Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Its Official: Pluto no longer a planet
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
Pluto is not a planet!
[url]http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html[/url]
A major planet anyways.
[quote] RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
(1) A 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) 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) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite. [/quote]
[quote] RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:
Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects. [/quote]
[url]http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html[/url]
A major planet anyways.
[quote] RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
(1) A 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) 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) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite. [/quote]
[quote] RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:
Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects. [/quote]
Comments
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]Pluto is not a planet!
A major planet anyways. [/B][/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i15.ebayimg.com/04/i/07/68/85/9f_1_b.JPG[/IMG]
I can't believe they are doing this, all the books about our solar system have to be rewritten.
That's like having to reprint your business cards because the phone company changed the area code on you, again. :mad:
[B]So, what condition does Pluto not fulfill to disqualify as a planet?
I can't believe they are doing this, all the books about our solar system have to be rewritten.
That's like having to reprint your business cards because the phone company changed the area code on you, again. :mad: [/B][/QUOTE]
[quote]
(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) shape, [b](c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.[/b][/quote]
C and D
The definition of a planet needs to be updated (even though it is arbitrary and kind of pointless). Witht he discovery of more and more KBO and the 200ish extrasolar objects our current definition of a planet begins to fail. Even if the status quo was maintained we would have 10 planets as "Xena" is larger than pluto.
And the whole textbook argument is just bullshit. Science is ever growing and ever changing, especally with major new discovories. What about the textbooks saying there have been no planets discovered outside the solar system? Those had to be changed. What about text books that described DNA as a macromolicule with three spines? They had to be be rewrited.
Complaining about rewriting textbooks follows the same line of thought that religious texts are the word of god(s) and are universally true for all time.
[B]And the whole textbook argument is just bullshit. Science is ever growing and ever changing, especally with major new discovories. What about the textbooks saying there have been no planets discovered outside the solar system? Those had to be changed. What about text books that described DNA as a macromolicule with three spines? They had to be be rewrited.
Complaining about rewriting textbooks follows the same line of thought that religious texts are the word of god(s) and are universally true for all time. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, no, you are misunderstanding, I know books need to be updated, it's just that all the broke students need to buy new astronomy books again because publishers would have to re-edited them, since those books do cost an arm and a leg, like all specialized books. Don't know if scratching Pluto from the planet list has that many repercussions though. :D
Basic physics and chemistry hasn't changed much in the past 100 years. Making a new edition every other year just pisses me off. I know publishers are trying to make money but its seriously pissing me off. My boyfriend spent over $400 on textbooks for this upcoming shcool year, and that is just for one term, he is going to have to get a couple more for the next one.
[B]So, what condition does Pluto not fulfill to disqualify as a planet?
I can't believe they are doing this, all the books about our solar system have to be rewritten.
That's like having to reprint your business cards because the phone company changed the area code on you, again. :mad: [/B][/QUOTE]
The books would have had to be re-written anyway, the result of this conference would have been either
A) Pluto no longer a planet, and we have 8 planets
or B) Pluto is a planet, as is Charon, Xena and any other "pluton" that they find, meaning that all the texts would have to be re-written for 12 planets now, and re-written every time they discovered a new kuiper belt object that they decided to call a planet (which could end up being in the hundreds or thousands)
I love it when your entire idea of the world gets twisted, and it feels good for a change.. ;)
[B]So now we teach "My very educated mother just served us nothing"? [/B][/QUOTE]
The planets were something that i never needed a Mnemonic to remember,
animal classification however, "King Paul Came Over For Georges Sword" (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species) that one helped me out on many a test in Highschool.
[B]I don't think it was unintended repetition as much as a sly attempt to sneak us back onto topic ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
What is this "on topic" thing you speak of?
[URL=http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-09-01T205625Z_01_N01426992_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPACE-PLUTO.xml&src=rss]more ...[/URL]
[B]It ain't over till it's over...
[URL=http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-09-01T205625Z_01_N01426992_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPACE-PLUTO.xml&src=rss]more ...[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
What I find surprizing is that the decision to strip Pluto of its title was done by vote.
That's like if the mathematical society would be voting about the zero being a true number or not. As the French say, let's call a cat, a cat.
What kind of scientific community is this astronomical society anyway? If they can't even agree upon what a planet is, then what are they talking about?
How about voting the astronomers out of the scientific community... all they do anyway is making things up. :D
This whole matter is becoming quite ridiculous.
What the hell do these people have to do with the development of a classification system for a scientific field? Once again the text book argumentis beingshouted by people who just need to get overthemselves. When writers, philosophers, and policymakers contribute to the scientific process by money or other forms of support.
I wonder if this much hubbub was made for the classification system developed for species in biology.
[B]What I find surprizing is that the decision to strip Pluto of its title was done by vote.
That's like if the mathematical society would be voting about the zero being a true number or not. As the French say, let's call a cat, a cat.
What kind of scientific community is this astronomical society anyway? If they can't even agree upon what a planet is, then what are they talking about?
How about voting the astronomers out of the scientific community... all they do anyway is making things up. :D
This whole matter is becoming quite ridiculous. [/B][/QUOTE]
You know, there's been too much fuss over this. Nothing has changed. Pluto has not spontaneously combusted. Its existance is not being questioned. Its still the same lump of ice orbiting the sun. All thats being argued are semantics. We can call it whatever the hell we want, its still the same thing. Bah, they should consider everything round orbiting the sun a planet. Make those kids in school memorize all thousands of them :P
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Stingray [/i]
[B]What I find surprizing is that the decision to strip Pluto of its title was done by vote.
That's like if the mathematical society would be voting about the zero being a true number or not. As the French say, let's call a cat, a cat.
What kind of scientific community is this astronomical society anyway? If they can't even agree upon what a planet is, then what are they talking about?
How about voting the astronomers out of the scientific community... all they do anyway is making things up. :D
This whole matter is becoming quite ridiculous. [/B][/QUOTE]
It was done by a vote because it is nothing more than a name, a category, a semantic. Scientifically, Pluto is exactly the same thing as before. All they were voting on was the terminology to use to describe it and other, similar bodies of matter. A proper vote is therefore a very reasonable way to do it since people will never be able to agree otherwise.