pluto is such a loser

On August 24 2006 07:58 vGl-CoW wrote:
My Very Eager Mother Just Served Us NOTHING

On August 24 2006 08:30 decafchicken wrote:
dream.t)PLUTO THE frozenARBITER OF HEAVENLY BODIES

On August 24 2006 07:06 Ilikestarcraft wrote:
Next time for science project i should make 8 planets. And if the teacher asks wheres pluto ill link her to teamliquid.net .

On August 24 2006 08:51 YoiChiBow wrote:


how long did u spend contemplating that one?

On August 24 2006 10:44 Bill307 wrote:
I don't think Pluto belongs with the other planets.

For one thing, the other 8 planets all orbit in roughly the same plane (the ecliptic). But Pluto is way off the ecliptic plane. Also, its orbital eccentricity is a lot higher than any of the 8 planets, which have roughly-circular orbits. As a result, Pluto is sometimes closer to the Sun than Neptune.

Furthermore, the 8 inner planets dominate their respective orbits: none of the nearby asteroids or comets even come close to their massive sizes. But Pluto -- which doesn't even have a "normal" orbit -- doesn't dominate its region to nearly the same degree. There are other objects of comparable sizes in similar orbits. The most obvious one is its "moon" Charon, which is so massive compared to Pluto that the two bodies mututally-orbit a point (the barycentre) in between them. In contrast, our Moon and the Earth mututally-orbit a point within the Earth, and the same goes for all other planets and their moons.

As I see it, Pluto is fundamentally different from the other 8 planets. And, apart from its slightly-larger size, it is not fundamentally different from any other comets in the Kuiper Belt. To me, it's pretty obvious that Pluto just doesn't belong with the others. So screw tradition: it's time to undo one of our long-lasting mistakes.

On August 24 2006 08:25 Wasabi wrote:
What harm does it do to include Pluto in the solar system?

"the more the merrier"

On August 24 2006 10:44 Bill307 wrote:
I don't think Pluto belongs with the other planets.

For one thing, the other 8 planets all orbit in roughly the same plane (the ecliptic). But Pluto is way off the ecliptic plane. Also, its orbital eccentricity is a lot higher than any of the 8 planets, which have roughly-circular orbits. As a result, Pluto is sometimes closer to the Sun than Neptune.

Furthermore, the 8 inner planets dominate their respective orbits: none of the nearby asteroids or comets even come close to their massive sizes. But Pluto -- which doesn't even have a "normal" orbit -- doesn't dominate its region to nearly the same degree. There are other objects of comparable sizes in similar orbits. The most obvious one is its "moon" Charon, which is so massive compared to Pluto that the two bodies mututally-orbit a point (the barycentre) in between them. In contrast, our Moon and the Earth mututally-orbit a point within the Earth, and the same goes for all other planets and their moons.

As I see it, Pluto is fundamentally different from the other 8 planets. And, apart from its slightly-larger size, it is not fundamentally different from any other comets in the Kuiper Belt. To me, it's pretty obvious that Pluto just doesn't belong with the others. So screw tradition: it's time to undo one of our long-lasting mistakes.

On August 24 2006 12:04 Bill307 wrote:
Oh yeah, I forgot to add: "Dwarf Planet" my ass (_._) : it's just a frigging comet!

Pluto:

On August 24 2006 12:35 Bill307 wrote:
So suddenly no one is allowed to have any opinions that differ from the IAU?

On August 24 2006 14:33 Victor wrote:
Donno why but I feel cheated, cause we pay the scientists to do this stuff -_-;;

On August 24 2006 13:35 micronesia wrote:


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.

On August 24 2006 15:14 Teroru wrote:


so then our solar system has 11 planets? Our 9 plus Ceres and 2003UB313 (Xena)?

On August 24 2006 15:26 Night[Mare] wrote:
i only read the first page lol :D

On August 24 2006 15:32 Night[Mare] wrote:
your comment is non-sense...

On August 24 2006 15:21 micronesia wrote:


No, the recent interpretation of the definition of a planet was basically making a judgement call. Since the discovery of those and other large bodies, they decided to set the qualitative line such that pluto is not a planet. Similarly, those other bodies are not planets.

On August 24 2006 21:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I really think they are making the decison early, we will know if its a planet or not in what, 8 years. Thats when that ship will reach it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto_mission

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.

On August 24 2006 13:35 micronesia wrote:


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.

On August 26 2006 09:39 Bill307 wrote:


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?

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.

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?

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.

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)

On August 26 2006 14:00 Bill307 wrote:

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 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.

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

On August 26 2006 13:08 snarl wrote:


rofl

On August 29 2006 03:42 JudgeMathis wrote:


I second that man. LOL. =P

On August 28 2006 20:49 The Storyteller wrote:
http://patchx.livejournal.com/34721.html?mode=reply

Webcomic from Singapore

On October 03 2014 16:52 tertos wrote:
Guess who's back?

On October 03 2014 19:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess no one has brought this up but for those who are wondering why this is a 'big deal' or why the debate is so heated over something seemingly innocuous...

The issue is that Pluto is/was/would be the only 'planet' discovered by the United States.

It's pretty much a Nation/Science peen thing (for the scientists anyway).

On October 03 2014 19:58 Crushinator wrote:


I think scientists (astronomers) pretty much agree that Pluto should not be a planet, i believe the initial vote on the demotion was nearly unanimous. So many things about Pluto are unplanetlike. The resistance comes mostly from the general public, and politicians. Wouldn't call the debate heated either, when the status is debated it is mostly done humorously.

On October 03 2014 20:50 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:

I assume when you say politicians, you meant it within the scientific community. I hardly believe Barack Obama or Stephen Harper will gain supporters because they defended Pluto's status as a planet.

On October 03 2014 20:56 Crushinator wrote:


No I mean actual politicians. Some US states proposed or passed resolutions that in some way make Pluto a planet.

On October 03 2014 21:08 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:

Wow really? lol what some politicians would do for some votes. So does that mean if I am in say New York state, and I cross the state border to perhaps New Jersey, Pluto all of a sudden ceases to become a planet?

I will never understand the reasons of politicians.

On October 03 2014 17:28 Belisarius wrote:

It's not back. They did an opinion poll on some interested members of the public at a discussion forum. That's hardly binding on the scientific community.

To be honest, I've always thought this was kind of a weird situation. In most fields, the technical definitions that scientists use are completely separate from common parlance, so this never even comes up.

For some reason, people have decided that they need to adopt the strict technical definition of "planet" in everyday speech. Since that's probably going to continue to evolve to deal with exoplanets etc, this is going to keep happening.