There's a group dedicated to this issue on Facebook, which attracts a fair few morons. As well as the "OMG mnemonic doesn't work!" group, there's the "OMG horoscopes affected!" group and the "OMG that's just mean!" group.
I say, rename it and teach kids why, so they might get more interested in all the crazy stuff out in the universe.
Apparently, there's a very good chance there's at least one more massive gas giant out beyond the reaches of Pluto, even more massive than Jupiter.
That is cool as hell. How do they know/project this?
Pluto fails not so much because it hasn't "swept out debris in its orbit" but rather because Pluto as a celestial body does not comprise the majority of the mass present in its orbit, not by a long shot.
What else (other mass?) is present in its orbit? Asteriods?
I voted in the poll on the History Channel's site and at the moment 66% of the responders think Pluto should not have been downgraded. I hope when the Universe does an episode on this it talks some about the hows and whys of it getting downgraded - I think a lot of people just don't know. (The outer planet episode is on next week, I think, must set DVR.) My knowledge is kind of shamefully limited in the area (which is why I've been watching the Universe to start with.)
Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune etc with no solid surface are Gas Giants. Everything else is a Rock until it supports life complex enough to complain about being called a Rock. It then becomes a Planet.
Apparently, there's a very good chance there's at least one more massive gas giant out beyond the reaches of Pluto, even more massive than Jupiter.
That is cool as hell. How do they know/project this?
Pluto fails not so much because it hasn't "swept out debris in its orbit" but rather because Pluto as a celestial body does not comprise the majority of the mass present in its orbit, not by a long shot.
What else (other mass?) is present in its orbit? Asteriods?
Charon. Pluto isn't the centerpoint of its orbit around the sun, it and its moon revolve around each other and their barycenter is the point at which the system revolves around the sun. If Pluto were to be considered a planet then Charon should as well, making it twin worlds.
There's a group dedicated to this issue on Facebook, which attracts a fair few morons. As well as the "OMG mnemonic doesn't work!" group, there's the "OMG horoscopes affected!"
Wait, what? Astrologers use pluto nowadays? But... we didn't even know of its existence (or Uranus or Neptue for that matter) way back when the familair form of Westen Astrology was created! *grumbles* Of course, I dare not agrue this point with Astrologers. Bunch of self-important morons who are more annoying to talk to than conspiracy nuts.
Anyway, back on topic: I think the KBOs need a better name. We can't call them "Plutons" since that name is already taken (in geologly). Any suggestions?
Neptune is my favorite planet. He's the guy sitting at the back of the class, laid back, making fun of suckups like Mercury. Pluto would get up all in his business every once in a while and be generally annoying. So, fk Pluto.
KBOs need a cool name like the Trojan set of asteroids. They share an orbit with Jupiter (they're at the stable Lagrange points at 60 degree triangles with Jupiter and the Sun). The larger group of asteroids at the point preceding Jupiter is called the Greeks, and they're all named after Greek warriors at the battle of Troy (except for the asteroid named Hector after the Trojan spy). The smaller group of asteroids following Jupiter is the Trojans, named after heroes from Troy (except for one named Patroclus after the Greek spy). That is nifty.
KBOs need a cool name like the Trojan set of asteroids. They share an orbit with Jupiter (they're at the stable Lagrange points at 60 degree triangles with Jupiter and the Sun). The larger group of asteroids at the point preceding Jupiter is called the Greeks, and they're all named after Greek warriors at the battle of Troy (except for the asteroid named Hector after the Trojan spy). The smaller group of asteroids following Jupiter is the Trojans, named after heroes from Troy (except for one named Patroclus after the Greek spy). That is nifty.
I never understood the importance of what we name outside planets. I remember reading one topic somewhere and everyone was getting uptight about the possibility of a new planet not being named after a Greek/Roman deity. Honestly, is it all that important? :zzz: I think the focus should be primarily on the planet we're living on at the moment.
Even worse, I accidentally wound up at that Stormfront I-hate-everybody-thats-not-like-me-as-in-only-fifty-people Stormfront white supremacist website forum while I was researching about the Klu Klux Klan for a project of mine (I should of just went to Wikipedia) and they were all in a shuffle about how dumb a name 'Xena' would be. Not because its named after a television show, but because the show was placed in Ancient Greece, but had a few non-white characters which in their eyes made it illegitimate O_o But they were still satifised, just as long as it won't be named after any 'African deities' while simultaneously maintaining that Ancient Egypt weren't habitants of black people. But anyway...me and my weird short stories...
My one problem with it not being a plant is that it failed specifically on the "clearing the neighborhood" because it comes to close to Neptune, but that should also dick Neptune (why does Pluto still chill in its hood?), Jupiter (has a bunch of asteroids around it iirc), and Earth (near earth asteroids). More or less the IAU just didn't want Pluto and couldn't give a half a shit answer for why it shouldn't be.
I, for one, am a large fan of the other solution of adding quite a few planets to the solar system.
Apparently, there's a very good chance there's at least one more massive gas giant out beyond the reaches of Pluto, even more massive than Jupiter.
Where did you hear this? I have never heard anything about it, and gas giants are sources of radio waves. It wouldn't be hard to find if it was orbiting the sun.
On Pluto, a definition was necessary, and the fact Pluto got excluded is just a side effect. There could of been ways to prevent it, I suppose, but its not really that big of a deal, is it? Terminology, who cares. Too loose a definition, we have to start upgrading moons. I think we hit a good spot with the definition, and theres nothing wrong with "dwarf planet" status, I think. Plus, I think accepting theres one less planet is better than accepting that there are 2 more (Ceres and Eris) and not to mention how many ever odd dwarfs we might find floating around trans-Neptune.
Where did you hear this? I have never heard anything about it, and gas giants are sources of radio waves. It wouldn't be hard to find if it was orbiting the sun.
The idea has been around since the 80's or so that the orbits of Uranus and Neptune don't quite make sense unless there is another very large object out there exerting a gravitational influence on them. This is why we found Pluto and then Seres and all those other KBOs - because astronomers were actually trying to find the 'missing mass' that would explain the orbital anomalies - and thus far, haven't.
Also, bear in mind that it's actually really difficult to spot local far away objects - a gas giant will shoot out radio waves, but so is just about everything else and being so far away from the sun any planetary body out around the Kupier belt is going to extremely cold anyway.
Also eeeee - the thought of a secret gas giant makes me squeal with delight.
Where did you hear this? I have never heard anything about it, and gas giants are sources of radio waves. It wouldn't be hard to find if it was orbiting the sun.
The idea has been around since the 80's or so that the orbits of Uranus and Neptune don't quite make sense unless there is another very large object out there exerting a gravitational influence on them. This is why we found Pluto and then Seres and all those other KBOs - because astronomers were actually trying to find the 'missing mass' that would explain the orbital anomalies - and thus far, haven't.
Also, bear in mind that it's actually really difficult to spot local far away objects - a gas giant will shoot out radio waves, but so is just about everything else and being so far away from the sun any planetary body out around the Kupier belt is going to extremely cold anyway.
Also eeeee - the thought of a secret gas giant makes me squeal with delight.
I've heard of that, but never that it was an undiscovered gas giant. Interesting, and I suppose it wouldn't be as easy to spot the radio emissions as Jupiter, since it probably wouldn't have the benefit of and Io-like moon and its particles.
I think the focus should be primarily on the planet we're living on at the moment.
Clearly we are capable of doing exactly 1 thing at a time, and hence must do things in order of importance :roll:
This type of statement annoys me to no end simply because it says "what would you like to do with your life? Well that's not important enough - do this instead regardless of if you have any aptitude or enthusiasm for it".
EDIT: Also attempts to assign absolute values to different types of knowledge are foolhardy at best.
Where did you hear this? I have never heard anything about it, and gas giants are sources of radio waves. It wouldn't be hard to find if it was orbiting the sun.
The idea has been around since the 80's or so that the orbits of Uranus and Neptune don't quite make sense unless there is another very large object out there exerting a gravitational influence on them. This is why we found Pluto and then Seres and all those other KBOs - because astronomers were actually trying to find the 'missing mass' that would explain the orbital anomalies - and thus far, haven't.
Also, bear in mind that it's actually really difficult to spot local far away objects - a gas giant will shoot out radio waves, but so is just about everything else and being so far away from the sun any planetary body out around the Kupier belt is going to extremely cold anyway.
Also eeeee - the thought of a secret gas giant makes me squeal with delight.
I've heard of that, but never that it was an undiscovered gas giant. Interesting, and I suppose it wouldn't be as easy to spot the radio emissions as Jupiter, since it probably wouldn't have the benefit of and Io-like moon and its particles.
A secret gas giant would be pretty amazing.
I bet it's where the hidden Pirate Base is.
Scikar on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
There's a group dedicated to this issue on Facebook, which attracts a fair few morons. As well as the "OMG mnemonic doesn't work!" group, there's the "OMG horoscopes affected!"
Wait, what? Astrologers use pluto nowadays? But... we didn't even know of its existence (or Uranus or Neptue for that matter) way back when the familair form of Westen Astrology was created! *grumbles* Of course, I dare not agrue this point with Astrologers. Bunch of self-important morons who are more annoying to talk to than conspiracy nuts.
There's a group dedicated to this issue on Facebook, which attracts a fair few morons. As well as the "OMG mnemonic doesn't work!" group, there's the "OMG horoscopes affected!"
Wait, what? Astrologers use pluto nowadays? But... we didn't even know of its existence (or Uranus or Neptue for that matter) way back when the familair form of Westen Astrology was created! *grumbles* Of course, I dare not agrue this point with Astrologers. Bunch of self-important morons who are more annoying to talk to than conspiracy nuts.
This is because astrology is 100% pure bullshit.
Hey now, there's at least 10-12% chicanery in there too. So only a little under 90% bullshit.
There's a group dedicated to this issue on Facebook, which attracts a fair few morons. As well as the "OMG mnemonic doesn't work!" group, there's the "OMG horoscopes affected!"
Wait, what? Astrologers use pluto nowadays? But... we didn't even know of its existence (or Uranus or Neptue for that matter) way back when the familair form of Westen Astrology was created! *grumbles* Of course, I dare not agrue this point with Astrologers. Bunch of self-important morons who are more annoying to talk to than conspiracy nuts.
This is because astrology is 100% pure bullshit.
Hey now, there's at least 10-12% chicanery in there too. So only a little under 90% bullshit.
So Astrology is 100 to 102$ bullshit an chcanery? Yeah, that sounds about right for a hack pseudo-pseudoscience. (OH Burn on you, Astrology!)
Also, the Space Shuttle is now in orbit! Yay! She's from McCall Idaho. Folks here in Idaho are all happy and proud and patriotic and stuff. Horray for Idahoans paying attention to science for once, yay!
It always pissed me off that the planets were named after the Roman pantheon and not the Greek. The Romans were just shameless thieves without an ounce of creativity when it came to religion.
No. Just because everyone was raised to believe it was a planet does not make it a planet.
The debate came to a head in 2006 with an IAU resolution that created an official definition for the term "planet". According to this resolution, there are three main conditions for an object to be considered a 'planet':
1. The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
2. The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium.
3. It must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.[89]
Pluto fails to meet the third condition, since its mass was only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit (Earth's mass, by contrast, is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its own orbit).[90][91] The IAU further resolved that Pluto be classified in the simultaneously created dwarf planet category, and that it act as prototype for a yet-to-be-named category of trans-Neptunian objects, in which it would be separately, but concurrently, classified.
Honestly, I would disagree.
Our definitions of what is and isn't a planet are entirely arbitrary. There is no "magic dividing line" in nature, it's all just a gradual scale. If Mercury is somehow the same thing as Jupiter, then why not Pluto also?
Often science decides things in a certain way because it makes people feel good. humans are farther seperate from other apes on the "great tree of life" mostly because we like to think we are special. It is perfectably acceptable to refer to our own earth as "The Earth", our own sun as "The Sun", and our own moon as "The Moon, for god's sake! We draw SO MANY of these arbtrary lines in ways that make us feel good, why not draw them to include Pluto?
Our definitions of what is and isn't a planet are entirely arbitrary. There is no "magic dividing line" in nature, it's all just a gradual scale. If Mercury is somehow the same thing as Jupiter, then why not Pluto also?
Often science decides things in a certain way because it makes people feel good. humans are farther seperate from other apes on the "great tree of life" mostly because we like to think we are special. It is perfectably acceptable to refer to our own earth as "The Earth", our own sun as "The Sun", and our own moon as "The Moon, for god's sake! We draw SO MANY of these arbtrary lines in ways that make us feel good, why not draw them to include Pluto?
Because what we want is, if not an obvious classification system then a useful classification system - and any system including Pluto as a planet will include so many other things that it's not useful.
EDIT: Also "Earth" is actually a planet name. The sun is an applicable term to any star which is acting as the sun just it turns out interstellar travel hasn't taken off yet, but if you must know our star is named "Sol". The Moon is "The Moon" as opposed to "a Moon" but I honestly won't be surprised when we find aliens have done the same thing with their first moons but I'm willing to bet the local word gets used as an identifier.
Our definitions of what is and isn't a planet are entirely arbitrary. There is no "magic dividing line" in nature, it's all just a gradual scale. If Mercury is somehow the same thing as Jupiter, then why not Pluto also?
Often science decides things in a certain way because it makes people feel good. humans are farther seperate from other apes on the "great tree of life" mostly because we like to think we are special. It is perfectably acceptable to refer to our own earth as "The Earth", our own sun as "The Sun", and our own moon as "The Moon, for god's sake! We draw SO MANY of these arbtrary lines in ways that make us feel good, why not draw them to include Pluto?
Because what we want is, if not an obvious classification system then a useful classification system - and any system including Pluto as a planet will include so many other things that it's not useful.
EDIT: Also "Earth" is actually a planet name. The sun is an applicable term to any star which is acting as the sun just it turns out interstellar travel hasn't taken off yet, but if you must know our star is named "Sol". The Moon is "The Moon" as opposed to "a Moon" but I honestly won't be surprised when we find aliens have done the same thing with their first moons but I'm willing to bet the local word gets used as an identifier.
All I'm saying is that lumping Terra in with Jupiter makes zero sense.
If we are going to start making divisions to better organize things, that is what I'd go to first, not chopping pluto off and calling it a day.
Edit: drat, it looks like the IAU just reappropriated "Terra" for something else, but st
ill, refering to Sol as "THE sun" and Luna as "THE moon" is HIGHLY unscientific, if you want to be technical. For all of the posturing of the scietific community, things are FAR from being objective, and we might as well recognize this, and embrace it. Hell, doesn't Heisenberg Uncertainty tell us that, basically, objectivity is imposible (or was that some other part of Quantum mech.)
I'll give you a pro-tip: the Uncertainty Principle has nothing to say about systems that are not subject to quantum effects, including, chiefly, the idea of human knowledge.
All I'm saying is that lumping Terra in with Jupiter makes zero sense.
Except we DON'T. Anyone who calls Earth a Gas Giant or Gas Planet deserves a shot in the mouth. We have sub-categories of sub-categories, Earth and Jupiter just happen to split at different points than Pluto and the rest. Why? 'Cause Pluto's just too damn small. We've basically just said "If you orbit a star and are big enough, you're a planet". I see nothing wrong with this distinction. If you bitch about creating set guidelines for things, you might as well bitch about the distinction between types of atoms. They're all made of the same stuff, right? Why the anal retentiveness? Let's just homogenize everything!
As for the Sun/Sol, Earth/Terra, Moon/Luna stuff, it's just a matter of culture and convention. I think just about every astronomer out there knows our sun is named Sol, but what do you think is the best way to refer to that big burning ball of plasma to the layman? As we expand outward, I'm sure even these oversights will be eventually corrected. The fact of the matter is, something has to be up first to the chopping block, and Pluto's the best candidate. Its reclassification means little to the layman, whereas trying to rename the Sun would be a lot harder. Advancements, awareness and consciousness raising have to be done before the big issues can be tackled.
I'll give you a pro-tip: the Uncertainty Principle has nothing to say about systems that are not subject to quantum effects, including, chiefly, the idea of human knowledge.
I'll give you a pro-tip: the Uncertainty Principle has nothing to say about systems that are not subject to quantum effects, including, chiefly, the idea of human knowledge.
Oh, I could argue otherwise.
EVERYTHING breaks down to the quantum scale. Even human thought is, on some level, a chemical process, which also breaks down to that scale. When you observe ANYTHING you are observing maybe not the quantum particles themselves, but at least their ultimate effects, no?
Evander on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
I'll give you a pro-tip: the Uncertainty Principle has nothing to say about systems that are not subject to quantum effects, including, chiefly, the idea of human knowledge.
Oh, I could argue otherwise.
Actually, no you can't.
At least, no effectively. You might as well try and argue that it's all about the relationship between Pluto and chocolate pudding.
EVERYTHING breaks down to the quantum scale. Even human thought is, on some level, a chemical process, which also breaks down to that scale. When you observe ANYTHING you are observing maybe not the quantum particles themselves, but at least their ultimate effects, no?
All I'm saying is that lumping Terra in with Jupiter makes zero sense.
Except we DON'T. Anyone who calls Earth a Gas Giant or Gas Planet deserves a shot in the mouth. We have sub-categories of sub-categories, Earth and Jupiter just happen to split at different points than Pluto and the rest. Why? 'Cause Pluto's just too damn small. We've basically just said "If you orbit a star and are big enough, you're a planet". I see nothing wrong with this distinction. If you bitch about creating set guidelines for things, you might as well bitch about the distinction between types of atoms. They're all made of the same stuff, right? Why the anal retentiveness? Let's just homogenize everything!
As for the Sun/Sol, Earth/Terra, Moon/Luna stuff, it's just a matter of culture and convention. I think just about every astronomer out there knows our sun is named Sol, but what do you think is the best way to refer to that big burning ball of plasma to the layman? As we expand outward, I'm sure even these oversights will be eventually corrected. The fact of the matter is, something has to be up first to the chopping block, and Pluto's the best candidate. Its reclassification means little to the layman, whereas trying to rename the Sun would be a lot harder. Advancements, awareness and consciousness raising have to be done before the big issues can be tackled.
You can't do all this shit overnight.
I am just being a jerk because I miss Pluto, andalso because, sometimes, it annoys me that Scientists pretend that they are far more objective than they truely are.
I am a BIG fan of science. I used to be a physics major, until I realized that I could really make the kind of career out of it that I wanted to have. That doesn't stop me from noticing that we make a lot of arbitrary distinctions, often based not on the most natural divisions, but rather, on the personal interests of the discovery-maker(s) and/orthe petty rivalriesbetween opposing groups of scientists.
As far as makingdistinctions within a catagory, it is again entirely arbitrary. "Gas giant" and "gas planet" are both sub catagories within the "planets" catagory, but "dwarf planet" is somehow a catagory unto itself?
I am just being a jerk because I miss Pluto, andalso because, sometimes, it annoys me that Scientists pretend that they are far more objective than they truely are.
I am a BIG fan of science. I used to be a physics major, until I realized that I could really make the kind of career out of it that I wanted to have. That doesn't stop me from noticing that we make a lot of arbitrary distinctions, often based not on the most natural divisions, but rather, on the personal interests of the discovery-maker(s) and/orthe petty rivalriesbetween opposing groups of scientists.
I think you need to provide examples to back up those accusations.
In many cases it doesn't really matter how you categorize, say, celestial objects, but you need to be consistent. In the case of Pluto it came down to either removing Pluto from the planet list or adding more planets. I can't detect any lack of objectivity there.
I am just being a jerk because I miss Pluto, andalso because, sometimes, it annoys me that Scientists pretend that they are far more objective than they truely are.
Do you also miss Charon? It was just as much a planet as Pluto.
Posts
No? But both the moon and ISS fall under the category of satellite.
EDIT: Speaking of moons and planets and such, this is really cool. --> http://kokogiak.com/solarsystembodieslargerthan200miles.html
"That is no moon..."
"...it's an Interstellar House of Pancakes!"
I say, rename it and teach kids why, so they might get more interested in all the crazy stuff out in the universe.
That is cool as hell. How do they know/project this?
What else (other mass?) is present in its orbit? Asteriods?
I voted in the poll on the History Channel's site and at the moment 66% of the responders think Pluto should not have been downgraded. I hope when the Universe does an episode on this it talks some about the hows and whys of it getting downgraded - I think a lot of people just don't know. (The outer planet episode is on next week, I think, must set DVR.) My knowledge is kind of shamefully limited in the area (which is why I've been watching the Universe to start with.)
Charon. Pluto isn't the centerpoint of its orbit around the sun, it and its moon revolve around each other and their barycenter is the point at which the system revolves around the sun. If Pluto were to be considered a planet then Charon should as well, making it twin worlds.
I agree! "Binary Dwarf Planetary System" sound sway cooler than "smallest planet." 8-)
Wait, what? Astrologers use pluto nowadays? But... we didn't even know of its existence (or Uranus or Neptue for that matter) way back when the familair form of Westen Astrology was created! *grumbles* Of course, I dare not agrue this point with Astrologers. Bunch of self-important morons who are more annoying to talk to than conspiracy nuts.
Anyway, back on topic: I think the KBOs need a better name. We can't call them "Plutons" since that name is already taken (in geologly). Any suggestions?
That's what happens when you let nerds name shit.
Even worse, I accidentally wound up at that Stormfront I-hate-everybody-thats-not-like-me-as-in-only-fifty-people Stormfront white supremacist website forum while I was researching about the Klu Klux Klan for a project of mine (I should of just went to Wikipedia) and they were all in a shuffle about how dumb a name 'Xena' would be. Not because its named after a television show, but because the show was placed in Ancient Greece, but had a few non-white characters which in their eyes made it illegitimate O_o But they were still satifised, just as long as it won't be named after any 'African deities' while simultaneously maintaining that Ancient Egypt weren't habitants of black people. But anyway...me and my weird short stories...
Hey...be quiet.
Where did you hear this? I have never heard anything about it, and gas giants are sources of radio waves. It wouldn't be hard to find if it was orbiting the sun.
On Pluto, a definition was necessary, and the fact Pluto got excluded is just a side effect. There could of been ways to prevent it, I suppose, but its not really that big of a deal, is it? Terminology, who cares. Too loose a definition, we have to start upgrading moons. I think we hit a good spot with the definition, and theres nothing wrong with "dwarf planet" status, I think. Plus, I think accepting theres one less planet is better than accepting that there are 2 more (Ceres and Eris) and not to mention how many ever odd dwarfs we might find floating around trans-Neptune.
The idea has been around since the 80's or so that the orbits of Uranus and Neptune don't quite make sense unless there is another very large object out there exerting a gravitational influence on them. This is why we found Pluto and then Seres and all those other KBOs - because astronomers were actually trying to find the 'missing mass' that would explain the orbital anomalies - and thus far, haven't.
Also, bear in mind that it's actually really difficult to spot local far away objects - a gas giant will shoot out radio waves, but so is just about everything else and being so far away from the sun any planetary body out around the Kupier belt is going to extremely cold anyway.
Also eeeee - the thought of a secret gas giant makes me squeal with delight.
I've heard of that, but never that it was an undiscovered gas giant. Interesting, and I suppose it wouldn't be as easy to spot the radio emissions as Jupiter, since it probably wouldn't have the benefit of and Io-like moon and its particles.
A secret gas giant would be pretty amazing.
That planet has advanced an insane amount thanks solely to looking out at the stars.
Clearly we are capable of doing exactly 1 thing at a time, and hence must do things in order of importance :roll:
This type of statement annoys me to no end simply because it says "what would you like to do with your life? Well that's not important enough - do this instead regardless of if you have any aptitude or enthusiasm for it".
EDIT: Also attempts to assign absolute values to different types of knowledge are foolhardy at best.
I bet it's where the hidden Pirate Base is.
This is because astrology is 100% pure bullshit.
Hey now, there's at least 10-12% chicanery in there too. So only a little under 90% bullshit.
So Astrology is 100 to 102$ bullshit an chcanery? Yeah, that sounds about right for a hack pseudo-pseudoscience. (OH Burn on you, Astrology!)
Also, the Space Shuttle is now in orbit! Yay! She's from McCall Idaho. Folks here in Idaho are all happy and proud and patriotic and stuff. Horray for Idahoans paying attention to science for once, yay!
Honestly, I would disagree.
Our definitions of what is and isn't a planet are entirely arbitrary. There is no "magic dividing line" in nature, it's all just a gradual scale. If Mercury is somehow the same thing as Jupiter, then why not Pluto also?
Often science decides things in a certain way because it makes people feel good. humans are farther seperate from other apes on the "great tree of life" mostly because we like to think we are special. It is perfectably acceptable to refer to our own earth as "The Earth", our own sun as "The Sun", and our own moon as "The Moon, for god's sake! We draw SO MANY of these arbtrary lines in ways that make us feel good, why not draw them to include Pluto?
Because what we want is, if not an obvious classification system then a useful classification system - and any system including Pluto as a planet will include so many other things that it's not useful.
EDIT: Also "Earth" is actually a planet name. The sun is an applicable term to any star which is acting as the sun just it turns out interstellar travel hasn't taken off yet, but if you must know our star is named "Sol". The Moon is "The Moon" as opposed to "a Moon" but I honestly won't be surprised when we find aliens have done the same thing with their first moons but I'm willing to bet the local word gets used as an identifier.
First one out of her mouth...Pluto. It's that damn cartoon dog's fault.
All I'm saying is that lumping Terra in with Jupiter makes zero sense.
If we are going to start making divisions to better organize things, that is what I'd go to first, not chopping pluto off and calling it a day.
Edit: drat, it looks like the IAU just reappropriated "Terra" for something else, but st
ill, refering to Sol as "THE sun" and Luna as "THE moon" is HIGHLY unscientific, if you want to be technical. For all of the posturing of the scietific community, things are FAR from being objective, and we might as well recognize this, and embrace it. Hell, doesn't Heisenberg Uncertainty tell us that, basically, objectivity is imposible (or was that some other part of Quantum mech.)
Except we DON'T. Anyone who calls Earth a Gas Giant or Gas Planet deserves a shot in the mouth. We have sub-categories of sub-categories, Earth and Jupiter just happen to split at different points than Pluto and the rest. Why? 'Cause Pluto's just too damn small. We've basically just said "If you orbit a star and are big enough, you're a planet". I see nothing wrong with this distinction. If you bitch about creating set guidelines for things, you might as well bitch about the distinction between types of atoms. They're all made of the same stuff, right? Why the anal retentiveness? Let's just homogenize everything!
As for the Sun/Sol, Earth/Terra, Moon/Luna stuff, it's just a matter of culture and convention. I think just about every astronomer out there knows our sun is named Sol, but what do you think is the best way to refer to that big burning ball of plasma to the layman? As we expand outward, I'm sure even these oversights will be eventually corrected. The fact of the matter is, something has to be up first to the chopping block, and Pluto's the best candidate. Its reclassification means little to the layman, whereas trying to rename the Sun would be a lot harder. Advancements, awareness and consciousness raising have to be done before the big issues can be tackled.
You can't do all this shit overnight.
But, but, Deepak Chopra said it did!
Oh, I could argue otherwise.
EVERYTHING breaks down to the quantum scale. Even human thought is, on some level, a chemical process, which also breaks down to that scale. When you observe ANYTHING you are observing maybe not the quantum particles themselves, but at least their ultimate effects, no?
At least, no effectively. You might as well try and argue that it's all about the relationship between Pluto and chocolate pudding.
And this is relevant to the discussion...how?
I am just being a jerk because I miss Pluto, andalso because, sometimes, it annoys me that Scientists pretend that they are far more objective than they truely are.
I am a BIG fan of science. I used to be a physics major, until I realized that I could really make the kind of career out of it that I wanted to have. That doesn't stop me from noticing that we make a lot of arbitrary distinctions, often based not on the most natural divisions, but rather, on the personal interests of the discovery-maker(s) and/orthe petty rivalriesbetween opposing groups of scientists.
As far as makingdistinctions within a catagory, it is again entirely arbitrary. "Gas giant" and "gas planet" are both sub catagories within the "planets" catagory, but "dwarf planet" is somehow a catagory unto itself?
I think you need to provide examples to back up those accusations.
In many cases it doesn't really matter how you categorize, say, celestial objects, but you need to be consistent. In the case of Pluto it came down to either removing Pluto from the planet list or adding more planets. I can't detect any lack of objectivity there.
Do you also miss Charon? It was just as much a planet as Pluto.