Discussion in 'Water Cooler' started by latenight, Aug 16, 2006.
Oh man, this is so going to screw up my astrology chart... :blah:
Worse (if making planetary charts outdated is bad -- or even just nursery-room solar system mobiles) is if that definition gets approved there will relatively soon be dozens more planets.
I can hear the 5th dimension now...
"When Ceres is in the 7th house and Charon aligns with 2003UB313"
How trippingly it rolls off the tongue.:dunce:
It won't be: "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas"
How am I gonna remember Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter....
misleading. pluto is being relabeled as a "pluton", not a planet. the other celestial bodies will also be classified as "plutons". we will have 8 planets and 4 plutons.
You could always try:
My Very Educated Mother Couldn't Just Shut Up N' Passively Comply (in) 2003, Useless B****!
Actually given the description I think it works like this. All plutons are planets, but not all planets are plutons.
That is correct per the proposed definitions
Oh! Ot's just like squares and rectangles in Geometry! Yay!
according to the definition of binary stars, they are also both planets, but we still use the most specific identifier. these new planets have been picked up and are intended to be referred to as plutons, not planets.
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.
Here is the definition.
"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."
One of the 12 planets proposed is Charon the moon of Pluto.
If Pluto is classified as a planet, then how can a Charon, since it is a satellite of a planet?
They also talk of 53 planets, if this passes.
"A pair of round objects that orbit around a point in space that is outside both objects — meaning the center of gravity (or barycenter) is between the two planets in space as with Pluto and Charon — would be called double planets"
I agree in totality. The 5th Dimension is great, but alas gone......UP UP AND AWAY.....is one of my favorite songs.......
I find it misleading as well, and a dissapointment that our "scientists" spent a few Billion dollars to call an asteroid a planet, while there's mass confusion on the Third Rock from the Sun.
its flippin' retarded.
just admit that pluto shouldn't be a planet, and leave us with the 8 original planets!!! back in 1930 or whatever it was they messed up. admit it, and we wont have 2 bazillion plutons/planet like rocks.
xena is a cool name though.
Neptune was discovered not quite 160 years ago, how can it be "original"? Ceres was a planet for nearly 50 years (starting in 1801) before being demoted. It had already lost its status before Neptune was discovered. Pallas, Juno, and Vesta similarly were considered planets during this time. Once other objects started being found in the Asteroid Belt in 1845 they were all demoted.
That said, there is a naming convention being floated of "Classical Planets" meaning those discovered and considered planets as of 1900 (so not including Ceres, et al). It matches what you're apparently referring to as "original" planets.
My Very Educated Mother Just Said "Uh-oh! No Pluto!"
Because of the definition above in a few (billion) years, the term '3rd Rock from the Sun' will be confusing. Which planet are we talking about? Since the Moon is moving away from the Earth, the center of gravity is moving out and will eventually be outside of the Earth making the Moon a planet.
I'm glad I took Astronomy when there was only 9 planets. Try memorizing 12, 54, 100 or whatever.
Does anyone remember the little saying to help memorize the names of the planets?
From what I've seen in the news, there's been a bit of a revolt at the IAU meeting, with a number of astronomers rejecting the proposed definition ...
To me, the whole thing is a bit ridiculous, particularly the role that scientists are giving to PR in determining a systematic nomenclature; in a way, it kind of reminds me of aluminum vs. aluminium. The point is to be able to communicate in an effective fashion ... and the proposed definition, while being rigorous enough to communicate some effective information with the label 'planet,' is also so overbroad that it fails to convey important information that could be included by some of the alternative systematic definitions ... *shrug*
Separate names with a comma.