Slashdot Mirror
Illinois Declares Pluto a Planet
The Bad Astronomer writes "The legislators in Illinois, always on the lookout for more places to find voters, have passed a resolution declaring Pluto is a planet. I'm not sure what else can be said here, except that — besides overstepping their jurisdiction just a wee bit — they make a couple of scientific howlers in the resolution itself."
Everybody knows Pluto is a dog.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
When you define pi to have a value of 3, the calculations say Pluto is a planet.
Hehe, makes me think of the Indiana Pi Bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
Slashdot declares Illinois retarded
Why no one trusts them to get things done anymore... We're in the biggest financial crisis in years and they spent the time to declare Pluto a planet. It means nothing, is non binding, and shows a huge disconnect between the political scene and the general populace.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Yo mama is so fat...Illinois declared her a planet
New joke meme?
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Although they can measure in different ways I wouldn't act like such a jackass unless you've actually been to the planet.
Also who cares what it's called. I see it as refreshing that they're at least not trying to deny its existence like the ID crowd do with evolution.
and I declare Illinois a corn field.
You can't handle the truth.
Yeah. I vote that Illinois also changes the definition of a mile and shortens it so that their residents can get more miles to the gallon! I also vote that they cut the definition of an hour down to 30mins to shorten my working day.
Consensus and standards be damned, they're just definitions!
Want good science education, come to Illinois, the state that bans "evolution" and teaches creationism.
Seems as though it is.
Clearly, Illinois is not a place to get yourself educated.
No, no, it is! If you just redo the calculations with pi = 3, it all works out!
Check the track record of leaders. Less than squeaky-clean past governors and other politicians with criminal records (mostly corruption-related)... what's that place called... Crook County?
I was personally shaken down in Champaign just this past week. (I'll spell it out some other time, when pending legal action I am taking is concluded.)
I went out of my way not to drink any of the water in Illinois, so as not to become personally corrupted by whatever may be in it.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
On other news: if a court says creationism is a science, it is.
Privacy is terrorism.
There are now 8 planets in the UNIVERSE because they defined a planet as a body orbiting the sun. The definition sucks so I have no problem if states are defining a planet as something else than a small club of grey men(IAU).
You can say that it's "just a definition", but I don't see where it's the place of a legislature to make scientific definitions to scientists. Legislatures supposedly have better things to do. If they don't, they should recess until that changes.
The IAU definition of a planet is more extensive than that. Also, while I haven't read the IAU text, I doubt their definition means that there are only eight planets in the universe. The only thing I don't like about their definition is that their use of "dwarf" in "dwarf planet" basically means "not a planet", and I think that's inconsistent and improper use of the word.
Reminds me of story by Woddy Allen where two university professors had an argument about whether the bell marked the ending of a lesson or the beginning of a new one.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Press: "When will we send a man to our new planet Pluto?
Illinois legislature: "As soon as Rod Blagojevich has his bags packed."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I agree with the need of a scientific definitions and the definition they came up with when they tried to define the word "planet" was good.
Only one problem. The word "planet" was already in use by the general public and the meaning of the world "planet" is: One of the celestial objects that used to be called "planet".
Now the astronomers came up with a good classification of objects, but they also needed to come up with new words fitting their classifications. Otherwise they are just saying "We have redefined one of the words you are using, just obey us".
In summary, the astronomers doesn't own the word "planet", the general public do.
For a nice date: Call strftime(3C)!
Well it depends on how you define SUN
Our Sun is a star called Sol We call it the Sun because it is what we are in orbit around. If we were in orbit around an other star we would call that Star the Sun.
The more formal defination of a Planet is the following.
1. It Orbits around a Sun.
2. Its shape is Spherical
3. It is large enough to have or can attract and clear up other objects in its orbit.
#3 is the problem with Pluto with its orbit crossing Neptune once the time gets right and Neptune gets to close it will just Suck up Pluto and not the other way around. So even it Pluto was the size of the earth if it was where Pluto is now it wouldn't be considered a planet.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In other news, a giant robotic Neil deGrasse Tyson was seen bursting through the walls of the Illinois Capitol Building, saying, "Pluto is a Plutoid. You have 30 seconds to comply."
People of Illinois,
we have duly noted your recent reconsideration of Pluto and its classification. We appreciate this sign of good-will and will take it into account in our upcoming invasion of Earth.
Although I can make no promises at this point, I am able to inform you that sparing your lives is currently viewed favourably amongst our population.
Yours sincerely,
Gral Rex,
Minister of Earth Affairs, Government of Pluto
p.s. to the rest of mankind: You are all still toast.
Being a planet is a valuable thing. So, how much did it cost Pluto?
[Insert pithy quote here]
You can't legislate a fact. The Catholic church couldn't make the world flat, no matter how hard they tried. This is no different.
"The IAU definition of a planet is more extensive than that."
A celestial body that is (a) in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
They've obviously solved all the other problems in the state if have time to spend on this. I've never been there but it must be a great place to live.
Now quit dilly-dallying and start taking care of the real issues.
I know, I know, good luck with that.
~Mike (Titan_X)
"If an elected group of people decide that pi equals 3, who are a bunch of snobbish mathematicians to deny that?"
See how fucking retarded that sounds?
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Aaaah, now it becomes obvious why you're promoting ignorance so heavily. My guess is you base too much of your identity in being "smarter" than others.
is that the voters don't understand that even if it's just a resolution, passing stuff like this is costing them valuable tax dollars.
The sun is what we orbit around. A star is what the Sun is one of.
"Our Sun is a star called Sol We call it the Sun because it is what we are in orbit around. If we were in orbit around an other star we would call that Star the Sun."
And if my anut had a moustache, she would be my uncle.
The Sun is a clearly defined object with a name(Sun or Sol for people who like to switch to Latin for no apparent reason) otherwise the definition would refer to A sun not THE Sun.
I don't get how much people are trying to wiggle themselves out of the hole created by the IAU while still defending it.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
If Pluto isn't a planet, it will cost a bunch of money to replace all the fifty year old science texts.
If Pluto is a planet, they can keep using the fifty year old science texts.
What, you think I'm kidding! You obviously aren't a teacher.
My grandfather taught me when I was 8 that there are four inner (solid) planets, and four outer (gaseous) planets, separated by the asteroid belt. Anything else is not a planet, and Pluto certainly should not be.
But oh, if Illinois says it's true then it must be!
Hurray...
There are now 8 planets in the UNIVERSE because they defined a planet as a body orbiting the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_definition_of_planet This definition states that a body in our solar system is a planet if ... yadda yadda yadda.
The definition doesn't say that things outwith our solar system are not planets, it simply doesn't say anything about them, either way.
And while there seems to be *majority* scientific consensus on the status of pluto, most objections seem to be based on the fact that its people's "favourite" planet because its named after a disney character...
I can see the revised textbooks now:
"Pluto is the second largest dwarf planet* in the Solar System's Kuiper Belt.
* Except in the State of Illinois."
-Valen
There is a huge difference. There is a rationale for the value of Pi. Claiming it as a different value is plain wrong.
The meaning of a word like planet is arbitrary. It means what the consensus says it means. There is no right or wrong answer.
The non-problem that the IAU was trying to solve is that though some things are clearly planets (e.g. Jupiter, the Earth) some things are clearly not (Most asteroids, moons etc.) there are some bodies that are in a grey area. So what? Most nouns are not perfectly unambiguously defined in all circumstances defined.
Don't argue. There's already three astronomers at the bottom of Lake Michigan who "begged to differ."
It's the Chicago way.
...Uranus is Blagojevich what do you expect.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
Wow. With Colorado declaring IE 6 safer than Firefox, and now this, one wonders what Florida and Texas will cough up for today's news cycle. I'm THIS close to actually being entertained!
-FL
Until Pluto can save the Economy, talking about whether it's a planet or not during these times is the last thing Illinois or the federal government needs discuss.
string.Empty();
You'd better tell the Greeks that they can't use their letter anymore, since some group of mathematicians decided that it's actually a number. Also, tell the mathematicians to find a different symbol to use for productions and projections. Heaven forbid physicists disrupt the natural order with their heretical "pi mesons".
Or maybe we can accept that symbols can have multiple definitions.
And if my anut had a moustache, she would be my uncle.
O rly?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
One could make the argument that the concept of "nine planets" is ingrained in popular culture. The scientific reasons why Pluto is not a planet are fairly technical, and scientists who try to explain this come off a bit like the annoying guy at a cocktail party who corrects your pronunciation. The natural inclination is to put that guy back in his place. It is a little ridiculous and unnecessary; when kicking out Pluto, the IAU could have at the same time declared that there are nine "historical planets" and left the technical discourse to people who are actually interested in that.
The law is written thusly: "that as Pluto passes overhead through Illinois night skies, that it be reestablished with full planetary status"
Because Illinois is a northerly state... does Pluto ever actually pass "overhead"? Ever? Pluto's orbital inclination to the sun is about 11 degrees at maximum. The latitude of Illinois is much higher than that, at about 36 degrees. So Pluto may never pass through their air space, even if the borders of Illinois are extended upwards to infinity.
But since Pluto can never truly be "overhead", does that mean the law never actually goes into effect?
Comments? Suggestions?
Where's the -1 Universe Is Not Just Our Solar System mod?
How come this isn't tagged suddenoutbreakofcommonsense? Pluto is a planet.
Nice selective quoting there. You missed a bit: "states that in the Solar System a planet is" .. so this definition doesn't apply outside the solar system, it doesn't say that things outwith the solar system cannot be planets.
3. It is large enough to have or can attract and clear up other objects in its orbit.
#3 is the problem with Pluto with its orbit crossing Neptune once the time gets right and Neptune gets to close it will just Suck up Pluto and not the other way around.
I would imagine that most of the planets will one day end up either being enveloped by the sun or by Jupiter. I agree that it is ridiculous that Illinois would "declare" Pluto a planet, but the IAU was the first to be ridiculous by arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand as to what a planet was and then declaring that what everyone had said was a planet for the last 80 years is now not one.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
BANKRUPTCY!!!
Gah, foiled again by the bearded lady.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Neptune will never "suck up" Pluto. They are in a 3:2 mean motion resonance, so although their orbits cross, they will never collide.
http://www.nineplanets.org/plutodyn.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
who are a bunch of snobbish scients to deny that?
They are, uh, the appropriate scientific institution. They're also, you know, informed?
Say what you like about the IAU defintion, but its a scientific definition made by scientists.
When the powers that be start defining things they aren't properly informed on, in a manner different to the rest of the world, things get pointlessly confused.
If an elected group of people were to decide that within their durestriction, the speed of light in vacuum is 2 * 10^8 m/s, this changes nothing about the state of the world, but is liable to cause significant issues for physicists working in their durestriction, and particularly for cross-durestriction collaborations.
When the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures defined the speed of light as 299,792,458 m/s in 1983, they were not doing so as elected representatives of the people of Earth, they were doing so as the appropriate scientific institution. This definition clearly didn't change reality in any way, what it did do was give a global definition such that individuals wouldn't use their own favoured definitions and cause inconsistancies when the same calculation is performed by different parties.
Definition of planet, speed of light, I see no real difference here. It doesn't matter how right the definition is, as long as we agree to use it. Consider for instance the average mass of a planet in our solar system. With a standard global definition, this value is simple to agree upon. Without one, you need caveats. If you have caveats for every definition known to man, achieving any consensus quickly becomes a ridiculous process.
This resolution will never kick in, will it? The text says:
But Pluto will never be directly overhead in Illinois. The state is too far from the equator to ever get pointed straight at the ecliptic. Or does the tilt of Earth's axis and the inclination of Pluto's orbit really put it overhead of Illinois once in a while? Any astronomy nerds care to calculate when that will happen?
... they have more important things on their minds right now. Just goes to show how staggeringly idiotic local (and national) level politicians can be.
legislated that pi be exactly equal to 3 or 22/7 or something.
Why can't we introduce the death penalty for stupidity?
I think its great. IT's a harmless resolution that takes a subtle dig back at what is perceived an internationalist body that some argue robbed an American of credit for a scientific discovery. Pluto is a planet in Illinois, by a non-binding resolution. Good for them!
This is my sig.
The lawyers and politicians will save us.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
If we were in orbit around an other star we would call that Star the Sun.
We might not if it was a binary system.
INACCURATE!!!
I will have you know that facial hair does NOT equate gender. This is why so-called "neck beards" do not make you a man and why you can have "Bearded Ladies".
Gender is defined based on chromosomes and I think on a species to species basis.
#3 is the problem with Pluto with its orbit crossing Neptune once the time gets right and Neptune gets to close it will just Suck up Pluto and not the other way around. So even it Pluto was the size of the earth if it was where Pluto is now it wouldn't be considered a planet.
Wait so the earth isn't a planet either because when we cross paths with the sun it will suck us up.
By that definition nothing is a planet, next to whatever the biggest piece of shit in this galaxy is (whatever the hell it is).
A far easier definition would have been a planet is 10 million miles wide or weighs 2.38 billon pounds. The other is left open to whoever wants to interpret it, such as I did in my first paragraph.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
CHICAGO - Federal authorities have indicted several Illinios Senators on corruption charges after an undercover investigation. According to tapes released, Senators called a number of planetoids asking "what they could get" for the title of planet. Rod Blagojevich was unavailable for comment.
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
So, that's why astrologists were cheering this morning! ;) Or, maybe Mercury is in retrograde resulting in an error of judgement by Illinois politicians? I mean, it's not like we have a shitty economy or anything important to worry about at this point in time.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Well you know, that whole business of a bunch of geek bastards chortling over their tiny bit of power by 'changing' the designation of Pluto does stick in my craw. SOB's were all laughing and happy with their efforts at FUBARing our knowledge of the Universe/Solar System and for no good reason other than to screw with us. Every time I see that San Fran Neils guy with his anti Pluto smirk I just want to punch him in the face. Screw those guys and the idiots who changed the name of the Brontosaurus and all that other crap. At least the Legislators reflect the people and if we don't like them we can unelect them, these smirking Pluto killers seem to have tenure but yeah our legislators can take their funding away from them so there is that.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
There's a reason why you've been modded down so heavily already. You keep arguing, 'It's just a definition', but when people provide counter examples, you state that those things clearly have a defined purpose, however in another post you also stated that it doesn't matter what you call something, as it is what it is. Your thoughts on the subject are contradictory and are obviously there just to incite flamewars. I suggest in the future you actually make sense.
Just because they've got pi on their faces over goofy resolutions, that's no reason to deny that Pluto is a planet.
You Pluto-haters will get yours.
Our President came from this state. I think I'll start stockpiling canned foods, ammo, and guns like the rest of the hillbilly's down south.
On behalf of Illinois I most humbly and sincerely apologize for the frightening depth of stupidity displayed by our state legislature. I suspect it has something to do with the water in Springfield or somesuch.
Start calling Pluto an asteroid... and it's starts acting like one. http://www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/pluto.jpg
Yes. Just follow the money. That'll lead you to who's really behind this reclassification. Ask yourself, who stands to benefit most by saying that Pluto is a planet? On the one hand you have the new textbook printers who are looking to make a lot of money on new astronomy text books. And on the other, you have school boards with tight budgets and astronomy texts that are just fine except for one inconvenient "fact". There's also the Disney Corporation. Having a character named after a planet earned them a certain amount of free publicity, a certain je-ne-sait-quoi. They would not be above lining a few political pockets to get Pluto re-instated. Oh, and let's not forget all the science museums who now have to change all their solar system models and retrain all of their staff. When you throw in the countless companies who use Pluto as a company slogan or in their trademarks, the disgruntled housewives with a bone to pick with the International Astronomical Union, the t-shirt companies who stand to make millions off of this, and the rich conspiracy nutcases, the picture is a lot muddier than a simple case of idiot politicians making a dumb decision. Follow the money.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
... to get the alien vote.
So yeah, it is their duty to do things like this. They are reflecting the wishes and desires of their constituents. So it's exactly what they are supposed to be doing.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
http://fora.tv/2009/02/04/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_The_Pluto_Files#chapter_04 Planets are more defined than that. At least as of when the Pluto decision was voted on.
Um... "... named after a disney character"??? Please tell me you meant "... has a Disney character named after it"?
(It is, in fact, named after the Roman god of the underworld.)
Whew, sure glad that's over with, because after all, if we didn't have the unanimous vote of all 50 states in North America, there was little chance for the rest of the world to decide poor Plutos fate.
Cripes Illinois, give me a break. Here's an idea, how about you go off and work on something a bit more useful, like a new spelling for your state so kids won't have to be still learning how to spell it in the 4th grade.
I suggest we in Illinois stop paying the members of our General Assembly until they start doing actual work which benefits the residents of the state. That'll be a start at the budget deficit they caused and apparently feel is less important than showing their ignorance of fifth-grade science.
They already tried that once
We were lost, none of us knew where we were. Then Harry starts 'feeling around on all the trees' and he says... "I got it we on Pluto", I say, 'Harry how can ya tell", and he says, "from the bark, you dummies... Ha-ha! From the bark!"
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
If an elected group of people decide that Pluto is a planet(which changes absolutely NOTHING),
Yes, it bloody well does change something. It creates the idea that Pluto shares more things in common with the 8 planets, than with Eris or Ceres or Haumea or Makemake.
But ofcourse you don't care about facts, you don't care about reality, you don't care about proper scientific education, you only care about the "snobbishness" instead.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
"Who are a bunch of snobbish scientist?"
The issue isn't WHO, (it's you who reveal yourserf a snob by asking that question), the issue is WHAT. And the answer is THAT THEY ARE CORRECT.
Pluto isn't a planet. Pluto should never have been called a planet. DEAL.
And the fucking government doesn't have a job trying to dictate science to scientists.
The official name of our sun is Sun. Sol is commonly used in science fiction but is just latin for sun and is not the official name.
The is the same as our moon the official name is Moon, it is commonly referred to in sci-fi as Luna.
So if you were in orbit around a planet that orbits a different star you could refer to it as the local star or local sun or by its official name, such as the 2nd nearest star to us being Proxima Centauri (of the Alpha Centauri solar system).
"The meaning of a word like planet is arbitrary. It means what the consensus says it means. There is no right or wrong answer."
Yes, there might not be "right" answer and "wrong" answers, but there are good answers and there are bad answers.
And the bad answers are those answers that are given with no regards whatsoever to consistency. The bad answers are those answers that are given for all the wrong reasons.
What is the Illinois senate attempting to do with this proclamation? Claim that Pluto is a more significant body than Eris? If so, they're WRONG. Claim that it has more in common with e.g. Neptune than with Makemake? If so, they're WRONG.
It means what the consensus says it means. There is no right or wrong answer. [...] So what? Most nouns are not perfectly unambiguously defined in all circumstances defined.
Nouns that denote scientific objects need reasonably specific definitions. The ambiguity of meaning is a problem in these situations. Those who are knowledgeable of the matter, those who need such a specific definition, are those who should make such decisions. (Specifically, a consensus of such specialists.) Certainly the noun might find itself used in a broader, more common, sense outside of science.
I think there is another point to be made. The reason "planet" has been used to describe this object we call "Pluto" isn't because of some sort of folksy wisdom that "of course it's a planet!" Most people's belief that Pluto even exists is based completely upon the word of such specialists. We have, for years, depended upon their definition of planet to include Pluto, but exclude other orbiting bodies. Now that these specialists have determined that a reclassification needs to be made, I find it a little silly to buck against this change.
If cell biologists, for whatever reason, decided that a ribosome does not fit the most reasonable definition of an organelle (a decision I think they are best suited to make), I would certainly feel a little silly telling people, "Well, it's still an organelle to me!"
Illinois redefines "retarded" to mean "most smartiest place in the world."
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
You seem to be a sincere troll so I will speak honestly.
The thing is, they haven't changed Pluto's status just for the sake of it. It was a matter of consistency. If pluto-like objects were to be considered planets, we would have about 13 planets in the Solar System right now, and that number is steadily increasing. So the right thing to do was to remove Pluto (and it's pals) from the planets club, because they really have nothing in common with them. It was correcting a historical anomaly, only.
And if you think that a international body of scientist is not the most indicated to make scientific definitions, well. Pity.
entropy happens
Please tell me you're kidding. I don't want to exist in the same universe with someone as stupid as you'd have to be otherwise.
I disagree. It's a more rigid definition based on increased understanding of the phenomena.
Grandfathering in Pluto because people used to think it was a planet would be no more acceptable than giving every large Kuiper object that we discover (and we've already discovered ones that are bigger than Pluto) planetary status.
Either way the schoolkids are gonna be pissed off, but it's not a popularity contest.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
We're lucky they didn't declare it a Senator!
Since this is actually “serious” legislation, does this mean that children going to school in Illinois will be taught that Pluto is a planet?
The new "definition" by the IAU is asinine and was voted on by just 424 self-appointed members of a 9000 member group of astronomers who do not even represent all of the world's astronomers. The people of Illinois have as much right as the IAU, scientists or not. In related news, 500 geographers get drunk at a convention in Las Vegas and officially adopt the Dymaxion Map of the world as the official description of the Earth, and declare that there is only one Continent comprising all the worlds land masses surrounded by a single World Ocean. The move is condemned by most of the public, but is fiercely defended by a bunch of dweebs on Slashdot as "really cool".
There are now 8 planets in the UNIVERSE because they defined a planet as a body orbiting the sun. The definition sucks so I have no problem if states are defining a planet as something else than a small club of grey men(IAU).
This statement is incorrect. The resolution in 2006 solely applied to bodies in the Solar system. Extrasolar bodies' planetary status were sorted out back in 2003:
1. Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.
2. Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed nor where they are located.
3. Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet#Extrasolar_planets_and_brown_dwarfs
Also, while I haven't read the IAU text, I doubt their definition means that there are only eight planets in the universe.
It lies in the details of their wording.
They define a planet as a body orbiting _THE_ sun, not _A_ sun.
While there are countless suns out there in the universe, there is only one 'The Sun' (Sol), and Sol only has 8 planets orbiting it, thus according to their definition, these 8 orbiting Sol are the only things allowed to be called planets.
All the other real planets orbiting suns that are not our sun, do not fall in the definition at all, thus are not planets ever according to them.
Now, I of course think that their choice is a) full of crap, and b) not their choice to make, and c) they can say it and pass laws on it all they want, it won't change the fact they are still wrong...
But that is what they are making claims to.
Sorta like passing a law that says the sky is not up. Have fun enforcing either of those.
Ironically, my captcha is 'nonempty'
Was it not Illinois who in 19th century decided to fix the value of Pi to 3.0, or something like that? Or was it Indiana?
I disavow any responsibility for the stupid fucknuts in Illinois government.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I assumed that this was merely proposed and probably would not even get voted on but it actually passed.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0046&GAID=10&DocTypeID=SR&LegID=40752&SessionID=76&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=96
Actions
Date Chamber Action
2/3/2009 Senate Filed with Secretary
2/3/2009 Senate Referred to Assignments
2/10/2009 Senate Assigned to Executive
2/19/2009 Senate Be Adopted Executive; 012-000-000
2/19/2009 Senate Placed on Calendar Order of Secretary's Desk Resolutions February 20, 2009
2/26/2009 Senate Resolution Adopted
After all, the elected the Big BO to their legislature, and the the US senate and now we're stuck with him screwing this planet too
Some of the specialists decided in a meeting that was far from fully attended.
They came up with a definition of planet that includes "dominates its neighborhood". Really.
The definition just got a lot more complicated for no other reason that some people not liking that Pluto might be a planet. So they came up with "dwarf planet" which somehow means that it isn't a planet.
This means that if Pluto and Mercury swapped places that Mercury would suddenly no longer be a planet and Pluto would be. The definition of planet is no dominated by its location in proximity to other things and not anything inherent in the object itself.
This could lead to all sorts of weirdness. Another part of the definition is that it must lie in the planetary plane (circular logic much?). So what if we discover a star with 2 "planets", which do we choose to be a planet and which do we choose to now be a dwarf planet?
For whatever reasons, the IAU didn't get much right with this definition. The elegant definition would have just added a few "planets", big deal.
t
So what happened?
- Pluto was discovered and named a planet
- Generations of kids are taught that pluto is one of nine planets
- More planets with approximate same size get discovered
- Astronomy recognizes that we cannot be sure of the total number of objects circling the sun
- But we need a number of planets we can we teach kids, so they can write tests and get grades
- Astronomers change the definition of what constitues a planet so that they won't get embarrassed again
The problem with having Pluto being a regular planet not that you have nine planets, it's that you end up with a much larger number of planets as a lot of kuiper belt objects are better matches for planet status than Pluto.
Pluto doesn't look like any of the other planets in other ways, such as having a 'moon' so big that its center of mass isn't inside itself. In fact Charon is 11% of Pluto's mass, and while the Moon (Luna) looks huge, its mass is only 1% of the Earth's.
Just as interesting, Charon doesn't orbit Pluto, making it the only 'planet' with a non-orbiting satellite. Aditionally this satelitte has a mean distance that is less than 20 times Pluto's radius. To put that in perspective, that'd make the Moon orbit at 120,000 km - about a third that of its current orbit. And if we wanted to put it even more into perspective, the Moon would also have to grow significantly to something like 3 times its current size (haven't done the math). While that would be interesting from an astronomical point of view, I'm fairly certain we wouldn't enjoy the increased gravitational pull. If you think high tide is bad now, imagine what it'd be like if the ground itself moved up and down with the tides.
We use definitions, like the word planet, to make things easier. If we can use one definition to describe the planets, and then have to go "oh, and it's okay if they don't lie in the same plane as everything else, as long as they're no more than 50 AU away from the Sun, and have a huge eccentric orbit compared to every other planet", then it doesn't really fit the same definition.
In fact, just looking at orbital eccentricity it'd difficult to argue that Pluto (and Mercury) is in the same class as the other 7 planets. Mercury has a slight excuse since it's 100 times closer to the sun.
But, to jump on your main point:
"declaring that what everyone had said was a planet for the last 80 years is now not one"
That's the thing about science. Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop.
What have we discovered/come to realise in the last 80 years, that we took for granted back then? How about asbestos not being good for you? Smoking not being good for you? That you could in fact go faster than the speed of sound? That DDT isn't the safest way to get rid of bugs?
How about something a bit more down to earth? Like plate tectonics. I mean, if you were to go back in time to the 1930s, when Pluto was discovered, and told people that the earth's surface was made up of large slabs of rock, floating on an inner sea of molten rock, and that these massive plates moved, shifting continents around and that the Earth of today looks nothing like the earth of 100 million years ago, you'd either be comitted to mental 'care', or just outright laughed at.
But, if you prefer sticking to your guns, defending something that we thought was correct 80 years ago, then why not do one better and defend astrology. That's even older.
Just to clarify, the Sun is called Sol because as we name stars that we observe, we needed a name for our sun. Many scientific names are based in Latin, so there is no surprise there.
Also, the definition you are using from the IAU is used to define planets in our solar system. "Extrasolar planets" is the term for planets not in our solar system.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
given what's crawled out of IL in recent weeks.
Earth is neither a perfect sphere nor a plane, but is it round? Where do we draw the line? Is 1% acceptable deviation? How about 5%? Is dodecahedron round? How about a hundred sided dice?
If we one day declare dodecahedron round and the other d100 not round, is it an attempt to alter reality?
Or is it just an arbitrary classification?
I live in Illinois, and just took some time from work to make two calls expressing my displeasure at the silliness.
I got a hold of a live person at Represeative "Bob" Ritas office and left a message for State Senator Emil Jones. Anyone else in Illinois should do the same with their representatives.
As an "Illinoisan," I apologize for the circus that is our state government. I am officially fed up.
Not to mention, we can't really see planets smaller than gas giants from outside our solar system. So there's really no debate there (like there is about kuiper objects).
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
has declared Pluto to be a dog
so there
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
pst. it is Jurisdiction. Otherwise good argument
God this doesn't surprise me. With all the real important issues that residents of Illinois (I among them) that could be addresses this is just stupidity at the highest level. I think its time to vote all of these losers out of office and start over. First Illinois then Washington. Enough wasted time and spending already. Might be time to move but where? Canada?
Illinois declares that the Earth is flat...
plutocrats?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I apologise in advance in that I'm not normally a spelling Nazi, but you seem to have used the word "durestriction" a lot. I was unsure if it was perhaps I word I had never heard, and even after sounding it out to myself was confused as to what you meant. I performed a quick search on Google and found it appears to be a relatively uncommon (but still common enough to have just over 100 hits) misspelling of "jurisdiction", which I then mentally replaced in your post and found it finally makes sense.
Since the rest of your post is well written with excellent grammar and spelling, and also makes some excellent points, I really don't mean to flame you, just to attempt to politely inform you of your rather unusual error.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Neptune once the time gets right and Neptune gets to close it will just Suck up Pluto and not the other way around.
The problem with Pluto isn't so much Neptune (which, as someone already noted, will never encounter Pluto anyway thanks to their carefully time resonance) but the multitudes of other Pluto-like objects in the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt. At that point, either you're adding dozens of new "planets" to our solar system or you need to recognize that Pluto isn't an outlier like we generally think of planets being. It's part of a family of objects.
Someone on the Bad Astronomer's blog quantified it well: the ratio of Pluto's mass to the rest of the EKB is quite small compared to the ratio of any of the planets relative to the rest of the material in their part of the solar system. I hope that that would replace the less reasonable definition that the IAU adopted, although I think that this is what they were getting at.
I thought that 2 Skinnee J's already established the point that Pluto is a planet...
You know; there is a movement to get rid of professional politicians and replace them with collaborative websites.
It's not just that it's used in sci-fi... personally, I prefer "Sol" and "Luna" to refer to our sun and our moon, because it reduces confusion. There is only ONE "Sol" and only ONE "Luna", but there are many suns and there are many moons. Trying to distinguish between "Sun" and "sun" or "Moon" and "moon" is of course simple in written form, but in spoken form can easily lead to confusion. If I were able to go live on a planet in another solar system which was orbiting just one sun and had one moon orbiting it, there's no way I'd bother "naming" them in normal conversation and would just say "the sun" and "the moon" in normal speech like I do here. To clarify WHICH sun and WHICH moon I meant, I would then use the names, just as I do here.
So, official names or not, "Sol" and "Luna" make sense.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
You have forgooten to take into account gthe inclinaion of the Earth's orbit to the ecliptic, and the inclination of th Earth's axis to its orbital plane. With the infinite upward extent that political entities claim, this will put Pluto within Illinois at some times.
Neptune will never "suck up" Pluto. They are in a 3:2 mean motion resonance, so although their orbits cross, they will never collide.
Doesn't that mean that Neptune isn't a planet, because it will never be able to "clear up other objects in its orbit"?
But, if you prefer sticking to your guns, defending something that we thought was correct 80 years ago, then why not do one better and defend astrology. That's even older.
Your examples all state something that science determined was incorrect thinking. Pluto is not an example of incorrect thinking. We didn't think it was a planet and then discover it wasn't. Planet is an arbitrary definition. We changed the arbitrary definition. That doesn't mean we were idiots for thinking that Pluto was a planet.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
As a resident of Indiana, I'm forever grateful to them. Passing the torch of legislative interference in the mathematical/scientific arts is *such* a relief.
Pluto: "I'm being what?"
Astrological society: "Demoted... you're being demoted."
Pluto: "I don't understand... why?"
Astrological society: "Honestly, your just not up to code, you know? Most planets have certain criteria they must follow, criteria that you just don't meet. You understand right?"
Pluto: "I sure as hell do not!"
Astrological society: "Well, it's like this... realistically... well, your an ice cube, basically and well... we mistook for a real planet. But we do apologize for the confusion."
Pluto: "OMG. This is so embarrassing."
Illinois: "It's okay Pluto we understand. Hey... how would like to be governor? Seriously, we have a spot open all the time? Tell you what, if you agree to govern us then we'll let you be a planet."
Pluto: "Uhm... you do realize that in all reality, I am a giant ice cube right?"
Illinois: "That is neither her nor there... look, when the time is right... it'll happen. You seem like a smart fellow, and together I think we can get a lot accomplished. Just remember though, when things go bad, you have to go back to being an ice cube. We don't need you parading your mistakes around for the whole galaxy to see like that last guy."
sudo apt-get lost
If you think high tide is bad now, imagine what it'd be like if the ground itself moved up and down with the tides.
Actually, this is one of the better current theories behind SOME earthquake triggers.
This is a joke right? If not the sponsors of this bill/resolution/whatever should be removed from office for wasting taxpayer dollars and overstepping their authority. This is not a political issue, it is a science issue. Pluto is still out there, and will continue orbiting happily along despite what we choose to call it.
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ; fsck ; umount ; sleep
Remember in Illinois you can buy Senate seats. I'm thinking Pluto either greased the right wheels or is friends with Mayor Daley.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Actually this is no longer true. In the last year many extra-solar planets have been found that are thought to be smaller rocky bodies.
The initial techniques only lent themselves to finding large planets through their gravitational effects, but new methods have since evolved to the point of being able to find smaller more "earthlike" types of planets.
A few of these stories have even made the national press.
I believe they should declare that Pi equals 3, to help not having to remember all those extra digits. Come on - dropping the .14159265... part would be a benefit to every architect, engineer and scientist in the state.
I always thought that the official name was Sol and Sun was just english for Sol, and the same for Luna/Moon.
Are there any other languages that use the names "Sun" and "Moon"?
If pluto-like objects were to be considered planets, we would have about 13 planets in the Solar System right now, and that number is steadily increasing.
BFD. Set a size limit and let's all become famous planet hunters. Definitions are arbitrary but they are supposed to be definitive. They elected a definition that is far from definitive and was clearly intended to exclude one object that would have been excluded had it been the size of your anus OR URANUS. The IAU made a fucking joke of themselves.
What, do we need separation of science and state now?
I can see why the article got a theonion tag, there was a great article way back:
Eight Million Americans Rescued From Poverty With Redefinition Of Term
I'd like to point out that it's those kinds of nonsensical, fuck-the-standards ideas that gave us IE6.
Yes, if you're writing in greek, then Ï is just another letter. If you're doing math, then Ï is defined to be the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter, just like other pre-defined irrational numbers like e and i. Your concept applies to theta, since it's just a symbol frequently used to denote angles, but not a specific angle.
Could we have defined any other letter/symbol to be this ratio? Sure. But someone chose Ï and it stuck, and it's not going to change. Standards exist for a reason. And I'll also point out that the quote you're responding to is in reference to when an elected group did just that (I think in Kansas, but I could be wrong) in an attempt to redefine the ratio (not the symbol, but the ratio) as precisely 3 because of some bullshit passage in the bible.
(umm, pretend Ï is the symbol for pi, and go kick whoever is responsible for slashdot's unicode support in the groin)
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
There's no contention over earth-like planets being classified, either, so I think the point stands until we find other Plutos. :)
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
By this definition, Pluto is a planet, no ?
We should all pray that pluto be re-instated to a dwarf status.
Then they can keep using those B&W scientific films from the 50-60s.....
As the International Authority on which self declared authority is actually valid, I regret to tell the whole slashdot community that the IAU didn't have the authority to reclassify pluto anyway. /joke
The authority of academia is a joke. Almost all academic pedigrees can be traced back to either a self declaration of authority-ship, a grant by a monarch, or a grant from a religious institution. And of course because they were such good academics back in the day they didn't come up with jargon in place of common words and then when they decide the need to tweak their jargon, rather then recognizing that it is perhaps time for their jargon and the common language to part, they try to redefine parts of the language.
I hate to say this but we need to recognize the silliness and fence it in. We need to give experts a place to do what they need to do without upsetting people and we need to keep academics from getting in the way of the changes in our communication that are happening because of globalization, and when someone says something as an expert we need to have a scope for what they are an expert on and if it's something that is debatable allow room for differing schools of thought to grow and prosper. And for some of the scopes central authorities should be established so that when people in one scope want to change or influence something in another there is a way to do that.
Pluto's self-esteem was suffering, due to the other planets making fun of it for being gravitationally challenged.
How is Pluto ever supposed to reach its potential if Neptune is always pulling it around?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Damn straight, if Pluto wasn't a planet, how could there be a Sailor Pluto?
Planets need bailouts too. After all, if one planet loses its status, then all of the planets in the solar system will have a reduced value. This causes the moons of the planets to lose value. Next thing you know, we will no longer be living on a planet, but on a rock. This will continue to drive real estate values down. Who wants to live on a rock?
If an elected group of people decide that Pluto is a planet(which changes absolutely NOTHING), who are a bunch of snobbish scients to deny that?
Hey there. If this 'elected group of people' decided that Pluto is a star, would that be another matter and would be wrong?
If yes, then your argument appears to be based on the fact that nobody cares about the difference between a planet and a dwarf planet - which isn't so, because people who study the formation of the Solar system (the said 'snobbish scientists') do care.
If no, then you'd rather understand that definitions, words and so on are here to ease up and improve the process of gathering, exchanging and producing information, and every attempt to mess that up contradicts their very purpose. In other words, if competent scientists decide that Pluto is not a planet, that DOES matter and change something, and who are a bunch of corrupt politicians milking a state in North America to deny that?
I was more contending his point that the only planets we know about outside of our solar system are gas giants :)
I've read specifically about 2 rocky planets one with double the earth's mass and one with about 4 times the earths mass.
Both were rocky and relatively "small" in terms of the majority of extra solar planets, but they weren't gas giants.
Clyde Tombaugh was born in Streator, Illinois in 1906. Kudos for Illinois for speaking up and honoring their own Clyde would be furious to know that after he was dead his planet was declared a non-planet. I met Clyde and even when was alive he was vehemently defending Pluto as a planet. Some wussy astronomers waited until he was dead to change the classification - nice going guys.
I agree on Unicode. Inline TeX support would be tough. TeX is a full programming language, and it's usually not considered a good idea to open up the servers to arbitrary code entered by posters. Even if the TeX code is executed such that it can't harm the system or any data, malicious users would have a new avenue to ramp up the server's CPU and RAM usage. Instead of inline TeX you'd need to choose a safe subset of TeX to implement and write a new, safe parser for it; probably one without programming capabilities.
At that point you might just be better off allowing MathML, although given the rather poor state of current browser rendering you might want to render it server-side by... well, maybe translating it to TeX, after imposing your size/complexity limits.
I'll grant that it would be cool and useful to be able to plop mathematical expressions into comments.
The actual resolution is:
So, all this really says is that 1) the Illinois State Senate would like to see Pluto reestablished, in name, as a planet, and 2) that March 13, 2009 is declared "Pluto Day". There's nothing here about requiring the science books to be changed in Illinois, nothing about legislating the value of Pi, nothing important. Did anyone bother to go through the other resolutions that the 96th general assembly pass? Are they meddling in peoples' ages by passing a resolution that citizens over the age of 49 should be, in their opinion, considered wise and be treated with respect?
Here's why this is important. If this silly overreaction to unimportant issues continues, when it is finally important, your voices are ignored because you all sound like a bunch of whining losers who don't understand the difference between a law and a resolution so your opinion is unimportant.
The old definition was pretty much arbitrary. The problem was that a non-arbitrary definition that does leave Pluto as a planet needs to add several other bodies as planets that are rather unlike the other bodies currently called planets. Choices were to expand the meaning of the term or contract it. They chose contracting it and adding new definitions for those objects that didn't fit the new definition of planet, but are still significant enough not to be lumped with the generic small rocks.
You insensitive clod!
--Spherical Star Orbit, III
New Mexico did it first. Pluto has been a planet to anyone entering the state of NM since 2007. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23558
I was listening to NPR a couple weeks ago about the whole deal with reclassifying Pluto. They said the main arguments were about its orbit and its composition. It's orbit, as far as I know is the only one that isn't planar with respect to all the other planets. It's also a lot of ice.
It doesn't matter to me because it's still there either way, but Illinois can declare cats and dogs the same thing and it won't change a thing.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Well the problem with #3 is that each potential planet object has to get larger the further from the star it is before it can clear its orbit. If you put Earth out at the orbit of Pluto, it wouldn't be able to clear its path either. Strictly speaking, Earth hasn't it cleared its orbit either.
The most damning thing I found about the IAU's vote wasn't the criteria. It all sounds reasonable, albeit with the problem of requiring "planets" to increase in mass with orbital distance. It's the fact that The "planets" of our solar system aren't actually defined by the criteria but rather a footnote! As seen in the video of the vote, the IAU made clear that this planet definition is only applied for our solar system. One astronmer even asked, "Well then, why don't we just vote on the footnote then?", and the answer back from the chair was essentially, "Well because."
And don't even get me started with the requirement that the definition not include "too many" objects. Essentially, they just wanted eight.
It's not exactly the best definition.
A couple years ago Obama would have been one of the people voting to declare Pluto a planet. And now he's president. Great job, guys.
German uses Die Sonne for the Sun and der Sonne as generic, German capitalizes all nouns; die is feminine gender and der is masculine. Spanish does the same thing but make the Sun masculine.
A quick look shows it really varies some use the same word other have a word for the Sun and refer to other stars by a different word.
And if my anut had a moustache, she would be my uncle.
You mispelled 'anus'.
And your sentence makes no sense.
"Incorrect thinking" is a problem of politics or religion. Science discards less useful models and nomenclature in favor of more useful ones. As more data are gathered and models refined, sometimes classifications are revised to increase their utility. The scientific definition of "planet" would be one such classification. There's nothing particularly "incorrect" about thinking of Pluto as a planet, but if you speak that way you're less likely to be understood properly by scientists specializing in the study of near-Earth astronomy. The Illinois legislature has basically proclaimed that it wants nothing to do with organized astronomy, which is fine, presuming the people of Illinois don't want any astronomers or NASA-related contracts in their state.
Since I read slashdot and have watched a few episodes of Star Trek, I feel that I am qualified to say what the IAU should have done. They should have defined planet as any object that is massive enough to pull itself into a spherical shape and small enough not to undergo fusion. Then (and here's the clever bit) planets are divided into types. So you could have:
Type E (earth) or T (terrestrial) for earth-like planets
Type P (pluto) for Pluto and other Kuiper belt objects
Type G (giant) or J (Jupiter) for the gas giants
Type H (hell) for Mercury like planets
Type L (lonely) for wandering bodies not associated with stars
and so on.
Then Pluto would be a planet, but would be clearly distinguished from other planets.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
Good morning Children, today we will discuss the Solar System.
There are 8 planets in the Solar System, and 9 in Illinois.
I hope they will never pass the legislation that the Earth is flat.
This whole "separation of church and state" thing seems to be giving Illinois sour-tummy. With religion finally gone (errrrrr...) they feel a power vacuum: someone has to come up with "facts" and doctrine that is not subject to question. Otherwise the American People will have to grow brains, and then Democracy will surely fail!
Lemme check my notes...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Kansas has recently passed a bill that refutes the theory of gravity. The bill says that humans can leap to the moon "if we only believe", and that "it's all in your head".
Indiana had a bill to set the value of pi to 3.2, among other values.
Of course the fact that Dr. Clyde Tombaugh lived down the street when I was a Kid may give me a bias. I heard his talk on discovering Pluto more times than I can count.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I have mad respect for Illinois's legislature ever since they passed this resolution: http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/2005/HCR029.html
Apparently Jonathan Coulton is more popular in Illinois than he realizes.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Well you know, that whole business of a bunch of geek bastards chortling over their tiny bit of power by 'changing' the designation of Pluto does stick in my craw. SOB's were all laughing and happy with their efforts at FUBARing our knowledge of the Universe/Solar System and for no good reason other than to screw with us.
Excuse me, narcissistic retard, but they changed the definition of a planet because at the rate that their new telescopes were finding objects similar to pluto out there, we'd have about 20 planets in the system by now.
But you keep thinking that they did it to mess with your precious feelings, that way your rage will cause you to die an early death and free us all from having to suffer your continued existence.
You can't take the sky from me...
In 1897 Indiana passed a Bill setting the value of Pi to 3. Now that's seriously outside their jurisdiction!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. 'Sonne' is always feminine.
that politicians are taking up Astronomy as a hobby, but come on guys. This is seriously the funniest thing I've heard all week. Thanks for the post!
Thank you!
You cant legislate common sense. Even tho they are right, it IS a F-ing planet.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I figured I'd give everyone a heads up.
The Illinois Supreme Court just declared the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics unconstitutional! Apparently it was brought on by a Ms. Eris Discordia appealing a conviction.
Illinois lawmakers are not expected to challenge the ruling.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Please tell me which organization claims the authority to definitively define the name of the sun and the moon. We need to make sure they never get put in charge of anything important.
...till we pass the bill raising the speed of light--it'll make interstellar travel SO much easier.
Suck on this planet. It's a planet, really. I know it looks like a penis, but, um, it's a planet cause... I want it to be! And apparently that's the only requirement in Illinois!
HEY YOU DUMB FUCKS IN ILLINOIS: PLUTO IS A PLUTOID, NOT A PLANET. GET WITH THE FUCKING FACTS.
The Illinois legislature once declared that the value of pi is 3.
I'm not making this up.
If pluto-like objects were to be considered planets, we would have about 13 planets in the Solar System right now, and that number is steadily increasing.
And this is a problem how?...
So the right thing to do was to remove Pluto (and it's pals) from the planets club, because they really have nothing in common with them.
So you think Mercury has more in common with Jupiter than it does with Ceres? Face it, the IAU's current definition is idiotic. Pluto has "nothing in common" with two objects (Jupiter and Mercury) that have "nothing in common" with each other? Ok, sure, fine, whatever. I put "nothing in common" in quotes because actually, all of the above have some things in common. Pluto actually has a lot more in common with Mercury than Mercury does with Jupiter, but whatever.
BTW, nothing in the definition of planet excludes "pluto-like" objects (icy, comet-like Kuiper-belt objects) from the planets club. If that were the issue, then Ceres would have had to be re-instated as a planet. (Which it should have been.) Instead, they went with some idiocy about orbital debris. If a pluto-like object were found that cleared its orbital path, then that would be a IAU-approved planet. If you're going to nitpick, at least get your facts straight.
Actually it's not selective quoting:
"(a) in orbit around the Sun" from the OP makes that pretty damn obvious.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
"Just to clarify, the Sun is called Sol because as we name stars that we observe, we needed a name for our sun. Many scientific names are based in Latin, so there is no surprise there."
Actually thats a completely apocryphal name for the sun, it is not accepted as a scientific term under any reputable institution.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Rather than to repeat the previous posters about the planet, I will mention that the "Brontosaurus" was renamed because it was discovered that the "Brontosaurus" was another name for the Apatosaurus. When there were two names for the same animal, the first name published is the one that wins. So, really, the name of the "Brontosaurus" did not change, it stayed Apatosaurus, and the redundant name was discarded. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatosaurus
It doesn't matter to me because it's still there either way, but Illinois can declare cats and dogs the same thing and it won't change a thing.
No it will take NY, California and Texas to do that.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The whole fury over the Pluto-not-a-planet issue really confuses me. As you say, with new information the scientific community has been able to revise an assumption to more accurately reflect the state of our knowledge. Out of this, I'm fairly satisfied since we seem to be making one step closer to "the truth" of life/universe/everything. I suspect that many in the Slashdot crowd would feel something similar. I have trouble seeing the viewpoint of the people who want to hold onto the planet status for Pluto. After all, it's inaccurate. Why keep it for anything other than sentimental reasons? What's interesting to me here (and maybe I'm wrong in thinking this) is that this sentimental attachment to inaccuracies can be extended to other popular understanding of scientific topics - the evolution thing comes to mind. A not-insignificant number of people seem to prefer not to have their existing understanding of things revolutionized (or even slightly changed as in the Pluto example). And we wonder why there are so many pigheaded arguments about scientific issues - turns out that we're the weird ones to insist on an updated version of truth.
Wasn't it the Illinois Legislature that passed a bill declaring Pi equal to 3?
:T:R:A:N:S:
But, if you prefer sticking to your guns, defending something that we thought was correct 80 years ago, then why not do one better and defend astrology. That's even older.
I accept your challenge. Astrology, like numerology, palm reading, dowsing, or crystal ball gazing, is the practice of interpreting observations to have some bearing or influence on something, even though no such relation exists. It is as easy to defend the definition of astrology as what it is as it would be to defend any definition of something.
You appear to have assumed that there exists a factual objective definition of what constitutes a planet. There is no such thing. "Planet" has a subjective definition. If a giant gob of nasal mucus was large enough and was in orbit around the sun, it would arguably be a planet. You can chase scientific facts to the ends of the solar system, but ultimately, they have no bearing on what we choose to define "planet" to mean. So, sorry dude, but it is an incontrovertable fact that a great many people consider Pluto to be a planet.
Any efforts to use scientific facts to convince others to change a subjective definition simply demonstrates to them that the one attempting to do the convincing doesn't understand what science is and is not useful for.
Upon entering Illinois you must openly admit Pluto is a planet, or you shall have no admittance. Legislators now voting on declaring Illinois a planet as well.
I also disavow any responsibility. I'm too preoccupied with this chronic pain called a recession.
Dammit, we voters can sure pick 'em, can't we?
Claim that it has more in common with e.g. Neptune than with Makemake? If so, they're WRONG
Considering that Makemake is a boulder and Neptune is a cloud, one could argue that Earth has more in common with Makemake than Neptune.
#3 is the problem with Pluto with its orbit crossing Neptune once the time gets right and Neptune gets to close it will just Suck up Pluto and not the other way around. So even it Pluto was the size of the earth if it was where Pluto is now it wouldn't be considered a planet.
I think Charon is a more pressing issue than Neptune...
If pluto-like objects were to be considered planets, we would have about 13 planets in the Solar System right now, and that number is steadily increasing.
And this is a problem how?...
Two things. They are all uninteresting asteroid-like bodies (except for Ceres, I grant you that. It is interesting, but just a rock in the middle of the asteroid belt nevertheless), that can't be seen by the naked eye.
The other is a matter of coherence. The only strong reason I've seen to keep Pluto a planet is a matter of tradition. I disagree with it, of course, but it does have its strength. And to add the four other dwarfs to the club would just upset tradition even more.
So you think Mercury has more in common with Jupiter than it does with Ceres?
You're cherry picking. Mercury does have a lot in common with Venus, Earth and Mars. You know, small, rocky, near the sun. And Jupiter has a lot in common with Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Clearly, they are not isolated. Of course, the gas giants are quite different from the rocky planets. They are more like stars.
Pluto actually has a lot more in common with Mercury than Mercury does with Jupiter, but whatever.
That's not quantifiable. And I disagree, Pluto has very little in common with Mercury. They are very small, and that's all. Their formation history and composition are radically different. And Pluto is just one in the middle of tens of thousands of kuiper belt objects, while Mercury is all alone. The fact is that all three are quite different objects.
When you look to the bigger picture, the IAU made quite a good job in a difficult task. They had to make a definition of planet based on scientific principles that was more or less aligned with the traditional conception of a planet. I they were completely scientific, they'd have to let out the gas giants, and we'd have only the first four (I take it that you agree that the Earth has to be a planet). But I don't think the general public would accept "losing" Saturn and Jupiter. I can already imagine the astrologists rioting.
Last but not least, Pluto was an historical mistake. They were looking for a planet that caused the disturbance in Uranus' orbit. By chance, they've found Pluto moving in the neighbourhood. It could never been what they were looking for, due to it's low mass. I'm glad that this was finally corrected.
If a pluto-like object were found that cleared its orbital path, then that would be a IAU-approved planet.
Then it wouldn't be a kuiper belt object. There wouldn't even be a kuiper belt. And I would gladly accept it as a planet.
If you're going to nitpick, at least get your facts straight.
The same to you.
entropy happens
It sucks for us latin. We just have "Sol" and "Lua", so there's no way to distinguish them in spoken form except for "the Luas of Mars" or "the $EXTRASOLAR_PLANET's Sol".
entropy happens
Good for Illinois. A state has no business weighing in on the subject but neither does the IAU have any business redefining the "popular" meaning of the word planet.
1. The word planet and pluto have both been around before IAU ever existed.
2. Semantic arguments could have easily been resolved without redefining existing terms as popularly understood by billions. IAU was just attention whoring plain and simple. They could have generated new terms to clarify the matter for the few academic snobs on the planet who give a crap about planets sucking up the crap around them.
3. Using the term "dwarf planet" while simultanously proclaiming pluto is not a "planet" is a reflection of the manifest stupidity of those involved with the naming process.
Its no different than the idiots who invented the term "internet" vs "Internet" or mini-sd vs micro-sd. Sometimes people just come up really short in the common sense department.
Now if you will excuse me I'm going to go put together a committee to officially declare that "cable modems" no longer be referred to as such.
Neptune will never "suck up" Pluto
.
However, it definitely seems that Illinois is sucking up to Pluto...
.
- aqk
F U
Pluto isn't a planet?
That is, allowing for a certain redefinition of planet to include more 'living bodies'? (see hover text at xkcd #541)
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
With the way it is always thrown around as the name for the sun, I always assumed it was. Thanks for the correction.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
And if it's small enough, it's called a dwarf planet or planetoid or plutoids or whatever they're calling them. Just like if a star is small enough, it's called a dwarf star. It's just further categorizing something.
I'm sure they can find some spherical asteroids orbiting the sun in that asteroid belt.
I wonder if Pluto even rotate. It has no molten core, they say Pluto is a giant sphere of ice. They should just attach some giant rockets to the planet, and fly it towards the sun till it melts and completely disappears so people will stop squabbling.
No, you're missing my point.
To say that "to be a planet, a body must be in orbit around the sun" has a different meaning from saying that "in the solar system, to be a planet, a body must be in orbit around the sun"
The first excludes everything outside the solar system from being a planet, the second leaves everything outside the solar system undefined.
As I'm normally a bit of a grammar nazi myself, I cringed horribly after posting this. No offense taken, its a horrible looking misspelling!
Why the Internal Star Registry of course, a Mr. Maxwell Sun paid $14.95 and named it after this family. :).
Actually it was the IAU, International Astronomical Union, the same people who declared Pluto not a planet.