Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Pluto put to sleepFollow

#1 Aug 24 2006 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
linky


Quote:
Astronomers say Pluto is not a planet



PRAGUE, Czech Republic --Leading astronomers declared Thursday that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.

After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930. The new definition of what is -- and isn't -- a planet fills a centuries-old black hole for scientists who have labored since Copernicus without one.

Although astronomers applauded after the vote, Jocelyn Bell Burnell -- a specialist in neutron stars from Northern Ireland who oversaw the proceedings -- urged those who might be "quite disappointed" to look on the bright side.

"It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet' under which the dwarf planets exist," she said, drawing laughter by waving a stuffed Pluto of Walt Disney fame beneath a real umbrella.

The decision by the prestigious international group spells out the basic tests that celestial objects will have to meet before they can be considered for admission to the elite cosmic club.

For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."

Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.

Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets," similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun -- "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other natural satellites.

It was unclear how Pluto's demotion might affect the mission of NASA's New Horizons spacecraft, which earlier this year began a 9 1/2-year journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets.

The decision at a conference of 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries was a dramatic shift from just a week ago, when the group's leaders floated a proposal that would have reaffirmed Pluto's planetary status and made planets of its largest moon and two other objects.

That plan proved highly unpopular, splitting astronomers into factions and triggering days of sometimes combative debate that led to Pluto's undoing.

Now, two of the objects that at one point were cruising toward possible full-fledged planethood will join Pluto as dwarfs: the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s before it got demoted, and 2003 UB313, an icy object slightly larger than Pluto whose discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena has nicknamed Xena.

Charon, the largest of Pluto's three moons, is no longer under consideration for any special designation.
#2 Aug 24 2006 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So is my horoscope all fucked up now or what?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Aug 24 2006 at 9:23 AM Rating: Default
/mourn Pluto

That is awful. Pluto was always my favorite. Maybe something will change its status after NASA's New Horizons spacecraft makes its voyage to Pluto.
#4 Aug 24 2006 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
It's a fucking rock
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#5 Aug 24 2006 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
Hell yeah, +1 elitism.

#6 Aug 24 2006 at 9:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
I can't keep up with these nitwits. First it's 8, then it's 9, then it's 12, now it's 8. You'd think by now we'd have mastered the defining features of what constitutes a planet.Smiley: oyvey

#7 Aug 24 2006 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
ok ok, it's a fucking ice ball.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#8 Aug 24 2006 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
wow no longer a classical planet, interesting. I was not a big fan of the proposed 12 planets of last week. It was opening the door to way to many "planets" sneaking into our little club. I think this is a good move on the part of astronomers.

Quick question, I can't remeber the answer from my Astronomy days; does Charon orbit Pluto like a traditional moon or do they spin around each other while traveling around the sun?
#9 Aug 24 2006 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
It's back to being a fucking goofy dog.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#10 Aug 24 2006 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
I didn't know they just named two more moons of Pluto, I didn't even know it had two more moons. Nix and Hydra. LINK
#11 Aug 24 2006 at 9:41 AM Rating: Decent
Just think about all the text books that need to be changed.
#12 Aug 24 2006 at 9:46 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
shadomen wrote:
Just think about all the text books that need to be changed.

Think about all the textbook publishers that are creaming themselves right now.




Edited, Aug 24th 2006 at 10:46am EDT by PsiChi
#13 Aug 24 2006 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The article wrote:
the new rules for a planet: "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."
The people in other star systems are going to be pissed to learn that they don't live on planets.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Aug 24 2006 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Soracloud, King of Bards wrote:
Quick question, I can't remeber the answer from my Astronomy days; does Charon orbit Pluto like a traditional moon or do they spin around each other while traveling around the sun?
Since Charon is so large in relation to Pluto, the center of mass is between the two bodies. So I'd assume they revolve around a central point in the middle.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Aug 24 2006 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
This is good. We were running out of Roman mythology-themed names, anyhoo.
#16 Aug 24 2006 at 10:03 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
This is good. We were running out of Roman mythology-themed names, anyhoo.


We do have Xena and it's rugmunching moon Gabriel. Thats kinda Roman-esque.
#17 Aug 24 2006 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's a pretty nifty picture on the Trib site of Pluto, Charon, Hydra & Nix taken from the Hubble. It looks like you could follow it in the night sky to find the two-headed King of Israel or something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Aug 24 2006 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
Poor Mickey. Whatever made him decide to do that to Pluto?

Pluto was my son's favorite planet when he was learning about the solar system a couple of years ago. I think I'll let him find this revelation all out on his own.
#19 Aug 24 2006 at 11:20 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,463 posts
Thumb, that was exactly my point in the last thread on this - who is going to give a sh*t what some eggheads in some moldy Euro country say?

I'm not saying I do or don't - or that we should or shouldn't. But look at normal people. A lot of avergae people don't trust scientists any more. America can't even adopt the metric system.

If common folk want there to be nine planets, there are going to be nine planets. It's reasonable ask not what the people are going to say about this - but rather what the scientists are going to say if the people reject their change.

What's going to cause contention is the lawyerish, nitpicky reason for the downgrading.
#20 Aug 24 2006 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
Thanks DSD for sparking my inner Astronomy dork Smiley: tongue its been awhile. I have spent the last two hours reading reports and papers on our Solar System, deep space objects, Black Holes, White Holes, the singularity and apparently the next step is String Theory; but I have looked into that in the past and think that guy is batShit crazy. Now I will take a spin around binary star systems, those were always spiffy.
#21 Aug 24 2006 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
**
749 posts
This is the right move and it makes sense.

First off, Pluto is small. Smaller than the other planets in our Solar Sytem, even mercury. There are objects further out, like 2003 UB313, that are larger than Pluto. 2003 UB313 is larger and has a chance of becoming our new 9th Planet. (Yes, I know the article says otherwise but the argument is still going on)

Second off, it doesn't act like a Planet normally would. It's 'moon' isn't even really a moon. The two objects circle a point in space as they circle the sun. Ya know, like binary stars. It has no atmosphere and is more like a very large asteroid. But ofcourse, it's too big to fall under the name of those rocks.

Thirdly, if you keep Pluto you have to add every object in that belt that is larger, just as large, or the same size as Pluto. There are over 800 objects in that belt. We haven't even discovered all there is there yet. Lets not even get into the Oort cloud which has even more objects. (most of them being our comets)

So those of you who ***** about having to rewrite text books or figure out a new way to memorize the solar system would of been hurting if they DID keep Pluto. Because if they did our Solar System would of gotten very large very quick. Instead of 8 or 9 planets we now have twenty to thirty.

It may not be a planet but it, along with the other objects in that belt, will be classified as Dwarf Planets. Which also makes sense since you cant call them asteroids for they're too big. You cant call them planets because they're too small or dont meet the other requirements. 2003 UB313 (nickname Xena (note: This wont be it's real name)) may even become our new 9th planet so you have 9 planets again.

As technology advances and our sciences gets better more events like this are going to happen. It's only natural stuff like this happens as we look further out and better understand our little pocket of the galaxy. Trying to attach to the past is pointless. It's like trying to claim the world is flat because you've understood it as flat for so long. Regardless of the facts that prove otherwise.

Dont see this as bad or a negative. Think of it as a good thing. Humanity is better understanding space.

Quote:
humb, that was exactly my point in the last thread on this - who is going to give a sh*t what some eggheads in some moldy Euro country say?

I'm not saying I do or don't - or that we should or shouldn't. But look at normal people. A lot of avergae people don't trust scientists any more. America can't even adopt the metric system.

If common folk want there to be nine planets, there are going to be nine planets. It's reasonable ask not what the people are going to say about this - but rather what the scientists are going to say if the people reject their change.

What's going to cause contention is the lawyerish, nitpicky reason for the downgrading.


It isn't just 'some euro country'. It's the whole international community. That includes the US. What you suggest is just like what I said above. How many common people wanted to continue to believe the world was flat when it was said our world was round? eh?

Edited, Aug 24th 2006 at 1:42pm EDT by Stubwub
#22 Aug 24 2006 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
The decision downsizing Pluto's status would have had more gravitas if it'd been made in LA or Orlando. "Some Euro country" --Checkeristan or wherever it was doesn't even have a Disney theme park. The least they could have done was hold a press conference concerning this issue at Euro-Disney.

Totem
#23 Aug 24 2006 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
To+3m wrote:
The decision downsizing Pluto's status would have had more gravitas if it'd been made in LA or Orlando. "Some Euro country" --Checkeristan or wherever it was doesn't even have a Disney theme park. The least they could have done was hold a press conference concerning this issue at Euro-Disney.


wakka wakka
Smiley: oyvey
#24 Aug 24 2006 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Some Scientist d00ds wrote:
You are not a real planet. You are the Diet Coke of Planets. The Margarine of Planets.
/touches side of mouth with pinky
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#25 Aug 24 2006 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Spankatorium Administratix
*****
1oooo posts
King Nobby wrote:
Some Scientist d00ds wrote:
You are not a real planet. You are the Diet Coke of Planets. The Margarine of Planets.
/touches side of mouth with pinky


You only wish you were that hawt!
____________________________

#26 Aug 24 2006 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
shadomen wrote:
Just think about all the text books that need to be changed.


And two versions of each, at that, depending on the current stance on creationism vs. evolution.

/stir
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 392 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (392)