On August 24 2006 17:56 Smurg wrote:
Pluto is a small planet who lives in the dark, the furthest away from the sun, is cold and isn't considered "one of the other planets anymore". Sounds like the benchmark emo to me.

"No one understands me...they think I'm a planet...but I'm 30% ice...more like 100% ice and my moon blocks out the sun, I hate the sun and all of the other planets...they're such conformists."

Yeah fuck that shit.

Gold

Night[Mare

Mexico4793 Posts

August 26 2006 00:31 GMT

#90

so the text books are going to be re-written...

Bill307

Canada9103 Posts

August 26 2006 00:39 GMT

#91

On August 24 2006 13:35 micronesia wrote:

Show nested quote +

We are talking about whether or not Pluto is a planet. "planet" being an english word and scientific term.

Unless you feel someone other than the IAU is much more qualified to determine the primary denotation of the word planet, then you shouldn't have a reason to feel that I am infringing on bill307's right to an opinion.

So what is the point of your criticism? Do you honestly think I wanted to convince people to use my own definition of the word "planet"? Or maybe I was just pointing out the ways in which Pluto is different from the other 8 planets?

And by the way, there was actually heated debate in the IAU over whether an object's orbital characteristics should play a role in its classification as a planet vs "dwarf planet". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_redefinition_of_planet#August_22 ) So even if the majority voted not to take these properties into consideration, there was still a significant number of professional astronomers who shared my opinion.

new_construct

Canada1041 Posts

August 26 2006 00:46 GMT

#92

comparing to the sun, they are all dwarf, i don't see the point of demoting it. :/

micronesia

United States24669 Posts

August 26 2006 00:51 GMT

#93

On August 26 2006 09:39 Bill307 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Since your original post implied that you were going to list reasons why Pluto shouldn't be classified as a planet, I was just pointing out that many of the difference between Pluto and the other planets you pointed out are not relevant to a discussion about classifying Pluto as a planet since they aren't factors. They are all true statements, and could reasonably have been factors if years ago people wanted them to be, but alas they are not. It's like you trying to decide if a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable by commenting that it is red and smooth. They are real characteristics, and COULD theoretically be relevent to the discussion, but are not considerations.

On August 26 2006 09:39 Bill307 wrote:
And by the way, there was actually heated debate in the IAU over whether an object's orbital characteristics should play a role in its classification as a planet vs "dwarf planet". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_redefinition_of_planet#August_22 ) So even if the majority voted not to take these properties into consideration, there was still a significant number of professional astronomers who shared my opinion.

I'm guessing you found that out after the post you made with the discussion of properties of Jupiter (which by the way I did find interesting don't get me wrong)