Author Topic: Pluto is no more (Read 3420 times) Tweet Share

Mr Flibble · « **Reply #20 on:** 25 Aug 2006, 23:23 »

That had me worrying there for a moment, anxiously searching for traces of sarcasm.

Its... not a difficult word... or are you refering to the obvious mispelling "Dr. Pepper"?

EDIT:

Because, as we all know, there hasn't been a period in the name "Dr Pepper" since the 1950's.

Andail · « **Reply #21 on:** 25 Aug 2006, 23:40 »

And since Pluto is not a planet anymore, they'll make the sun a planet instead, and the Earth must take over as a the sun.
Escape while there is time, fools!!

Sinsin · « **Reply #22 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 00:38 »

just a thought

The scientists agreed that for a celestial body to qualify as a planet:

it must be in orbit around the Sun
it must be large enough that it takes on a nearly round shape
it has cleared its orbit of other objects

Pluto was automatically disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with that of Neptune. It will now join a new category of dwarf planets.

So if pluto has been told it cant play anymore then why can neptune its his daft fault he was in the way

Dam sea god

Afflict · « **Reply #23 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 07:29 »

Quote from: Domino on 25 Aug 2006, 02:05

I'm just wondering how long it will take before planets get renamed due to corporate sponsors. I see in the future Jupiter becoming Planet Microsoft, or Venus becoming Planet AOL. It will happen. It seems every corporation has to have their name on everything, just like sports stadiums do in the US.

Imagine, Planet Earth, sponsored by Gatorade....oh damn them!!

edit: Next Mittens on Pluto

Everybody knows its google earth...

But seriously on taking away a planet, ummm what are they paying the morons making these decisions?

Hows about all the morons doing that donate all the money to cancer or something...

I look here our goverment is changing the street names... its costing 100 of thousands if not millions but ja
we have nohting better to pay our taxes on than changing street names... like I said who employs these
morons.

Ali · « **Reply #24 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 10:07 »

I guess that reclassifying celestial bodies probably isn't these scientists' main job. I also suspect that they are far from morons.

EDIT: Though, I do agree with you about renaming streets. Round the corner from me 'Mad Alice Lane' has been renamed 'Three Cranes Lane. That's much worse!

Mr Flibble · « **Reply #25 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 11:52 »

Quote from: Afflict on 26 Aug 2006, 07:29

I look here our goverment is changing the street names... its costing 100 of thousands if not millions but ja we have nohting better to pay our taxes on than changing street names... like I said who employs these morons.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... democracy just doesn't work...

MrColossal · « **Reply #26 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 15:59 »

renaming streets and reclassifying celestial bodies are far from the same. You say it's costing "100 of thousands if not millions" to rename streets and saying that if it costs that much to rename streets how much did it cost to reclassify an entire planet?!

No one has to print street signs up and remove and replace every one for Pluto.

Nacho · « **Reply #27 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:07 »

What will astrologists do now? Recognise that the have been making mistakes since 1930? Or recognise Pluto as a planet, and, therefore, recognising they have NEVER made a good astrological prediction (Since they should consider Ceres, Xena, blah, blah...)?

Astrology is a dead end. Whatever they do, it will imply that they astrological charts are uncorrect. ^_^

Funny...

Becky · « **Reply #28 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:22 »

Planets and asteroids and these new "dwarf-planets" and stuff all orbit the sun anyway, it's just a more streamlined system of classification due to size. "Demoting" Pluto from being labelled a planet to a dwarf planet is not saying "oh we were wrong before!1!", it's just a demonstration that as we know more and more about our solar system, sometimes we have to re-evaluate previous conclusions.

Funnily enough, re-evaluation and cross-examination of prior evidence and conclusions is part of all sciences, otherwise we'd never make any progress.

PureGhostGR · « **Reply #29 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:25 »

Well, all I know is that I heard on the news that it will cost quite a few millions to destroy and replace the school textbooks regarding Pluto. Add all the non-school textbooks too..

Just thinking about all that wasted paper...

And to make matters worse, there are references to Pluto at almost everything I can think of.. from the odd bedroom poster with the solar system to the odd coffee cup collection with the planets illustrated.

I wonder how this affects the people who deal with Astrology.. now that Pluto is not a 'real' planet anymore.

-What? You where born under a Pluto alignment? *pat pat* I am so sorry dear.. *pat pat*

Edit: Spelling

Nacho · « **Reply #30 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:29 »

EDIT: He...PureGhost, read my post two posts above, you are exposing exactly my point...

Reply for Becky

But as for astrologists, the discovery of "planets" of the same (or bigger) size than Pluto, and the same characteristics, should be a "We were wrong".

Because consequently, if they consider Pluto a planet, they should make the astral charts with 12, not 9.

Anyway, as you said, re-evaluation is for sciences, and Astrology is not a science, but folklore for dumbs.

Becky · « **Reply #31 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:35 »

Yeah, and science was wrong about the earth being flat and geocentrism but that this has been corrected and amended is a good thing, right? Or should we all continue being ignorant in the face of contrary evidence?

Btw, astronomy is a science, astrology is the horiscope stuff.

Edit: Aw man Nacho, I've been missreading you XD Sorry

MrColossal · « **Reply #32 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:37 »

PureGhostGR, how often do they destroy text books? How often do they have to print new posters and other text books? I feel that people only think of the cost to do these things when it's something "high profile" like demoting a planet.

But either way I would like to hear an astrologist fight back against this one.

Fuzzpilz · « **Reply #33 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:38 »

Whether Pluto is a planet or not isn't really a scientific question - or wasn't, rather. Previously to this, there was no scientific definition of the word "planet". That was the whole point of the exercise. According to the one they decided on, it's not one in the scientific sense, since they couldn't come up with a sane (i.e. not ridiculously gerrymandered) one that limited our solar system to the nine classical planets. Seriously, though, I actually agree it was probably a waste of time and effort (although that's no reason at all to abolish the IAU), because it's so meaningless. It changes exactly nothing about what science knows about Pluto or Ceres or anything else - all it does is potentially help improve clarity in future scientific writing here and there.

Nacho · « **Reply #34 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:43 »

I don´t really understand your replies, Becky, we are basically agreeing.

Science implies that anything we think it´s correct can be wrong, therefore, we will never stop in a static degree of knowleadge. Even what we think it´s correct might make our grandchildren laugh in some years.

Astrology should be considered nowadays as one of this things that deserve to laugh at. The thing is that we basically can´t laugh because this swindlers are robbing money from the dumbs and credulous.

EDIT: I saw your edit, Becky... Was the problem that you thought I was attacking astroNoMy, and not astroLoGy? No probs...

Becky · « **Reply #35 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 16:45 »

Nacho, yes, I just realised (and edited my previous post) to show that I'd been missreading your posts as "astronomy" and not "astrology"

I'm sorry!

PureGhostGR · « **Reply #36 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 17:02 »

MrColossal, actually I am not really for or against the process of demoting Pluto. I am only puzzled by the willingness to replace the textbooks and spend millions on it (only) because the incident got media publicity.

Keep in mind.. when in school, we (meaning I) had textbooks printed almost a decade before my birth. (apparently they had invented paper back then)

Ali · « **Reply #37 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 17:03 »

Quote from: Becky on 26 Aug 2006, 16:35

Yeah, and science was wrong about the earth being flat

Off topic, Terry Jones the comedio-historian argues that science never thought the world was flat and I've often suspected the same. The Ancient Greeks knew the world was round, and in the Inferno Dante travels through the centre of the globe. Apparently Irving Washington started the myth.

MrColossal · « **Reply #38 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 17:11 »

I have read the same about the earth being flat and the scientific community not really adopting that in a natural history book I read by Stephen Jay Gould.

scotch · « **Reply #39 on:** 26 Aug 2006, 17:21 »

New versions of textbooks are printed every year, so it's not like they wouldn't have anyway, with numerous other small changes. How long it'll take before all the textbooks in schools list 8 planets instead of 9 I don't know... probably a long time because it's not really an important change for most people learning science, it is handy to have a solid definition for such a commonly used word in astronomical circles though.

Anyone that doesn't like it for some reason can keep calling Pluto the 9th planet of the solar system. There are plenty of words that differ in meaning from scientific to common usage.