If we are modelling the solar system, we add in objects of large mass, whether they are planets, moons, or asteroids, or whatever, depending on how much sensitivity is required. Stopping Pluto from being a planet makes no difference. Sure, it makes 'planet' more consistent. But no one in the science world truly cares. The facts of the world here in fact have not changed. Only nomenclature has.
The idea of planets is really only meaningful in the political or cultural sphere, since it's more interesting to say that we are going to send man to another planet than to just another random rock. It's also useful in education, because we ask our kids to learn the names of the planets, not every body that orbits the sun. There is really very little useful value in writing new textbooks here.
Guys, it's called science, and science revises itself over time to accomodate new data. Gravitational perturbations of Neptune first led astronomers to seek a ninth planet. When Tombaugh found it in 1930 Pluto was thought to be Earth-sized and similarly massive. Over the decades its size and mass kept getting revised downward as new scientific discoveries were made. The perturbations turned out to not exist-- another example of science refining itself.
Now we've discovered UB313, Sedna, Ixion, Quoar and others, and it's clear that Pluto's only the most prominent representative of the Kuiper belt, just as Ceres is the most prominent member of the asteroid belt. The media that are causing this furor are ignorant of the real issues involved and seem merely interested in running stories about Mrs. Johnson's 3rd grade class being upset about Mickey's dog.
Pluto is still there. It's still the same size and mass it always was, and New Horizons is still going to visit it. But it never would be called a planet if it were discovered today.
Because Jupiters barycenter with the Sun is outside the Sun. Therefore perhaps Jupiter isn't a planet, but part of a Star - Failed Star binary?
...this decision is hogwash.
Ok, I'm stumped. Where are you getting an extra electron from? On my periodic table we just went from Flourine to Oxygen (even less cool).
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
I see where Mr. Gibson is coming from. Why unlearn stuff that I learned as a kid just because times change?
Not only that, but the classificationistas don't even stop at planets. Whatever happened to the countries of Zaire, the Soviet Union, and Kampuchea? You mean to tell me my elementary school geography is irrelevant now? I refuse to accept this Prague decision, and I, for one, will continue to call Pluto, Zaire, and anything else I learned as a kid the same as I always have regardless of what some crazy people in Czechoslovakia say.
They didn't meet up an simply say, "oh, I think we're going to demote Pluto." They made a definition of a planet and Pluto didn't fit it. Why should we have re-learn the planets? We should do it for the sake of accuracy. If you have a problem with the new definition of a planet, argue about that. But don't bitch and moan that some kind of exception should be made for Pluto just because "it's always been that way."
Who else thinks that this is a plot by textbook publishers so they can make all schools, students, profesors, etc. have to buy new textbooks and reference materials?
They couldn't create new planets earlier on, so they figure out taking one away will have the same result for their purposes, so they try taking one away.
The article the parent links to may not be all that technical, but it gave me a chuckle or two, and is definitely worth a look at. C'mon, people. Think before you mod Troll.
I learned a long time ago that people believe the Earth was flat, I sticking with that.
I know of a way to end this debate once and for all, lets blow up pluto
and a good gotcha at it. This guy needs +5 something.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
Lawyers from the firm Huey, Dewey and Louie, speaking for the defendant, pronounced the Pluto decision "kinda Goofy". "Is Pluto too Mickey-Mouse to even qualify as a Minnie planet?", they opined. "Our client says that that designation would be just Ducky for him."
I never really liked apple pie.
It's a title. Does changing the title change any physical, measurable characteristic?
Of course not. That's why this argument is about the most worthless thing to be wasting time on. Who cares if it's a planet, a pluton, or an asteriod? One way or another, if you want to study it, you can.
I suspect *that's* why so few people voted; They don't care what it's called.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I see a barrage of comments here ridiculing Fox News and their representative specifically, implying it is alternately laughable and pathetic to be opposed to the ruling.
Yet from reading the article - several very prominent astronomers _agree_ that the ruling is bad.
And most interestingly, out of 10'000 astronomers worldwide (according to Alan Stern, quoted), only 424 even took part in the vote - and the winning was by simple majority.
Most justifying case, Pluto's status as a planet was changed because 4% of the world's astronomers voted for it.
Least justifying case, Pluto's status as a planet was changed because 2% of the world's astronomers voted for it.
Who looks ridiculous for ridiculing the opponents?
And why bash Fox News - for reasons like this? Is it so difficult to find good reasons?
It does not reflect very well on the posters here.
You just f*cked up my in-house orrery model.
(goes back to designing board)
rather aptly with his, "In my day, Pluto was a planet!" routine. Someone quickly find his article proclaiming that in his day there were four food groups, and he isn't changing his stance on the matter because some dictators at the food police said otherwise.
"It's an awful definition; it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons." (from the first link) This isn't a scientific decision . . . it is merely a case of semantics and any decision either way is arbitrary. Naming something a planet or not naming it one does not change its properties. The decision to "demote" Pluto was a good one, for the sake of simplicity, otherwise as more Kuiper Belt objects were discovered, the number of planets would increase and increase and be unmanagable.
Pluto downgraded. President still fucking Goofy.
Oh man - that was cruel! No I have the image of our retarded warmongering president banging Goofy in the poop chute. Eeeeewwww!!! Brrrr!!!! Ack! That's just so freakin' nasty - you've got some penance to do for that one...
best,
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
His first objection reads: Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for some arbitrary reason, like they tend to live in groups. I don't find it contrived at all. Asteroids are not called planets because of exactly similar reasons - there are simply too many of them in the same space. We even have precedent - Ceres was demoted 150 years back for exactly the same reason. Why should it be any special for Trans-Neptunian objects like Pluto ?
Next he says that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have not fully cleared their orbits. Earth has 10,000 near earth asteroids. Earth's diameter - 12,800 KM. Largest asteroids diameter is 20 km, most much lesser. Thats 0.1% of Earth's diameter - insignificant. Same thing goes for Jupiter - only Jupiter is nearly 12 times larger than earth and hence the percentage is even more insignificant. Also, Pluto is exactly not in the neighbourhood of Neptune. Its orbit is significantly tilted to the orbit of Neptune and hence outside Neptune's neighbourhood.
An old lady on the radio last night reminded us of {on of} the standard memory aids:
She suggested that it should become
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
9planets.org?
boy are they pissed. time to get a new domain eh?
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
That's just it - I was stoned. It never worked anyway.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
While i agree with you that his reluctance to 'relearn' isnt a valid reason to refuse change, i do think that Pluto should remain classified as a planet.
And if other bodies ( such as xena ) happen to fall under that same class and we have to start *adding* planets to the list, so be it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Thank you.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
It's not just Xena, Charon and the asteroid Ceres: there are hudreds of pluto-like objects out there. If we created a definition that included pluto, then we would have to accept those hundreds of others.
I don't know if that is a reasonable option
So, what should they have done?
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Textbooks are expensive, but in my experience the majority of books that need to tell people how many planets are in the solar system are not textbooks. People who own astronomy textbooks already know how many planets there are, and most are likely to be more interested in the fact that Pluto is a small icy double-body in the outer solar system, than in whether people classify it as a planet. If anything, the new classification will make it easier for textbook users, because it more cleanly groups the different types of bodies in the solar system... but any good textbook probably attended to that already.
Books likely to need updating are common library books, and encyclopedias (which need updating frequently for all the other information they contain, anyway). In either case, the types of people who own and use these books aren't the types of people who would care a lot if it was out of date. If this decision has any influence on book sales (textbook or otherwise) I'd be very surprised, and I'm sure the book publishers know this too.
They're not going to collide in the predictible future -- unless an unforseen force causes it. (Passing stars, or anything like that.) The easiest way to think of this is just to consider that you can quite easily hold two rings in an interlocking state, without the edges ever touching. The same is true for orbits. When a two dimensional ring is projected into three dimensional space, it's easy for them to cross-over without the edges actually meeting each other.
My friend and I had a theory that the politicians were waiting until we had 5 states to come in to the union at the same time
The politicians in office don't want any more states. More states equals more competition for them in Washington. 5 more states equals 10 more senators, and god knows how many more representatives. If anything, they'd want to consolidate a few states. (i.e. Montana + Wyoming + Idaho). Power is only worth anything when it's exclusive.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Alright here it is: we build a big "laser" and blast the planet/pluton/dwarf to smithereens. No Pluto = no controversy. All can, and will, be happy then. We can even get it a memorial plaque. It could say something like this:
In memory of Pluto, 1930-2006
Beloved 9th planet of our solar system, dwarf planet, and now intercosmic dust, we will remember you...
As an interesting extension, it could be argued that Neptune has also 'cleared' its orbit. Pluto is locked into a 3:2 orbit with Neptune, and this is fixed by Neptune's gravity. Neptune has forced Pluto into a stable orbit WRT itself, and so has cleared its orbit.
Correct decision, IAU, well done
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon.
The low voter turnout is hardly a surprise. Most scientists would not go for the entire conference, and most of them have probably got better things to do than quibble about the status of Pluto. I saw an interview on TV from one astronomer who had been at the conference that week, but didn't stay for the vote. He commented that the room in which the vote was held typically held ~400 people.
I'll have to get a new set of questions for my trivial pursuit now, one of the cards asks how many planets are in our solar system.
Blazing Spiders
Why cry about the change? Most people don't even know all the planets. Today my girlfriend, hoping to impress me no doubt, remarked, "Did you hear that Pluto is not a planet anymore?" To this I said, "Yes I did, so how many planets does that leave us with?" The silence was deafening.
The new definition has that a planet is
(a) in orbit around a star or stellar remnants,
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape,
(c) is not massive enough to initiate thermonuclear fusion of deuterium in its core, and
(d) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
Where do the problems begin - with a) what happens when we find systems that are orbiting tight binaries - they are not a single star, could satisfy b), c) and d) but wouldn't classify as planets. What about a system with objects satisfying b) c) and d) but around a brown dwarf. A black hole can be a stellar remnant - I'd not call something that satisfies b) c) and d) orbiting a black hole a planet. I'd call it mostly doomed.
b) is terrible and it features in both defintions - an object with a high spin or a large system of moons can be in hydrostatic equilibrium, and can satisfy a) c) and d) but deviate from being spherical by a respectable amount. Atleast here you can define some quantitative deviation from being a sphere. An artifical limit on how spherical an object is stupid because there will be border line systems. You can still kida work with this one atleast.
c) is fine and sensible and corresponds to well defined physical conditions and is the dividing line between brown dwarfs and stars - which makes me wonder what happens to brown dwarfs with this definition.
d) As the BBC article points out the earth hasn't cleared its orbits and there are plenty of NEOs, all the Jovians have moons and rings (if anything these are more in the neighborhood of the planets orbit than asteroids), Jupiter has Trojans and Damocloids. If Pluto crosses Neptunes object last I checked yes Pluto hasn't cleared its object but neither has Neptune. Do you select which one remains a planet on the basis of mass. What if the less massive object was more spherical?
Only a limit based on hydrogen fusion in the core is clean. You can atleast qualify how spherical an object is even if a hard limit above which we call something spherical enough and below not spherical enough is stupid. Since its quantitative its more useful. I don't see any particular reason to limit things to a single star or stellar remnants. This is flaky - make it in orbit around a system thats actively undergoing nuclear fusion or something. Theres just no way to use this neighborhood definition so toss it.
I think the problem here is the IAU is hell bent on saving what we traditionally think of as planets without adding too many.
Sounds vaguely racist
The point is that planets are not that special and there are probably a lot of them out there. The only thing special about this one is that we are in it. Sorry if that seems anthropic. Stars are definetly not special and there are probably a lot of planetary systems out there. If the worry is that we have to change what we have to teach kids and we don't want them to memorize 100 objects then I'd argue that they ought to be learning a consistent defintion of what a planet and a star is instead. If they can name any 10 in our solar system they get ten points and can move on to the next question. Which is can than name a few other planetary systems. I don't think you are going to lose interest in astronomy by not emphasizing the nearest planet - not as long as you can take them to an 8 inch scope even and show you Jupiter's moons and Saturns rings.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
the vice president posts on /.!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Fox isn't news, it's not, and I believe it entirely possible to sue them for false advertisement. Will everybody in America please do this now?!
The thing with science, and i'm a scientist, is that although it is ALL about the strict classification of things in order for pursuit of the truth; we love tradition. There are things in science that are so pointlessly carried becuase of tradition. Here's the thing: We ALL learned Pluto was a planet. Well, that's just a label, and whether we call it a planet or the newly invented term "Gubla" which I shall go with (Pluto is a Gubla), is entirely irrelevant to Pluto. It changes absolutely nothing about anything, because no matter what you clasify it as, it will always be Pluto.
It's not like we Holiday there. People love nostalgia, scientists especially. I think if we reclassify Pluto, but call it an 'Honourary Planet', then scientists and people of the world will love it regardless. In fact, I never heard anyone once step up to Pluto's defence until this: "Oh, it's not a planet anymore" BS came about, so why do we love it now.
I guess, ultimately, this entire thing can be viewed from the lesson of how people are willing to defend whatever they believe in, no matter whether it is right or wrong... Think about that!
Fry: "Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus." *laughs*
Leela: "I don't get it."
Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?"
Professor: "Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you."
Fry: "Hehe, no, no, I think I'll just smell around a bit over here."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When I read that Pluto was being downgraded to "dwarf planet" status, I thought, "it'll always be Yuggoth to me," and I broke out in song...
(Sing it to the tune of "Always a Woman to Me" by Billy Joel)
They can harp on its size
They can call it a dwarf planet
And they can say that it's wise
To just keep on ignorin' it
They can say it's remote
And just too hard to see
They can talk about Pluto
But it'll always be Yuggoth to me
No, the Mi-Go are far
from concerned what we say to it
Put your head in a jar
And they'll fly you away to it
And you'll learn how to speak
Buzzing just like a bee
Blame it all on Lovecraft
'Cause it'll always be Yuggoth to me
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
John Gibson, Fox Newsie,... makes Americans looks stupid to the rest of the world.
Think Gnole-ish, not prole-ish
They say Pluto hasn't cleared its orbit. How do they know? Pluto's orbit doesn't actually intersect Neptune's, so the fact that it's eccentric enough to appear to cross on a plan view is irrelevant. Have they plotted enouh objects sharing Pluto's orbit to suggest that there are significantly more "Pluto Grazers" than there are "Earth grazers"?
And the argument about Charon and Pluto and Charon's center of gravity (a common one brought up by pundits) also applies to earth... because the Moon's orbit is concave to the Sun at every point the Earth and the Moon are equally accurately described as sharing an orbit in synchrony. There's no significance to the relation between the center of gravity and the surface... that's an accident of orbital distance and the density of the objects. The Earth and the Moon are as much a double-planet system as Pluto and Charon are a double-"pluton" system.
Not that astronomers have a monopoly over daft definitions. Zoological taxonomy is full of "if I call this a species I'll get tenure" decisions. Particularly among the entomologists.
Here's the direct link to the "Honk if Pluto is still a planet" bumper sticker...
http://www.cafepress.com/keepplutoaplane.71612518
Damn you, why didn't you provide links?!?!?1 I NEED to see that cat walks on its front feet story!
I don't get it. :)
If you're being anal retentive, you should actually correct the person you're correcting
100/2700*472=17.481..
I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
I can't take that post seriously at all. He can't be that stupid. It looks more like he is trolling for outrage. outrage == ratings. It is a formula FoxNews uses a lot.
You know, I'm real tired of these scientists taking out and changing things I know and accept. Pluto is the ninth planet and that's it. No 10 percent of a bunch of geeks attending a conference in some third world country is going to change the number of planets there are that revolve around the sun. Geeks attending a conference. Scientist geeks who have something against the planet Pluto. Probably the same geeky retards who tried to get the US to change to metric. Even the NASA scientists said this is bogus and I agree. And besides, I'm still steaming mad about whoever the heck it was that decided the Brontasaurus didn't exist anymore. Way to go douchbags, teach us about the Brontasaurus then long after I'm out of school say oops! Sorry, that's something else entirely, our bad. Right. No wonder so many Americans are willing to disbelieve evolution these days, the geek patrol nazi's can't seem to keep the same story.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?
How would you like to learn the names a dozen more planets? And that's just this year. You'll be learning a new planet every year from now on too, if you keep Pluto within the definition of a planet.
Unlearning something is easy. Way easier than learning a whole lotta new things.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Oh crap, we've gone and forgotten to think of the children again.
I think the Submitter, Ix, has a vested interest in this situation. Nine is still a cool number in my books, and I'll still call you a planet if makes you feel better.
Only if your country happens to be rich in oil.
And if your country happens to piss off the U.S., they'll come faster with trumped up WMD charges.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
The poor little guy has been downsized and outsourced to the Kuiper Belt.
Table-ized A.I.
Pluto is the door between 2 worlds - the one we know, and the one we don't. It divides our past from our future. It guards the threshold, historically, as well as physically. The Universe is a big cold place. We shouldn't be so frisky about kicking the door down.
--pegfrompluto
>> 'Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?'
Long ago we learned Earth was flat and saw no reason to unlearn it. So we burned those who thought otherwise. Same with Earth rotating the Sun.
Either we repeat history and burn the Pluto heretics, or accept that this new definition matches closer with the actual truth.
And what is so hard to accept about dwarf planets? There are dwarf and giant stars as well as gas giant planets. Why should there not be a definition for dwarf planets, when clearly they exist and we have a need to call these things suchs.
No actually, by allowing Pluto to remain a planet now that the Kuiper belt has been discovered would be changing the previously accepted "definition" of a planet
Ceres was once a "planet" too. Discoverer Father Giuseppe Piazzi in 1801 was looking for a planet in the large gap between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. A mathematic hypothesis existed at the time that a planet should be there. But Ceres was a planet for only a few months before other asteroid belt objects started being discovered. Ceres lost it's status because way back in 1801 - 1802 astronomers had the notion that a planet doesn't share its orbit with other like sized objects.
Pluto was a "planet" for over 1/2 a century before it was discovered it wasn't a planet, just one of many objects in the Kuiper belt. Unfortunately that was a long enough time for even politicians and Fox news personalities to learn it was a "planet", and god knows those guys can't un-learn anything!
--
Harvey
What was the previous definition?
emt 377 emt 4
I was taught the correct pronunciation of Uranus was emphasizing the first syllable.
That naturally doesn't stop the fuckwit tourists cracking asshole jokes everytime they visit the observatory and planetarium where I work.
For some reason they expect me to roll around on the floor laughing, as if it's the first time I've ever heard that one, and they become quite grumpy when I just roll my eyes or stare blankly, or---my personal favorite---completely ignore the comment.
Nobody intelligent sniggers about the name of a planet. If you plan to disagree then it may be time to think a little more about what I just said: "Nobody intelligent sniggers about the name of a planet."
Not to mention how confusing this is [going to be] to people who aren't following or can't follow the argument.
The "astronomically challenged" people who have asked me about this are divided between wondering if the IAU is becoming politically correct or just simply too interested in definition over discovery. (paraphrased for the sake of the post, but the term "navel contemplation" was part of one comment; and it's sorta scary that this has made the mainstream press enough that I have people who aren't science geeks asking about it. Mostly they are just confused. I can't blame them.)
It's a ridiculous debate and it's wasting way too much time and resources. It's like debating the definitions of Jupiter's plethora of moons. (That's not a moon, it's temporarily captured asteroidal body! Wait, it's a Not So Temporarily captured asteroidal body/has iron/carbonaceous/water-ice/blah blah properties\\ and therefore it deserves it's own proper name!)
How far is this going to go? Do we honestly need to keep (re)inventing two or three word definitions for everything? It's not like anything new is being invented here (well, plutons may qualify, but that sounds like something out of the Bugs Bunny cartoons) and anyway, we already have a name for them, they are Kuiper Belt Objects. Pluto was a planet long before KBO's were even thought of.
Sheesh. KISS. It's a planet (orbits the sun), it's a moon (orbits another body larger than it) or it's an asteroid (something too small to be a planet yet still orbits the sun). Those "in the know" can still keep using the same language we always have - it's a "body" w/characteristics mass, diameter, density, vector, composition, etc. Isn't the public at large confused enough? Does all this require yet another chapter in Astro 101 textbooks? (It may so, if just for the explanations!)
(meant to be at least partly humorous, of course, depending on the defintion of humor and only after a thorough analysis of the grammatical properties and social implications of the text posted)
Semi-Coherent Rant(SCR) over, you may now return to your regularly scheduled mental programming, and big Carlinesque Fuck You to everyone, just to be friendly.
SB
blah blah disclaimer, IAAAAWDOF,M (I Am An Amateur Astronomer Who Drinks On Fridays, Mostly)
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
The difference between science and religion is that science changes its mind about things in response to better information.
Science corrects its mistakes.
Everything you know could be wrong. Question it.
Faith is not a virtue.
Mercury is twice the size and 4 times the mass of Pluto.
Mercury has a circular orbit, on the planetery plane, and has cleared its orbit.
There is only one body like Mercury, whereas there are many like pluto.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
I am a layman but I feel it in my gut that it is not right to demote Pluto. Even experts like Physics Professor Bill Blass and NASA's Dr Alan Stern disagree with IAU's decision. As a concerned citizen, I have started a petition against this decision at http://pleasesavepluto.org/ and we need like-minded individuals' support. Thanks in advance.
You might have learned that Pluto was a planet but guess what, officially it was never a planet because there was no official astronomic definition of the word. They finally got around to creating one now because of the 2 NEW Pluto-like "planets" discovered recently. So no matter how this vote went your precious childhood memories were going to get broken. Either:
- Pluto is not a planet so now there are 8 instead of 9
OR
- Pluto is a planet, but therefore so are the other 2 so now there are 11 instead of 9. And keep in mind that most astronomers think it's likely that we will discover more Pluto-sized objects, raising the "planet" count even more.
The IAU did exactly the right thing. Pluto is clearly very different from Mars, Earth, Jupiter, etc on one hand, but on the other it's not exactly a comet either. Now we know that it's a dwarf planet, the first of probably many we'll find in our system.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Since what we have been calling atoms are clearly not indivisible, "atom" is actually a misnomer.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Why? Because it's a large object not trapped in any particular orbital period and has no obvious objects in the region of space that it orbits. I mean, come on, it has an orbital period of 508 years and it's not gravitationally locked with any objects that we know of. Also, if you're going to claim that Pluto or another object like 2003 EL61 is too close to 2003 UB313 (AKA Xena), then you have to demote Mercury Venus Earth and Mars, because they come within "mere" tens of millions of miles of each other.
Strange but true. If there were lots of objects near 2003 UB313 that were nearly the same size, we'd have seen them by now. And before anyone says, well the object is flattened by it's rotation, have you checked Jupiter recently? The sucker is considered a planet and it looks like a ball in one of those fun mirrors that make you look fat, all from the 10 hour rotational period.
So yeah, demote Pluto if you want, but promote "Xena."
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
For those of you who might have trouble learning new things:
My Very Educated Mother Just Showed... Uhhhhh, Nevermind.
Isn't it great!?!!111
Please stop stalking me, bro.
"Long ago I learned the Earth was flat and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?"
Who defines "official"? All you have to do is go look it up in a dictionary:
And that's where this astronomical committee runs into trouble. They're redefining a word which has an English definition that will now be distinct from their technical definition. Anyone who speaks English can go on calling Pluto a planet, without qualification - there's nothing to unlearn, unless you plan to have a discussion with an excessively anal astronomer who believes that classifications like this somehow constitute science. Puh-leeze.
Is it not that simple that the "planet" was discovered by an american? when Pluto loses planetarian status, america will not have discovered a single planet in our solar system. I think this attitude is kind of silly, you should look at how many planets that you have discovered along othe solar systems instead of making a thing out of this.
It's actually a remarkable fact that we will be able to tell our grandchildren that, "back when I was your age, we learned that there were nine planets in the solar system."
Hopefully by then, however, there will be a colony on mars and a teraton more extrasolar planets known.
If we were to change it, every single teacher in every country would have to go back to university to learn a new jingle.
My Very Elderly Mother Just Sewed Us New Pants.
Eight planet Theory:
M___ V____ E____ M____ J____ S____ U____ N___
Twelve planet Theory:
M___ V___ E___ M____ C____ J___ S____ U____ N____ P____ C____ 2
Doesn't work, we need something un-vulgar, and catchy.
"John Gibson does an incredible Stephen Colbert impersonation" wow.. silly neo con who wrote this.. go to hell. john gibson is about as funny as stephen's right nut.
So anything we discover out there that's not an asteroid or a comet becomes a planet? How about the MESSENGER spacecraft? Oh, you meant to exclude artificial objects? Ok, how about 2004 XR190? Oh, you meant to exclude trans-Neptunian objects? Ok, how about interstellar dust? Hmm, defining the word "planet" isn't that simple after all.
It's silly to define a word like "planet" in terms of what it's not. There will always be new things we discover out there that we don't want to call "planets" and so we'll have to keep updating the definition. Instead, the IAU made an effort to define what a planet is.
If we don't use the terms defined by specialists in the field, what should we use? Should we still be diagnosing women with female hysteria?
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
What did you expect? We should fly a "planetometer" out to Pluto and check the reading?
There are no experimental results that depend on Pluto's planetary status. It isn't science. It's just a label. Politics is how such things are decided.
If we're going to be pedantic and say Pluto isn't a planet, then can we finally admit Abe initially didn't give a hoot about slavery?
"and it's sorta scary that this has made the mainstream press enough that I have people who aren't science geeks asking about it."
:-)
Something a bit off-topic: My understanding of English isn't that good. Could you please rephrase this in some more verbose way? I'm not sure whether "mainstream press" is involved in if or whether just "mainstream" "presses" something because of this event. But still, neither of these options does make any sense to me anyway.
first of all, fuck fox news.. second of all, we don't need to be teaching kids anything that isn't true.. its simple.. if pluto deserves to be called a planet, then so does the other 50 things exactly like pluto that is in our solar system.. i personally liked the idea of calling all those dwarf planets in our solar system, "Plutons", leaving a nice legacy of Pluto to be learned by children.. I think that people should be taught that we made a mistake, and we corrected it because over time we became smarter, and developed better technology to help understand these kinds of things.. but to keep living a lie, is just wrong.. who cares about your childhood sexual fantasies with pluto.. just fuckin drop it already..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
changing the type may confuse the people and may not do as desired. i mean we humans attach terms to objects out of usage even though it is not it.
like cracking and hacking. it seems the mixup between the two led to the definition of hacking to be as cracking. this might fragment the people's belief of planets.
anyway, they specifically narrowed the planet definition to the solar system as defined by the sun. instead of trying to find a word for it, why not tell specifically that a planet can either be mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter, saturn, neptune, and uranius instead. why all the vague definition since it does not apply to objects found outside of the solar system. i don't see finding a new object as big as earth between uranius and mercury.
i just find it weird that it is limited to the solar system. they want to create other definition or words such as planetoids for planets not found in the solar system?
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
The BBC article was biased, IMHO. There were statements by 4 or 5 people opposed to the decision, but only one by a supporter, which didn't even go into the reasons WHY Pluto was demoted. True, there are details that need to be worked out in the definition, but overall, it's still good. And as for the decision being revisionist, which is worse? Demoting one planet or adding tens to hundreds?
My Very Earnest Mother Just Showed Us Nipples.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Um, dictionaries record, they do not define, usage. Therefore your argument boils down to: "Pluto is a planet because that's what we've been calling it, and because that's what we've been calling it that's what's in the dictionary, and because the dictionary says "Pluto is a planet," Pluto is a planet.'
i think this decision is a long time in the coming, the many arguments against its classification as a 'planet' like jupiter, earth & the rest all make sense. the only problem i have is stopping my self saying 'neptune and ...' when rhyming them off, i cant seem to make myself say 'and neptune'. anyway, i imagine it'll take til next monday for this to make it onto every pub quiz in london.
jaymz
Hello, here's what plutonians have to say about what happened. www.messagefrompluto.com Please give your feedback.
The point is, there's an accepted definition. That the definition is based in historical usage doesn't change the fact that a definition exists.
Even longer ago I learned the Sun had eight planets, then came the Liberals and invented Pluto. Damned Liberal Media defending that myth!
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Now we will all have to relearn the catch jingles we were taught in elementary school to help us memorize the planets.
Again that is irrelevent. The argument 'If you speak English, Pluto is officially a planet' is patently a nonsense because there is no Académie Anglaise. The dictionary does not make anything official because it DOES NOT dictate the meaning of words, it RECORDS it. It is only by mutual agreement that words can convey meaning - they have no intrinsic meaning of their own.
You're still arguing my point. The point is that an astronomical committee can't dictate the meaning of the English word "Pluto". The mutual agreement that caused the term to end up in the dictionary is as close to "official" as it gets.
. The point is that an astronomical committee can't dictate the meaning of the English word "Pluto".
Wrong. All it takes is for people to agree with them.
The mutual agreement that caused the term to end up in the dictionary is as close to "official" as it gets.
You remember that next time they bring out the 2007 dictionaries - I'll expect to hear you complaining about the changes.
This seems like a stupid solution. Dwarf planets.
We have planets such as Jupiter with rings and moons.
And thus, our Sun should have Planets and Rings, Spheres or Belts.
Just define Belts/rings,spheres as an area of space with a great many objects orbiting the sun in a similar range of orbits, none of which can be agreed upon as the dominant object, or planet.
I mean, Jupiter was a planet while it was still "cleaning" the neighborhood IMHO. So as soon as we find other younger planetary systems we'll have to revise this once again.
"Um, we spotted a Jupiter sized planet orbiting a star with moons and such, but not enough time has passed for it to clear it's neighborhood. It'll be a planet in a few billion years, but it's a dwarf right now"
How dumb is that, to define planet based on our brief moment in time.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Honestly, do you really think that Pluto cares what we, a far far away planet with a questionable society, think about them? I'm sure they laugh at us.
Not to mention that a sentence like "Is Pluto more different from Mars than Mars is from Jupiter?" just proves you don't have a damn clue what you're arguing about, and you just don't want to change what you already 'know'.
You seem to be saying that I'm not willing to change my mind about things. Maybe you didn't actually read my post very closely--I'm in favor of changing Pluto's status because of what we now know. We agree.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
http://farcefoundation.blogspot.com/
This just in! 300 scientists signed a petition to upgrade Pluto back to a planet! That's THIRTY more scientists than voted to demote it!
To use your quote: "If we don't use the terms defined by specialists in the field, what should we use?" Specialists in the field now prefer the term "planet".
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Such a big problem have to be sorted out elaboratedly. I vote Pluto to be destroyed by a special NASA misile. At least we will show the USA power to the whole world.
What's dumb is inventing an unnecessary new "dwarf planets" category when we already have "minor planets" and then replacing the term "minor planets" with the unwieldy "small solar system bodies".
The simplest and least disruptive action would be just to declare Pluto a minor planet.
My understanding was that there was not a sufficiently explicit one, knowledge which I think even a cursory reading of any of the articles mentioned in the last week or two would yield. If this helps at all, Mirriam Webster says a planet is
a : any of the seven celestial bodies sun, moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and Saturn that in ancient belief have motions of their own among the fixed stars
b (1) : any of the large bodies that revolve around the sun in the solar system (2) : a similar body associated with another star