|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chron
Super Robot
Posts: 2790
|
 |
« Reply #361 on: 23 September 2008, 18:44:44 » |
|
That's the cartridge Roger Wilco needs to view to get the Star Generator codes. It's not accurate, it's a semantic upheaval. Some dickweeds just wanted to create a new classification of astral body, and they martyred Pluto to do it.
It's in the Kuiper Belt. It's an icy rock with more icy rocks around it. The orbit isn't in line with the plane of the planets, either. There's nothing special about it, even when compared to other Kuiper Belt objects, besides maybe Charon, and there are plenty of other rock systems like that, even in the asteroid belt. The classification is old, unless you mean "dwarf planet". Sometimes you have to throw out old ideas to make science more clear. That's how these things work. The only thing it really ruins is the fiction based around Pluto being a planet. Like Sailor Moon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edgecrusher
Super Robot
Posts: 1371
|
|
« Reply #363 on: 23 September 2008, 19:04:41 » |
|
But there's the thing, it really isn't more clear.
Due to the new definition (and this is the point that #####s Pluto over), it can't be considered a planet unless it has "cleared it's orbit" of other objects (asteroids and the like).
While there is a significant difference to the extent with which Pluto has cleared it's orbit in comparison to the other planets, several other planet fail to meet that specification as well.
Namely Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, and Earth.
It gets even muddier when you try and apply the definition outside of our solar system.
I think what really bothers me though, is that language is supposed to be a shared thing. Words only have meaning when agreed upon by the majority, and ~450 out of ~9,000 astronomers doesn't seem like a very convincing ratio. I understand that many of them were absent, since the discussion occurred near the end of the conference, but isn't it a bit presumptuous for five percent of the committee to make a decision that effects the whole system?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No more pencils, No more books
I built a city out' one brick, it had a Mayor and a Crook
I made the Crook stab the Mayor, then slay himself in the guilt
I stole the brick back and migrated east, now let's build. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edgecrusher
Super Robot
Posts: 1371
|
|
« Reply #368 on: 23 September 2008, 20:57:55 » |
|
For a discussion that involved something so arbitrary, it's not suprising that no one stuck around. Of course, I'm sure if they would have known what was going to come out of that meeting, it would have been a different story.
The whole thing really started off in an attempt to classify Eris. This quickly lead to the realization that if astral bodies of Pluto's size were considered planets, the list of them would grow to almost unreasonable size.
God forbid we add planets. I mean, there's no way we could just consider proximity to the Earth when we teach them in school. That would be too complicated.
The current 'consensus':
"The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that: (a) is 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.
(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is 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) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
(3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies"."
On the plus side, they're reconvening on the subject next year, so we may see another definition change.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No more pencils, No more books
I built a city out' one brick, it had a Mayor and a Crook
I made the Crook stab the Mayor, then slay himself in the guilt
I stole the brick back and migrated east, now let's build. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikero
Super Robot
Posts: 11986
|
|
« Reply #371 on: 23 September 2008, 22:22:35 » |
|
Pluto will (A) always be called Pluto and (B) always be a planet as far as I'm concerned. Kind of like the word "gay" will probably always (or at least for a long time) be acceptable as a way of saying something is stupid to me. Yes, I know it's not right. No, I don't like it. Yes, I do use it though. There haven't always been nine.
Pluto wasn't made a planet until 1930.
The reclassification as a Kuiper Belt object is more accurate.
And way before that nothing was a planet and everything was "Uggg ugh oog bapfh!" SO THERE XZEEMON! mmmm... astral bodies. Hot.
Venus puts the ass in "astral bodies". Man. Venus is so hot. DID YOU GET ALL THOSE, CHILDREN? ... :-D ... THAT'S RIGHT! THERE'S TWO WORDPLAY JOKES IN THERE! YAAY! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASR
Super Robot
Posts: 10911
|
|
« Reply #378 on: 26 September 2008, 01:14:49 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikero
Super Robot
Posts: 11986
|
|
« Reply #392 on: 26 September 2008, 03:22:07 » |
|
HOKY ##### YES THAT'S VERY MISLEADINGLY AWESOME
...Uh...What's a "hoky"?
Do you mean "holy"?
It's really just "OK" but mangled at the start and end. OK -> Okay -> Hokay -> Hoky _OR_ OK -> Okay -> Oky -> Hoky _OR_ OK -> Okay -> Okey -> Hokey -> Hoky _OR_ OK -> Okay -> Okey -> Oky -> Hoky _OR_ ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ChaosVortex
Super Robot
Posts: 5638
|
|
« Reply #393 on: 26 September 2008, 03:23:13 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author
