| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2006 05:51:38 PM · #26 |
or
"God, I feel old! I remember when Pluto was a planet."
|
|
|
|
08/24/2006 05:56:00 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by idnic:
or
"God, I feel old! I remember when Pluto was a planet." |
Better than remembering WHEN Pluto BECAME a planet, I suppose :--)
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 09:41:05 AM · #28 |
Don't look now but there is growing backlash on this decision because:
"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'."
Out of 10,000 astronomers only 424 voted for this resolution - that is less than 5%.
Why does this feel like the hanging Chad debacle? Here is a link to the story
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 10:55:34 AM · #29 |
Here's another twist: Collectors' benefit?
Fifty years from now, will your grandchildren be asking you, "why didn't you keep that model of the solar system that had pluto as a little styrofoam ball?" "Why didn't you keep those pluto stamps you bought?"
Comic books?
Encyclopedias?
Textbooks?
reference |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 09:10:48 AM · #30 |
These are the criteria for a planet:
"(1) The object must be in orbit around a star, while not being itself a star, (2) the body must be massive enough for its own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape, and (3) the object has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.
The last criterion is the one that led to Pluto's demotion: Pluto's eccentric orbit overlaps Neptune's." (from)
Now, if Pluto's orbit overlaps Neptune's, then that means Neptune should be demoted from planethood as it hasn't cleared the neighbourhood around its own orbit (viz. that interloping Pluto) and thus doesn't meet the conditions for No. 3. ;>þ |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 10:35:05 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
... guess some textbooks need rewriting. |
You might have uncovered the real motivation.
From the folks at Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me: "A planet must be round and circle a star; since Katie Couric left has Today, that means that Al Roker is no longer a planet ..."
Message edited by author 2006-08-26 10:37:43. |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 11:00:40 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Now, if Pluto's orbit overlaps Neptune's, then that means Neptune should be demoted from planethood as it hasn't cleared the neighbourhood around its own orbit (viz. that interloping Pluto) and thus doesn't meet the conditions for No. 3. ;>þ |
Not really, because Pluto and Neptune are locked in a 3:2 resonance. If this was not the case, Neptune would have ejected Pluto billions of years ago. |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:00:29 PM · #33 |
One of the problems is with Charon's "excessive" mass -- enough to move the center of rotation between it and Pluto to a place in between them, forming a double-planet system.
If Charon's mass were a bit less, the center of rotation would lie below Pluto's surface, making it a planet-moon system.
Message edited by author 2006-08-26 12:01:26. |
|
|
|
08/26/2006 12:21:18 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
... guess some textbooks need rewriting. |
You might have uncovered the real motivation.
From the folks at Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me: "A planet must be round and circle a star; since Katie Couric left has Today, that means that Al Roker is no longer a planet ..." |
Now that's goo stuff right there :-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 01:54:16 AM EDT.
