posted
Oh well, I'll scrub Julio �ngel Fern�ndez from my Christmas card list. Seems a bit silly to me revoking Pluto's planetyness after 76 years. Inconsequential as it is, it does seem a bit unfair.
EDIT: I also can not help but wonder if the new qualifiers were accepted simply because they remove Pluto from its status. The actual wording of the convention is more than a little ambiguous. As far as I can work out, apart from it's orbit, Pluto has not 'cleared its orbit'. But it seems that by this definition, Earth and Jupiter are not planets (shitloads of small lumps of rock in their proximity), and probably this aplies to all the other planets.
Would it not have been simpler for them just to have a vote thus: 'Should Pluto be considered a planet?', rather than going to all the effort of creating a new category of celestial objects with such a wishywashy definition? I hate office politics.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
FUCK.
STILL A PLANET TO ME, YO. KUIPER BELT FO' LYF DAWWWG!!
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: EDIT: I also can not help but wonder if the new qualifiers were accepted simply because they remove Pluto from its status. The actual wording of the convention is more than a little ambiguous. As far as I can work out, apart from it's orbit, Pluto has not 'cleared its orbit'. But it seems that by this definition, Earth and Jupiter are not planets (shitloads of small lumps of rock in their proximity), and probably this aplies to all the other planets.
Would it not have been simpler for them just to have a vote thus: 'Should Pluto be considered a planet?', rather than going to all the effort of creating a new category of celestial objects with such a wishywashy definition? I hate office politics.
I've been watching this whole planet thing for quite some time, and it seems to me that it wasn't an "anti-Pluto lobby" that did in Pluto.
Granted, as much as I disagreed with the idea of a planet being defined solely by its shape, it was at least a good attempt at a real scientific definition.
When the IAU committee came up with its first definition draft, it did so pretty much in secret and did not take into account a lot of things. Geologists were outraged about the use of the term "pluton". The committee on exoplanets were outraged that they were not consulted. The part of the first draft concerning double planets and barycenters was pointed out to be faulty in the case of satellites with highly elliptical orbits.
But most of all, I just don't think many of the astronomers could wrap their heads around admitting objects like Ceres and Charon to planethood, or the possibility of having over 50 planets. Therefore, the other definition based on good science, that of a planet clearing its orbit, was brought in. There was no way to include Pluto without including Ceres and Charon, except by going with an arbitrary and unscientific definition (like imposing a size limit).
And I'll admit that "clearing its orbit" is kind of vague. I don't think any planet has utterly and completely cleared its orbit. But if you add up the masses of everything that crosses Earth orbit, including the Moon, you still don't get anywhere near the mass of the Earth. Similarly, Jupiter's mass is much much bigger than all the Trojan asteroids combined. Heck, Jupiter's mass is bigger than everything in the solar system (excluding Sol) combined. Neptune's mass is much bigger than everything else that crosses its orbit (and that includes Pluto) combined. Pluto is disqualified first and foremost by the fact that it crosses Neptune's orbit and is way way smaller than Neptune, and secondly by the fact that its orbit is crossed by many similarly-sized Kuiper Belt objects.
-------------------- "Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"
-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: Why? If you'll notice, this definition only applies to the Solar System, not to any other star systems.
Compare the first version of the resolution with the ones that were passed. You'll see that the first version refers to objects that go around stars in general, while the one that was passed refers only to the Sun. It was this first version that the exoplanet guys were awfully angry about. To see what I'm talking about, go watch the video I posted earlier in this thread.
-------------------- "Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"
-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Yeah, the orbital plane bullshit is just that.
That video was sweet. I didn't watch it, but I listened. All we needed was Jason Lee standing up & saying "What's a Nubian?"
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I think that we should start calling the sun Sol. And then rename the closest habitable solar system Helios. And start naming the planets after the greek versions of our own. So its Helios the sun, then Hermes, Aphrodite, *Earth is already greek! Quick, call it Terra like Roman!*, Aries, Zeus, Cronos, I don't think Uranus changes, Poseidon, Hades. W00ber.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Saturn becomes Cronos & Uranus would be Coelus. Earth is not Greek, but Gaia is.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
And if the closest habitable system doesn't have nine planets? What then, eh? EH?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
