|
leinad
|
 |
« on: August 15, 2006, 09:58:48 PM » |
|
Just wondering what you thought about this. I remember hearing a lot of jokes about "Goofy" and "Mickey Mouse" being planets. Maybe that will happen now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2006, 05:26:33 AM » |
|
Although it really doesn't matter too much, for accuracy's sake, Pluto, 2003 UB313, and Sedna should all be classified either as planets (for consistency), as planetoids (ditto), or using their proper classification based on their position in the solar system.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2006, 01:49:35 PM » |
|
Forget whether this should change in textbooks; it's going to require extensive reprogramming of one of the websites I run every time they change the damn definition.
NP: "Blue Caravan", Vienna Teng
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2006, 08:31:47 PM » |
|
It looks like scientists are voting on the option that we didn't like in our poll: "yes, add more planets". Charon, Ceres I, and 2003 UB 313 ("Xena") will all, if the resolution succeeds, be classified as planets (for the less astronomically inclined, this would make Pluto a "double planet" with Charon, its former moon). I haven't heard anything about Sedna, but it might be open for inclusion as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_redefinition_of_planet |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2006, 02:33:05 PM » |
|
Well, it looks like The Powers That Be have spoken. See my avatar.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2006, 04:37:37 PM » |
|
Well, that makes more sense than the other proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2006, 04:44:18 PM » |
|
Well, that makes more sense than the other proposal.
It also makes less of a website overhaul for me to deal with. Better to demote Pluto than to have to redo a ton of graphics and database structure to account for new planets. NP: "Between You and Me", Relient K |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
enemy anemone
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2006, 06:04:52 PM » |
|
a moment of silence for Pluto.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2006, 06:06:26 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dgp11776
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2006, 07:26:18 AM » |
|
A cow-orker:
Are those in Lord of the Rings? Anyway...My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine. Nope, just doesn't sound right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2006, 01:58:29 PM » |
|
Are those in Lord of the Rings? No, they're in Dilbert. Anyway...My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine. Nope, just doesn't sound right. I guess you could change the last "N" to "Noodles". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2010, 04:18:26 PM » |
|
Oh God, no. There goes a few months' worth of website restructuring, out the window. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2010, 06:00:06 PM » |
|
Silly scientists squabble semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
enemy anemone
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2010, 08:50:30 PM » |
|
bring back Pluto! bring back Pluto!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2010, 10:18:46 AM » |
|
Pluto never left...it's been there the whole time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2010, 12:22:15 PM » |
|
Pluto never left...it's been there the whole time.
It does swap places with Neptune every now and then. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2010, 09:51:04 PM » |
|
It does swap places with Neptune every now and then.
That was always an interesting point about the solar system, which I assume is more or less lost now that Pluto is not considered a planet. I also remember that Pluto was theorized to be an escaped moon of Neptune, which made me wonder if our moon might escape. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 10:09:54 PM by leinad »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2010, 10:13:13 PM » |
|
If Pluto were an escaped moon of Neptune, one would expect it to orbit on the same plane as Neptune. For it to be orbiting off the ecliptic as it is, either it's not actually an escaped moon or it is and it got quite the wallop. In any case, our own moon wouldn't really escape on its own; it would have to be hit by a mass large enough to knock it into independent orbit but not so large that it would just break into space debris.
The problem with this semantics debate is really that there's no line. The divisions between 'planet' and 'dwarf planet' and 'asteroid' and 'comet' are more or less arbitrary. This is especially true in the outer reaches of the solar system where the debris appears to range from microscopic to the size of a large moon/small planet. There's no particularly easy answer, but either way I think the wrong answer is to get caught up arguing about it rather than moving on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2010, 11:07:53 PM » |
|
There's no particularly easy answer, but either way I think the wrong answer is to get caught up arguing about it rather than moving on. This is why I'm a fan of leaving it as it is now. Every change seems to mean millions of dollars spent explaining the change and rewriting/reorganizing all available material on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2010, 07:27:18 AM » |
|
And this opinion has nothing to do with the fact that you'll have to do a lot of work if they change it again  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
murlough23
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2010, 01:04:07 PM » |
|
And this opinion has nothing to do with the fact that you'll have to do a lot of work if they change it again I'll have a lot of work to do either way. It's just a matter of fulfilling work vs. stupid busy work. To put it another way, would you rather spend the budget NASA gave you doing cool new stuff for your website, or rearranging things back to the way they were before 2006? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2010, 01:31:24 AM » |
|
I would agree that the planets would best stay classified as they are. In 2006 there was a good reason for a change (the discovery of Eris), whereas now there really isn't. Even if Pluto is slightly larger than Eris, it's doesn't sound like there's much difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
