[bulldog]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

Cool.
What do I get in return for my services?

it better be good

well since you did a good deed for you fellow aliens I think that the doctors that study you will let you make your own demands of what your rewards should be.

[Karmillo]

So why is it not a planet anymore?

[Hammerite]

Originally Posted by bulldog

well since you did a good deed for you fellow aliens I think that the doctors that study you will let you make your own demands of what your rewards should be.

i'm sure if they read the Opposite Sex thread, they'd get an idea.

[ATMachine]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

So why is it not a planet anymore?

Several reasons. One of them is that astronomers a few years back discovered an object out beyond Pluto that's larger than the former ninth planet. So either this new thing (called 2003 UB313) is a planet too, or Pluto isn't one, if you include size as part of the definition of planets.

Also, Pluto orbits the Sun in such a way that it passes through Neptune's orbit at times, and thus becomes closer to the Sun than the eighth planet. The International Astronomical Union decided that, as part of a new definition of a planet, the object in question could not cross over into another planet's orbit. So Pluto is disqualified on that count too.

[Trumgottist]

I've always heard "Pluto's not really a planet", so I'm a bit confused too. What's new?

[bulldog]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

i'm sure if they read the Opposite Sex thread, they'd get an idea.

*sobbing.....* I did read the opposite sex thread... *sniff, sniff* and I looked and I looked and looked some more and I could't find anyone that had a pretty face, great personality and a great sense of humor all rolled into one ..... all of those women are married *sniff, sniff*. I know how about we take a fancy - smancy (alien getting tool) < technical term ..... and just probe you until our hearts are content?

[Hammerite]

But, what the hell, some pie would do fine.

[Lee in Limbo]

I expect this redefinition thing to be put back before I die. 'Dwarf Planet' is a ridiculous appaltion, and a ridiculous attempt to describe what a planet is and is not.

[RLacey]

And the backlash begins...

[bulldog]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

But, what the hell, some pie would do fine.

Ok, here you go pick one


there will be an extra charge for whip cream and ice cream

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by RLacey

And the backlash begins...

I'm fine with people debating the definition, but if they're criticising that Pluto was taken out of the list of planets, then that's sentiments talking. A review regarding dynamics would be nice. Tweaking the definition just so Pluto can be included again, IMO, isn't. ( - making no statement about the people in that article, just my views on debating the definition in general)

I've come to wonder why the scientific definition of planet doesn't just include(!) an atmosphere... I think that knocks Mercury out of the picture, but hey. Seems fairly straight-forward to me, with my limited knowledge. Heh. [(!) Note - some moons have atmospheres, too, but they don't orbit around a star.]

*watches this develop with interest*

[Karmillo]

Well reading through that article Lacey posted seems like the new definition isnt very accurate anyway.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by Karmillo

Well reading through that article Lacey posted seems like the new definition isnt very accurate anyway.

Well, yes, that's what I meant with

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

A review regarding dynamics would be nice.

All I'm saying is that if it is debated (which I assume will happen), they better keep sentiments out of it. Not that anyone listens to me, but I can dream.

[Jazhara7]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

I'm fine with people debating the definition, but if they're criticising that Pluto was taken out of the list of planets, then that's sentiments talking. A review regarding dynamics would be nice. Tweaking the definition just so Pluto can be included again, IMO, isn't. ( - making no statement about the people in that article, just my views on debating the definition in general)

I've come to wonder why the scientific definition of planet doesn't just include(!) an atmosphere... I think that knocks Mercury out of the picture, but hey. Seems fairly straight-forward to me, with my limited knowledge. Heh. [(!) Note - some moons have atmospheres, too, but they don't orbit around a star.]

*watches this develop with interest*

Awww...

But...but...but had they included Ceres and UB, then finally more people would know of the planet that has been nicknamed "Xena", and has the moon nicknamed "Gabrielle"!

Such a chance, tossed away...


-

[Melanie68]

What are the astrologists going to do?

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Jazhara7

But...but...but had they included Ceres and UB, then finally more people would know of the planet that has been nicknamed "Xena", and has the moon nicknamed "Gabrielle"!

What? There were planets named after Xena and Gabrielle? Damnit!

On another note, at least this way people won't have to compose extra movements for Gustav Holst's The Planets...

[Lee in Limbo]

Yes, but if your supposed 2700 strong astronomers aren't all behind this vote, then the arbitrary action of stripping a planet of its status (in order largely to validate your scientific field ahead of everyone elses after a big hullabaloo about giving planet status to three new bodies that don't meet your rarified criterion for planet status) is not rejecting sentimentality. It's bad science, and rejecting the results of the vote is merely reinstating good science (and sense).

He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is working on'."

The mnemonic was in question either way, because the convention was discussing designating more planets to begin with. But bitching and moaning that your gravity science is being ignored by the geophysicists and rallying a last minute vote after everyone else has gotten fed up and gone home yields nothing but embarrassing declarations that will only have to be rectified after the dust settles anyway.

The science doesn't even support the claim. Pluto has an eccentric orbit and is effected by the gravity of the gas giants on the outer rings. It's also small, but let's not be sizist. However, several planets in the system don't meet all of these new criterion, which are really just a big jockeying for position on the part of the gravity guys. In the end, narrowing the definition is more about drawing attention to your pet scientific theories than it is about thoroughly understanding the nature of celestial bodies.

The IAU just gave itself a big black eye. Just about anything it says next is going to be looked at rather dubiously after this little imbroglio.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

Yes, but if your supposed 2700 strong astronomers aren't all behind this vote, then the arbitrary action of stripping a planet of its status (in order largely to validate your scientific field ahead of everyone elses after a big hullabaloo about giving planet status to three new bodies that don't meet your rarified criterion for planet status) is not rejecting sentimentality. It's bad science, and rejecting the results of the vote is merely reinstating good science (and sense).

If you're adressing me, that's my whole point. I would like it to be good science, but not on basis of "OMGWTF, PLUTO IS NOT A PLANET ANYMORE!".

Note - if you're not talking to me, then ignore the rest of this post starting after this paragraph. I'm confused whom you're adressing, because you are saying "Yes," as though in response to someone, but I have no idea who or what you are saying yes to. My only basis of assuming it's a response to me is because I've been the one bringing up the topic of sentimentality.

>

Please don't overread things such as

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

( - making no statement about the people in that article, just my views on debating the definition in general)

as it makes making any point at all very tedious. I put that there for a reason.

I made a post in response to the article because it was, at the time, the only post detailing out that people are opposing this decision. But scientists are not the only people who are opposing the decision, and a lot of people are just wanting their nine planets back - and I can imagine several of those people are in the field, and amongst those throwing their weight around now, but I don't claim to know this.

Also, what you may be confusing is that whilst I say, "Don't debate on basis of sentimentality", I have never said, "Don't make Pluto a planet again", or even "Don't debate this". Au contraire, if it's unscientific, and it does strike me as such after reading the article, I want it debated. I just hope they can keep things like sentimentality out of it and instead of being hellbent on keeping the classical system more or less in tact, come up with a good definition - regardless if Pluto is a planet in it or not.

<



Here comes the point where I'm told it wasn't me being addressed by the post and my clarification was moot, and everyone'd understood my point in the first place. *readies dunce hat*

[Hammerite]

Originally Posted by bulldog

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
there will be an extra charge for whip cream and ice cream

are we talking about pies?

...

...

...

I know. I'm sick.

[Lee in Limbo]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Here comes the point where I'm told it wasn't me being addressed by the post and my clarification was moot, and everyone'd understood my point in the first place. *readies dunce hat*

No no, I was addressing you, but I think the rancor that unintentionally seeped into my comment was addressed to the idiots who made such a controversial announcement without a true consensus.

I was responding to your point that keeping Pluto's planetary status should not be done out of a sense of tradition alone, to which I agree. I just think the strict new definitions they've imposed deny a certain amount of flexibility (and dare I suggest mystique) in what a planet is and what it is capable of doing under circumstances that could be considered exotic by current standards.

Science is all about explaining and defining things, so this makes sense on the face of it. However, the science they are arguing for doesn't cover the whole gamut of intrinsic qualities that define a planet. Better to keep the old standards until you can thoroughly refute them, which they have not done satisfactorily.

It suited us for nearly a century to accept Pluto's eccentricity, but because it poses questions that newer gravity science can't inclusively deal with yet, and because nobody wants MORE than nine planets (twelve is so untidy), they just declared Pluto a dwarf planet while everyone else was away. That's not science, it's politics.

As well, this whole vote result obfuscates the real issue, which was that most of the people in the room (when they were all still there) were reluctant to bring in the 'new planets' (if they hadn't discovered them themselves, that is). So after ten days of heated debate, most folks lost their patience, interest and focus, and got on the plane to go home, figuring rightly that this was a matter that would have to be discussed further, over a longer period of time. Any vote under such circumstancees would not be an accurate summation of the symposium's thinking, either way.

That said, none of this added vitriol is directed at you specifically, pinkgothic. I agree with your assessment. I'm just cranky today. My wife is attempting to quit smoking, and I seem to be suffering sympathetic symptoms of withdrawal right along with her. *sigh*