Pluto is disqualifed

[Oy_the_Great]

This is just stupid. Just keep the damn planet(err...floating ball of non-planetness) defined as an actual planet.

 

 

 

yeah plain stupid,

 

 

 

the word planet has a defenition now, and pluto do not satisfies to the defenition -.-

 

 

 

Now it is as it should have always been. If you take definitions with too much salt, you can just as well call yourself a chimp.

[Captaingoodguy]

You know the great thing about this is that displays of the solar system don't have to be changed at all, just make the building they are in a museum. And all those textbooks from 2 years ago, throw 'em in as well. That's what museums are for right, preserving history. :lol:

[wakka102]

screw that man, Pluto is still my favorite planet :D

[ForsakenMage]

I feel so sorry for the Astronomy department at my old college... They've gotta rewrite their lectures now.

 

 

 

And recently there was a book reprinted too, just last year, and yes it says Pluto is the 9th planet... That publisher must be hopping mad.

 

 

 

We want Pluto back!!! :XD:

[Phil]

And recently there was a book reprinted too, just last year, and yes it says Pluto is the 9th planet... That publisher must be hopping mad.

 

The publishers must be thinking all their dreams have come true. They will re-publish the books which students will buy because it will be an updated version and in the process will make lots of money.

[runesmithie]

And recently there was a book reprinted too, just last year, and yes it says Pluto is the 9th planet... That publisher must be hopping mad.

 

The publishers must be thinking all their dreams have come true. They will re-publish the books which students will buy because it will be an updated version and in the process will make lots of money.

 

 

 

And of course, in the US it will cost us >3 times as much to buy a book that erased a planets name as other countries :P

[Oy_the_Great]

And recently there was a book reprinted too, just last year, and yes it says Pluto is the 9th planet... That publisher must be hopping mad.

 

The publishers must be thinking all their dreams have come true. They will re-publish the books which students will buy because it will be an updated version and in the process will make lots of money.

 

 

 

And of course, in the US it will cost us >3 times as much to buy a book that erased a planets name as other countries :P

 

 

 

Yeah, I've heard from a friend who's studying in Philly, that not only subsciptions for college are out of the roof, but books also costs loads more. I think 350ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì a year will get me all of my books, and that's about 20 of them.

[Militaris]

The main reason why Pluto is not a planet is because of this definition "the body must also clear the neighborhood around its orbit."....

 

 

 

But using this argument, Neptune has failed to clear Pluto from its orbit. So there is a argument that Neptune is not be a planet.

[Phil]

And of course, in the US it will cost us >3 times as much to buy a book that erased a planets name as other countries :P

 

 

 

Yeah, I've heard from a friend who's studying in Philly, that not only subsciptions for college are out of the roof, but books also costs loads more. I think 350ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì a year will get me all of my books, and that's about 20 of them.

 

Your books cost about ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã12 each?!

 

 

 

The books I had to buy for uni cost about ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã30-ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã40 each. Also I thought that everything cost more here in UK comapred to USA? (not sure about Europe)

[malo2]

The main reason why Pluto is not a planet is because of this definition "the body must also clear the neighborhood around its orbit."....

 

 

 

But using this argument, Neptune has failed to clear Pluto from its orbit. So there is a argument that Neptune is not be a planet.

then what about saturn?

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

[Oy_the_Great]

And of course, in the US it will cost us >3 times as much to buy a book that erased a planets name as other countries :P

 

 

 

Yeah, I've heard from a friend who's studying in Philly, that not only subsciptions for college are out of the roof, but books also costs loads more. I think 350ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì a year will get me all of my books, and that's about 20 of them.

 

Your books cost about ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã12 each?!

 

 

 

The books I had to buy for uni cost about ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã30-ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã40 each. Also I thought that everything cost more here in UK comapred to USA? (not sure about Europe)

 

 

 

Yeah, and 12ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã is a lot. Most of our books are boring monotone books with only plain text, written by our own professors and produced by our college label, that's why they're so cheap. They also rarely ever feature photos, drawings or even graphs.

 

Last year we used an American course book for Marketing. It was 1150 A4 pages, but large illustrations every couple of pages and a lot of case studies. It costed about 30ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã, which we all found dreadfully expensive. A course with the same information produced by our professors would be a lot less fun to study, but it would be on 300 pages, no illustrations or cases and it'd cost around 7-10ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã.

[Quer_Skulll]

thats afully stupid. Definition or not, its been known as a planet for what, 36 years now? Why do a bunch of idiots get to change something weve been accustomed to for decades? .

 

 

 

since 1930.. that's about 36 years yeah. :P

 

irony has it that these idiots are probably smarter then you and i combined :shock: (alright well a bit of an exaggeration there).

 

 

 

wait a minute..! you got songs at primary school or pre-school to remember the names of the planets?....

 

man we never had that, hell i wouldn't even know them if my life depended on it :shock:

 

not that it interests me..

 

 

 

"UB313 is the largest dwarf planet. That's kind of cool," he said.

 

 

 

scientists think up such funny names; "UB313" hehe.. reminds me of UB40..

 

 

 

Red red wine pumpatakpumpatak.

[Fadfdfd]

I heard that there may be 20 planets by the end of September...I don't know if it's true or not, it's just dumb, who cares if it's a planet or not? It's not like it affects us, as long as we know it's there.

 

 

 

My Very Educated Mother Served Us Nine Pizzas

 

 

 

INTO

 

 

 

My Very Educated Mother Served Us Noodles?

 

 

 

Where'd Jupiter go? :ohnoes:

 

 

 

It's the j in Edjucated. :D How edjucated am I!

[malo2]

no its "just served"

 

 

 

but i never used that crap, I dont even remember when I learned the planets, I just remember i learned them before I went to school.

[runesmithie]

The main reason why Pluto is not a planet is because of this definition "the body must also clear the neighborhood around its orbit."....

 

 

 

But using this argument, Neptune has failed to clear Pluto from its orbit. So there is a argument that Neptune is not be a planet.

then what about saturn?

 

 

 

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_artic ... _rings.jpg

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

Nooooooo way, you don't mess with Saturn and his homeboys :) I mean, just look how many there are!

[scarface1379]

ok heres the final deal. Pluto is now a dwarf planet.

 

Sun

 

Mercury

 

Venus

 

Earth

 

Mars

 

DP(some huge asteroid now called a dwarf planet)

 

Jupiter

 

Saturn

 

URanus :shame:

 

neptune

 

DP pluto,DP chiron

 

DP AB 2003

[Kashi]

Hey let me just say one thing.

 

 

 

Where the [bleep] do today's scientists get off gain-saying decisions made

 

by the early astronomers?

 

 

 

If you ask me it should remain as a planet just for the sake of tradition.

[Adam007]

Hey let me just say one thing.

 

 

 

Where the * do today's scientists get off gain-saying decisions made

 

by the early astronomers?

 

 

 

If you ask me it should remain as a planet just for the sake of tradition.

 

The early astronomers didn't have all the knowledge available to them that we do now. When Pluto was first discovered as a floating mass, why not call it a planet? That's fine, because people didn't know many details. But now we know more. I'm sure if those scientists knew then what we know now they'd agree - not to mention they, as scientists, would agree that it's better to classify something scientifically instead of keeping it for old times sake.

 

I hate to draw up that same analogy, but when the world was discovered to be round, do you think the fact that it used to be thought as flat got in the way? No. When it comes to science and astronomy you go by facts and figures, not by what feels right.

[Viktorkrum77]

I never understood how it was difficult to remember the planets...

 

 

 

I mean, hell, when I was in second grade, I knew all the plents, in order, what each of them looked like, their approximate distance relative from eachother, and a fact or two about each planet. I still do know these things.

 

 

 

All it takes is looking at a map of the solar system for a few minutes and that should be it...

 

 

 

Yea, seriously. I even know most of the moons, discluding the many moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

[Not]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm

 

 

 

Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt

 

 

 

A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip Pluto of its status as a planet.

 

 

 

On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto to a lesser category of object.

 

 

 

But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the ruling, calling it "embarrassing".

 

 

 

And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a definition implied that the vote had effectively been "hijacked".

 

 

 

The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for astronomy since 1919.

 

 

 

Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting took part.

 

 

 

An initial proposal by the IAU to add three new planets to the Solar System - the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon and the distant world known as 2003 UB313 - met with considerable opposition at the meeting. Days of heated debate followed during which four separate proposals were tabled.

 

 

 

Eventually, the scientists adopted historic guidelines that see Pluto relegated to a secondary category of "dwarf planets".

 

 

 

Drawing the line

 

 

 

Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition; it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons.

 

"Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for some arbitrary reason, like 'they tend to live in groups'.

 

 

 

"Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's inconsistent."

 

 

 

One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it out of the way with a gravitational swipe.

 

 

 

Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with that of Neptune.

 

 

 

But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path.

 

 

 

These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.

 

 

 

"If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.

 

 

 

Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to "Honk if Pluto is still a planet" have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails circulating about the decision have been describing the IAU as the "Irrelevant Astronomical Union".

 

 

 

'Inconvenient arrangements'

 

 

 

Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12.

 

 

 

The Harvard professor emeritus blamed the outcome in large part on a "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study the motion and gravitational effects of celestial objects.

 

 

 

"In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.

 

 

 

"Their revolt raised enough of a fuss to destroy the scientific integrity and subtlety of the [earlier] resolution."

 

 

 

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'."

 

 

 

E-voting

 

 

 

Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and therefore could not vote himself, said he would like to see electronic ballots introduced in future.

 

 

 

Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus.

 

 

 

"If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted to vote for President, we would have very different results because no one would vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision."

 

 

 

He added that he could not see the resolution standing for very long and did not plan to change any of the astronomy textbook he was currently writing.

 

 

 

But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official roster of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU's president of planetary systems science, commented: "Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we're not so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets crowded.

 

 

 

"By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think people would have said 'my goodness, what a mess they made back in 2006'."

 

 

 

Shaking hands

 

 

 

Robin Catchpole, of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, UK, said: "My own personal opinion was to leave things as they were. I met Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, and thought, it's nice to shake hands with someone who discovered a planet.

 

 

 

"But since the IAU brought out the first draft resolution, I was rather against that because I thought it was going to be very confusing. So the best of the alternatives was to keep the eight planets as they are, and then demote Pluto. I think this is a far superior solution."

 

 

 

The need for a strict definition was deemed necessary after new telescope technologies began to reveal far-off objects that rivalled Pluto in size.

 

 

 

The critical blow for Pluto came with the discovery three years ago of an object currently designated 2003 UB313. Discovered by Mike Brown and colleagues at the California Institute of Technology, 2003 UB313 has been lauded by some as the "10th Planet".

 

 

 

Measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope show it to have a diameter of 3,000km (1,864 miles), a few hundred km more than Pluto. 2003 UB313 will now join Pluto in the dwarf planet category.

 

 

 

Mike Brown seemed happy with Pluto's demotion. "Eight is enough," he told the Associated Press, jokingly adding: "I may go down in history as the guy who killed Pluto."

 

 

 

Well isn't that just peachy. So it could be that a large majority of the 10,000 astronomers consider Pluto a planet, its just that the majority of the 400 who stuck around and voted did not.