Page 3 of 3
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:48 pm
by danlo
So...that means Pluto is now Dopey?
(The IAG is discriminatory just because someone from New Mexico discovered it!!!
)
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:59 pm
by dANdeLION
I would think, that after this base demotion, Pluto would now be Grumpy.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:10 pm
by danlo
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:05 am
by Elfgirl
OK, so let's just say that Pluto is now the Disney planet, and get on with more important issues like, what is Pixar going to produce next?
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:10 am
by sgt.null
the SgtNull story.
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:24 pm
by Kil Tyme
What happened in the last week? First the big news that stated the AU folks put the solar system at 12 planets, adding Charion, Ceres and Xena. Now a week later we are down to 8 planets, making those 3 and Pluto the new term "Plutons". What happened? Is this the same organization who just made a U-turn on their decision from last week or did a different group decide this?
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:41 pm
by I'm Murrin
They added an extra criterium to the definition when it came to voting on it. The definition they agreed on is exactly the same as the one proposed last week except for that one detail, and it just happens to prevent Pluto et al being called planets.
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:14 pm
by jscottnelson
I find it interesting that this topic has taken up so much time among astronomers. I suspect a conspiracy among text-book makers and people who develop museum exhibits must be behind the movement! Think of all the things that now will have to be revised!
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:38 pm
by sgt.null
planet
The recently adopted IAU resolution states that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
A "planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2 , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.
All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".
So by this official definition there are exactly eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, Ceres and 2003UB313 are "dwarf planets" with a potentiall large number of additional object falling into this category in the near future.
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:34 am
by Elfgirl
I suggest we all just email the astronomical head honchos with the following epithet..."Stick Pluto up Uranus"...
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:13 am
by sgtkafka
My
Very
Educated
Mother
Just
Served
Us
Nothing?
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:52 am
by Elfgirl
Many Voters Expected More Judicious Standards. Utter Nonsense Prevailed!
plooTOH plooTOH ploooooTOHHHHH!!
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:58 am
by sgt.null
bravo.
Might
Vixenish
Elfgirls
Merely
Justify
Sawyer
Undoing
Nighties?
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:11 pm
by I'm Murrin
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:58 am
by Elfgirl
sgtnull wrote:bravo.
Might
Vixenish
Elfgirls
Merely
Justify
Sawyer
Undoing
Nighties?
ohhhh YESSS!!!!
(only one problem with that...I don't wear nighties!!)
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:47 am
by sgt.null
i'm expecting an avalanche of reponses to that tidbit.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:06 am
by Elfgirl
Oh well, he can undo....whatever! Whenever!
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:43 am
by sgt.null
and so this thread regenerates into Sawyer pron, the worst kind.
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:19 pm
by dANdeLION
I think you meant to say 'degenerates'.
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:15 am
by sgt.null
degenerates, dies and regenerates?
fruedian slip maybe?
