On August 26 2006 11:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So a comet "trades" orbit with Neptune ever so number of years, which is closer to the sun now, the "comet" or Neptune?

I'm sure the answer is either "neither" or "whichever one is closer most of the time".

Bill307

Canada9103 Posts

August 26 2006 05:00 GMT

#102

On August 26 2006 09:51 micronesia wrote:
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.

Who are you to dictate what is and isn't relevant to a discussion on these forums? This is not the IAU. This is TLnet. Orbital characteristics are 100% relevant to our discussion about whether Pluto should be considered a planet.

Also, I would like to know, in your opinion, what would constitute a relevant and proper discussion about this matter?

On August 26 2006 09:51 micronesia wrote:
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)

And your point is...?

micronesia

United States24669 Posts

August 26 2006 05:54 GMT

#103

On August 26 2006 14:00 Bill307 wrote:

Show nested quote +

My claim has been that the only things relevant to the discussion of whether or not pluto should be classified as a planet are the criteria that are used to define a planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_redefinition_of_planet is an example of criteria that are now used in defining a planet. If you look elsewhere, you might find people with slightly different opinions. However, random facts about a celestial body are only relevant if there is a respectable source that claims those facts are criteria in determining the planet status of that body. Other facts can be interesting, but are not relevent to the classification of Jupiter unless you can site a good source saying that fact is a determining factor. If you want to argue with the current classification system to claim that something you thought of should be a factor, then of course you can do that, but that's the same thing as arguing with a currently accepted theory in another field.

Aphelion

United States2720 Posts

August 26 2006 06:45 GMT

#104

Actually micro, the points Bill pointed out have been one of the major reasons the classification of Pluto was debated even since it was discovered; its just that the IAU declined to include it in their formal definition in the resolution a few days ago. In fact it even came up for a vote, and even though it didn't pass its still one of the major points astronomers use to argue that physically, it is closer to the asteroids surrounding it than the giant gas planets.

micronesia

United States24669 Posts

August 26 2006 06:47 GMT

#105

On August 26 2006 15:45 Aphelion02 wrote:
Actually micro, the points Bill pointed out have been one of the major reasons the classification of Pluto was debated even since it was discovered; its just that the IAU declined to include it in their formal definition in the resolution a few days ago. In fact it even came up for a vote, and even though it didn't pass its still one of the major points astronomers use to argue that physically, it is closer to the asteroids surrounding it than the giant gas planets.

More like some of the points. If you go back and reread it you'll see what I mean.

Smurg

Australia3818 Posts

August 26 2006 06:49 GMT

#106

I don't believe Pluto is real.

EvilTeletubby

Baltimore, USA22253 Posts

August 26 2006 06:58 GMT

#107

On August 26 2006 15:49 Smurg wrote:
I don't believe Pluto is real.

Haha

Bill307

Canada9103 Posts

August 26 2006 08:25 GMT

#108

micronesia, please give us an example of what kind of "discussion" we would have, then?

Because if the only relevant factors are the ones mentioned by the IAU, and those factors are already known, then really, what else is there to discuss?

-_-

United States7081 Posts

August 26 2006 09:51 GMT

#109

The fact is, if the IAU can make up a definition, so can TL.net. There's no right answer here. They wanted planets to be a certain thing, so they made a definition which reflected this want.

Now for TL..net's definition for planet, I say it should be "celestial objects which are like Pluto".

micronesia

United States24669 Posts

August 28 2006 03:40 GMT

#110

You can discuss why you think the IAU and other legitamite bodies are wrong in their methods (which is what I think you were starting to do) of defining a planet. It's kind of hard to though considering how it's mostly an arbitrary decision and the guy with the most degrees or the biggest scientific following usually gets to make the call.

mcmascote

Brazil1575 Posts

August 28 2006 04:17 GMT

#111

Micronesia, its just a matter of opinion. Probably until most of this generation dies, pluto will keep his planet status for the majority of the people in the fucking world. What can IAU Nerds do? Nothing.

I could make some philosophical questions just to remember you that most of the things in this world aren't 2+2=4. but I won't waste my time. JLIG.