My very eager mother just served us nine...what?

Zehn - Vhex · 08-25-2006, 11:57 AM

In case you've been living under a rock for the past couple months...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

Personally, I'm too busy trying to come up with new clever mnemonic for remembering the planets. I've always enjoyed "A pussy so tight no dick penetrates" for remembering the 7 layers of the OSI model.

Of course, I'm waiting for this to hit the major news media and for some whackjob political party to get pissed off and then sell them my pre-2006 encyclopedia's/dictionary's that still include Pluto as a planet.

I was rooting for Xena too. Always wanted a dyke as planet number 10.

Eomer · 08-25-2006, 12:34 PM

I liked the first proposal more, because it seemed to be less ambiguous. Yeah, we might end up with a hundred planets, but that's fine with me.

The new proposal is kind of fucked, in a few different ways. First of all, who's to say that any of the "classical" planets have cleared their orbits? Jupiter, the biggest fucker of em all, has something like 50,000 asteroids in it's orbit. Earth has hundreds. So do most other planets. There's no clear definition there.

Second, saying that Pluto is no longer a "planet" but now a "dwarf planet" is just shitty choice of nomenclature. Is it a planet or not? Because I see the word planet in it's definition!

There's no question that leaving Pluto as a planet without adding a bunch more would cause problems, because it really is no different from a dozen or so currently discovered objects (and possibly hundreds more). But the revised proposal I don't see as being any more clear or cut and dried.

Soriak · 08-25-2006, 01:41 PM

I think the new definition is fine, but they should've kept Pluto's designation as a planet for historic reasons.

Eomer · 08-25-2006, 02:38 PM

That makes no sense. You'd create a definition that would exclude Pluto, then include it just for fuzzy feelings, but exclude objects that are no different than it?

Why not make Ceres a planet again then? It was a planet before Pluto was.

Rune · 08-25-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eomer

That makes no sense. You'd create a definition that would exclude Pluto, then include it just for fuzzy feelings, but exclude objects that are no different than it?

Why not make Ceres a planet again then? It was a planet before Pluto was.

Hell let's give all the greek gods a planet. Then we can do the same for the Norse ones. etc. That should be our definition of a planet - do we have another name from mythology to give it one. Maybe that way classics majors can get a job.

Tea on tuesday · 08-25-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zehn - Vhex

I was rooting for Xena too. Always wanted a dyke as planet number 10.

Unfortunately had Xena been classified as a planet they then would have renamed it.

Kolle · 08-26-2006, 02:42 AM

I don't think Pluto gives a shit what people on Earth decide to label it as. Regardless of what we name it, it will still be what it is.

Phoenix · 08-26-2006, 10:56 AM

I guess some people are racist agaisnt highly eliptical orbits and small bodies.

TheGoat · 08-26-2006, 01:16 PM

don't these scientists have something better to argue about

Eomer · 08-26-2006, 07:42 PM

It's actually a pretty important subject; up until this point, astronomers have had ZERO definition of what a planet is. That's a pretty big blank spot, don't you think?

Tea on tuesday · 08-27-2006, 12:28 AM

No, it's a very silly argument scientifically because planets are culturally defined. 99% of astronomers don't really care, and any scientific definition of a planet was going to be, by its very nature, arbitrary.

dak · 08-27-2006, 12:51 AM

Quote:

I don't think Pluto gives a shit what people on Earth decide to label it as. Regardless of what we name it, it will still be what it is.

I lol'ed

It's really just a ploy to move new science textbooks to grade schoolers and make my Astronomy 101 text book I took years ago only worth $0.003 cents when I try to sell it back to the bookstore. /tinfoilhat.

Eomer · 08-27-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

No, it's a very silly argument scientifically because planets are culturally defined. 99% of astronomers don't really care, and any scientific definition of a planet was going to be, by its very nature, arbitrary.

I disagree, I think it's a fairly important thing to have defined, because within the next decade there will be observatories that will be capable of seeing much more than just the "hot jupiters" we've been detecting up till this point, and it will probably be a good idea to at least know what you call a planet, what you call a comet/small solar system body, or a dwarf planet, or whatever. And that doesn't count the dozens or hundreds of objects similar to Pluto that we'll discover, or the planet-like objects that have been observed wandering around the galaxy seemingly without a star to orbit. Some definition is surely required.

James · 08-31-2006, 03:39 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d96gWFFJ5Zw

TheGoat · 09-01-2006, 12:00 PM

And once all the textbooks, journals, and enyclopedias have been updated & replaced, we can look forward to Jupiter being reclassified as a Super Planet and repeating the process again. Of course, Saturn is pretty big too. And that damn Mercurcy. They can get at least 3 or 4 revisions out of this bullshit.

08-25-2006, 11:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
Zehn - Vhex Lord of the Dance Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 6,261 +53 Internets	My very eager mother just served us nine...what? In case you've been living under a rock for the past couple months... http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html Personally, I'm too busy trying to come up with new clever mnemonic for remembering the planets. I've always enjoyed "A pussy so tight no dick penetrates" for remembering the 7 layers of the OSI model. Of course, I'm waiting for this to hit the major news media and for some whackjob political party to get pissed off and then sell them my pre-2006 encyclopedia's/dictionary's that still include Pluto as a planet. I was rooting for Xena too. Always wanted a dyke as planet number 10.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

08-25-2006, 12:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
Eomer Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,517 +25 Internets	I liked the first proposal more, because it seemed to be less ambiguous. Yeah, we might end up with a hundred planets, but that's fine with me. The new proposal is kind of fucked, in a few different ways. First of all, who's to say that any of the "classical" planets have cleared their orbits? Jupiter, the biggest fucker of em all, has something like 50,000 asteroids in it's orbit. Earth has hundreds. So do most other planets. There's no clear definition there. Second, saying that Pluto is no longer a "planet" but now a "dwarf planet" is just shitty choice of nomenclature. Is it a planet or not? Because I see the word planet in it's definition! There's no question that leaving Pluto as a planet without adding a bunch more would cause problems, because it really is no different from a dozen or so currently discovered objects (and possibly hundreds more). But the revised proposal I don't see as being any more clear or cut and dried.

08-25-2006, 01:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
Soriak Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Switzerland Posts: 4,421 +20 Internets	I think the new definition is fine, but they should've kept Pluto's designation as a planet for historic reasons.

08-25-2006, 02:38 PM	#4 (permalink)
Eomer Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,517 +25 Internets	That makes no sense. You'd create a definition that would exclude Pluto, then include it just for fuzzy feelings, but exclude objects that are no different than it? Why not make Ceres a planet again then? It was a planet before Pluto was.

08-26-2006, 02:42 AM	#7 (permalink)
Kolle Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,879 -26 Internets	I don't think Pluto gives a shit what people on Earth decide to label it as. Regardless of what we name it, it will still be what it is.

08-26-2006, 01:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
TheGoat Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 387 +0 Internets	don't these scientists have something better to argue about

08-26-2006, 07:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
Eomer Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 9,517 +25 Internets	It's actually a pretty important subject; up until this point, astronomers have had ZERO definition of what a planet is. That's a pretty big blank spot, don't you think?

08-27-2006, 12:28 AM	#11 (permalink)
Tea on tuesday Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,479 +16 Internets	No, it's a very silly argument scientifically because planets are culturally defined. 99% of astronomers don't really care, and any scientific definition of a planet was going to be, by its very nature, arbitrary.

09-01-2006, 12:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
TheGoat Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 387 +0 Internets	And once all the textbooks, journals, and enyclopedias have been updated & replaced, we can look forward to Jupiter being reclassified as a Super Planet and repeating the process again. Of course, Saturn is pretty big too. And that damn Mercurcy. They can get at least 3 or 4 revisions out of this bullshit.