Elementary level history is simplified for the sake of getting the point across to kids. While Columbus wasn't the first to hit the New World, his 'discovery' sparked the Era of Exploration and led directly into European colonialism in the western hemisphere which dramatically changed the course of history. All Leif did was kill some seals and go home. For what it's worth, I knew about Leif in 3rd or 4th grade.
Likewise, while Lincoln did not immediately address the issue of slavery in the 'neutral' Southern states, the Emancipation Proclamation led directly into the 13th Amendment.
I won't dare argue that there's inaccuracies in textbooks or that many are woefully outdated. But sometimes you brush over stuff when discussing history to 5th graders for the sake of getting a concept completed without nitpicking details.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- They're going to kill pluto
They're going to kill plutoFollow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Hurray!
Pluto has been saved! Phew, close shave...
In other news, there are now 3 more planets, totalling 12.
There is only one loser in this: schoolkids.
Linky.
Pluto has been saved! Phew, close shave...
In other news, there are now 3 more planets, totalling 12.
There is only one loser in this: schoolkids.
Linky.
Jophiel wrote:
Well, it's not actually not a planet until they arrive at a true definition of what a planet is. So far the definition seems to be as basic as "spherical object in rotation around the sun" (well, not counting other star systems).
The Guardian wrote:
The IAU, which has decided on the names of celestial objects since its inception in 1919, subsequently agreed to come up with a scientific definition for planets.
The proposal says two conditions must be met: it must orbit a star without being a star itself, and it has to be big enough for its gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.
The proposal says two conditions must be met: it must orbit a star without being a star itself, and it has to be big enough for its gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.
Edited, Aug 16th 2006 at 8:39am EDT by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
looks like Pluto will be pardoned and gets to live, but hes bringing home 3 new playmates.
Nine no longer: Panel declares 12 planets
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff | August 16, 2006
The solar system has 12 planets.
That is the conclusion, to be announced today, of an international panel formed to devise a scientific definition of a planet and settle an increasingly intense dispute over whether Pluto qualifies. The panel suggests retaining Pluto and immediately adding three new planets to the nine that are familiar to any schoolchild: Ceres, currently considered a large asteroid; Charon, now considered a moon of Pluto; and Xena, a recently discovered object that is larger than Pluto.
But the group's proposal also makes clear that many more objects in the solar system -- perhaps dozens of them -- could qualify as planets after further study.
The new definition has been approved by the executive committee of the International Astronomical Union , and a vote of the union's general assembly is scheduled for Aug. 24 at a conference underway in Prague. If it is approved, which several astronomers said seems likely, the world's textbooks and museum displays would have to be updated -- not to mention solar system models, posters, software, and toys with only nine planets.
The change, scientists say, would be a mark of the great age of discovery that astronomy has entered over the last three decades, with the advent of space probes, powerful telescopes, and new observational techniques.
Nine no longer: Panel declares 12 planets
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff | August 16, 2006
The solar system has 12 planets.
That is the conclusion, to be announced today, of an international panel formed to devise a scientific definition of a planet and settle an increasingly intense dispute over whether Pluto qualifies. The panel suggests retaining Pluto and immediately adding three new planets to the nine that are familiar to any schoolchild: Ceres, currently considered a large asteroid; Charon, now considered a moon of Pluto; and Xena, a recently discovered object that is larger than Pluto.
But the group's proposal also makes clear that many more objects in the solar system -- perhaps dozens of them -- could qualify as planets after further study.
The new definition has been approved by the executive committee of the International Astronomical Union , and a vote of the union's general assembly is scheduled for Aug. 24 at a conference underway in Prague. If it is approved, which several astronomers said seems likely, the world's textbooks and museum displays would have to be updated -- not to mention solar system models, posters, software, and toys with only nine planets.
The change, scientists say, would be a mark of the great age of discovery that astronomy has entered over the last three decades, with the advent of space probes, powerful telescopes, and new observational techniques.
Gaurdian wrote:
If the ideas are approved at the general meeting of the IAU in Prague next week, schoolchildren will, in future, have to learn that the solar system has 12 planets: eight classical ones that dominate the system - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus - and four in a new category called plutons.
These are Pluto, its moon Charon, a spherical asteroid that sits between Mars and Jupiter called Ceres, and an object called 2003 UB313 but nicknamed Xena by American astronomers who found it.
These are Pluto, its moon Charon, a spherical asteroid that sits between Mars and Jupiter called Ceres, and an object called 2003 UB313 but nicknamed Xena by American astronomers who found it.
This seems dumb. Why confuse things by saying there are now 12 planets? Keep the usual 8 ones and call the rest plutons (or whatever). So you have eight planets and four plutons. There ya go.
Why should a moon be a planet? And why is an asteroid a planet just because it's spherical in shape? What is the proper definition of an asteroid then?
Dumbass astronomers.
I like this decision if for no reason other than teachers for generations will now be doing a stellar job when they bring in a poster of Lucy Lawless.
I did cringe when I saw the name Xena, but then again, we have been dealing with the worst name, Uranus, for ages
Speaking of bad names, I was just watching the Today Show and Anne Curry was interviewing some woman about something. So yeah, I was less watching it and more just letting it play in the background.
What got my attention was when she introduced the interviewee as Dr. Janet Taylor. Say it out loud a couple times, and maybe you'll get what I'm getting at. I'm pervy.
What got my attention was when she introduced the interviewee as Dr. Janet Taylor. Say it out loud a couple times, and maybe you'll get what I'm getting at. I'm pervy.
Dr. Janet Taylia might've work better. 
Side note: I hate Anne Curry.
Side note: I hate Anne Curry.
DSD wrote:
I did cringe when I saw the name Xena, but then again, we have been dealing with the worst name, Uranus, for ages
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
I'm no astronomer
A mistake you'll regret for the rest of your life.
You could've been great :'(
23 posts
Yes, they definately not change the status of Pluto just because it no longer fits the description of what the astronomical community agreed upon what a planet should be. Having to re-teach the solar system to those poor children, and having to slash and burn more rainforest to make all those new textbooks is a price too steep to insist on abiding by set standards...and while we're at it, lets revert a few more things "history" has erred on just because they were proven wrong: maps are much easier to read in 2-D, so ***** that whole "the world is round" thing. And think of all those doctor bills we wouldn't have if we could cure most ailments with leeches, blood-letting, and self-inflicted frontal lobotomies. Nobody cares what's right...ease of use is the important thing.
Maybe we should submit Asylum names for the planets and see if we get considered?
Jawbox wrote:
Why should a moon be a planet?
Lucretius wrote:
Yes, they definately not change the status of Pluto just because it no longer fits the description of what the astronomical community agreed upon what a planet should be.
Edited, Aug 16th 2006 at 11:32am EDT by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Jawbox wrote:
Why should a moon be a planet?
I have to say that Charon has me stumped as well. Maybe it's large enough in relation to Pluto (roughly half the size) to be considered a binary planet?
I am rather stumped, too, because:
The New Rules wrote:
The proposal says two conditions must be met: it must orbit a star without being a star itself, and it has to be big enough for its gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.
So does Charon orbit Pluto or the sun? I guess it must go 'round the sun, and just hang out with Pluto.
New Planet names (cause Im tired)
Goofy
Urass
Tard
Goofy
Urass
Tard
I think they should leave it alone, but if they feel they must change the way its classified knock it down to a binary planet and be done with it.
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm no astronomer
A mistake you'll regret for the rest of your life.
You could've been unemployed :')
FTFY
The One and Only Katie wrote:
knock it down to a binary planet and be done with it.
Apparently, the center of mass between the Pluto & Charon system lies outside the surface of Pluto. Thus the proposed "binary planet" classification.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I don't think it much matters what a buncha eggheads say.
True Markins know that Pluto is a planet, just like a foot's 12 inches and a pound is... um... a buncha ounces, which are a buncha gils (no wait, unless it's a pound of water?)....
Anyway, Markins will go right ahead with My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas - rather than "nine what?" Thank you.
True Markins know that Pluto is a planet, just like a foot's 12 inches and a pound is... um... a buncha ounces, which are a buncha gils (no wait, unless it's a pound of water?)....
Anyway, Markins will go right ahead with My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas - rather than "nine what?" Thank you.
I admit my lack of knowledge on this subject. Unfortunantly, we get one field trip to the planitarium EVER here in the south with our public schools and thats it. Football is the main event down here, which people should be shot for allowing to happen. I actually had a science teacher (had the same one for several years some how) that refused to teach us astronomy because she didnt believe in the big bang theory, same reason she wouldnt teach us evolution.
Barkingturtle wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Jawbox wrote:
Why should a moon be a planet?
I have to say that Charon has me stumped as well. Maybe it's large enough in relation to Pluto (roughly half the size) to be considered a binary planet?
I am rather stumped, too, because:
The New Rules wrote:
The proposal says two conditions must be met: it must orbit a star without being a star itself, and it has to be big enough for its gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.
So does Charon orbit Pluto or the sun? I guess it must go 'round the sun, and just hang out with Pluto.
Ah, okay, there is a another point: it must orbit a star without being either a star or a moon around another planet. Further, it's not Charon which drove this to the fore. There are larger "things" then Pluto orbiting the Sun at distances further then Pluto. So if Pluto is a planet, why aren't these things? (My poor recollection of these post-Pluto "planets" is that they are larger in radius but have unknown masses).
Pluto and Charon are tidally locked so the same side of each continually faces the same side of the other. Since the center of mass is somewhere between the two, I guess they both kind of spin on some invisible axis in between and both can be said to "rotate around the sun".
As for the outer bodies, my understanding is that if they fit the criteria then they're going to be called 'Plutons' or 'Minor Planets' or something of the sort. I guess that what it boils down to is that the solar system is more complex and larger than we once thought back when we were picking the planets out of the night sky based on how they moved and whether or not they flickered.
As for the outer bodies, my understanding is that if they fit the criteria then they're going to be called 'Plutons' or 'Minor Planets' or something of the sort. I guess that what it boils down to is that the solar system is more complex and larger than we once thought back when we were picking the planets out of the night sky based on how they moved and whether or not they flickered.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Pluto and Charon are tidally locked so the same side of each continually faces the same side of the other.
Edited, Aug 16th 2006 at 9:22pm EDT by Jawbox
Kind of, except that the moon isn't perpetually hanging above the same spot in Asia 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 351
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (351)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- They're going to kill pluto
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC