Sign the Pluto Petition
-
you know, if people spent as much time on trying to cure cancer, aids and the other problems that we have on this ROCK as they spend on squabling on some sh$tless planets, we might get somewhere. otherwise; i really don't give a sh$t about pluto
You don't see a WTF in spawning hundreds of threads ?? Or using code found on places like codeproject.com in production applications ... Code that is most likely untested, or barely test, more often than not, not made by reputable developers/development groups/etc ?? .... Wow ...---WTF
Um. No, not really. But thanks for trying :)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
screw pluto if it had been discovered last year, nobody would call it a 'planet'.
Absolutely. All you have to do is look at a 3D representation of all of the planets' orbits to realize that Pluto is a different animal.
David Kentley wrote:
All you have to do is look at a 3D representation of all of the planets' orbits to realize that Pluto is a different animal.
Actually, that has nothing to do with the definition of a planet, and cannot. Due to discoveries of exo-planets, the planets outside of our solar system orbiting other suns, we find many exceptions to the rules we defined. Pluto would be considered as the rule that puts our solar system back into "normality" since the relatively stable disks of our system seems to be, so far, exceptional.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Um. No, not really. But thanks for trying :)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
No, not really. But thanks for trying
Well, actually it is correct[, or at least near so]. The reduction of Pluto from a planet has been a dedication of many scientists, sometimes more, sometimes less, almost since its discovery. Since 1992, it has grown almost religious in its dedication and massive amounts of money removed from searching for Apollo objects and asteroids into proving Pluto is not a planet. Compared to most Astronomy subjects, more money has been spent in the reduction of Pluto's planetary status than any other subject. The few exceptions are black holes, and other quantum objects/exceptions. -- modified at 11:36 Friday 25th August, 2006
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
David Kentley wrote:
All you have to do is look at a 3D representation of all of the planets' orbits to realize that Pluto is a different animal.
Actually, that has nothing to do with the definition of a planet, and cannot. Due to discoveries of exo-planets, the planets outside of our solar system orbiting other suns, we find many exceptions to the rules we defined. Pluto would be considered as the rule that puts our solar system back into "normality" since the relatively stable disks of our system seems to be, so far, exceptional.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
I say, "lets nuke pluto, for a perfect system"! Also, this is a way for SETI to carry on. Let's start searching for perfect planetary systems. As it seams only spicies of advanced inteligence can afford them!
-
I say, "lets nuke pluto, for a perfect system"! Also, this is a way for SETI to carry on. Let's start searching for perfect planetary systems. As it seams only spicies of advanced inteligence can afford them!
Kastellanos Nikos wrote:
this is a way for SETI to carry on. Let's start searching for perfect planetary systems. As it seams only spicies of advanced inteligence can afford them!
Or perhaps it is the lack of chaos in our "neighborhood" that prompts us to add more ourselves to balance it out. ;P A race born in an "imperfect" system would strive for perfection to balance the chaos, rather than chaos to balance the perfection. ;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Kastellanos Nikos wrote:
this is a way for SETI to carry on. Let's start searching for perfect planetary systems. As it seams only spicies of advanced inteligence can afford them!
Or perhaps it is the lack of chaos in our "neighborhood" that prompts us to add more ourselves to balance it out. ;P A race born in an "imperfect" system would strive for perfection to balance the chaos, rather than chaos to balance the perfection. ;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Or perhaps it is the lack of chaos in our "neighborhood" that prompts us to add more ourselves to balance it out. A race born in an "imperfect" system would strive for perfection to balance the chaos, rather than chaos to balance the perfection.
You, might be right, but will we be able to communicate with such perfect spiecies? :doh: I insist on searching for a perfect platetary system where we can find aliens with -common- sence! :rose:
-
David Kentley wrote:
All you have to do is look at a 3D representation of all of the planets' orbits to realize that Pluto is a different animal.
Actually, that has nothing to do with the definition of a planet, and cannot. Due to discoveries of exo-planets, the planets outside of our solar system orbiting other suns, we find many exceptions to the rules we defined. Pluto would be considered as the rule that puts our solar system back into "normality" since the relatively stable disks of our system seems to be, so far, exceptional.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Pluto would be considered as the rule that puts our solar system back into "normality" since the relatively stable disks of our system seems to be, so far, exceptional.
That's an unprovable assertion since we currently cannot detect any planets in a solar system like our own. Our inner planets are too light, our massive ones too distant. -- modified at 13:20 Friday 25th August, 2006 Theorectically the stellar occultion technique could spot a terrestial planet, but the required alignments are so precise that we wouldn't be able to spot any additional planets in the system.
-
Kastellanos Nikos wrote:
Or sould we teach young childrens that objects that small are not planet, -expect of pluto-!
we already do... it is called Mercury. The only reason Murcury is considered a planet is because it is so close to the sun that the sun helped shape it. I never had the mass to "pull itself into roughly a round shape" as defined, it never did clear its orbit, the sun did, and only by luck does it not fall in. Mercury should be defined as a moon of the sun, but no such definition exists, therefore, it is the exception, it is a planet. So in the end we still have exceptions, and we still teach the exceptions.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
The only reason Murcury is considered a planet is because it is so close to the sun that the sun helped shape it. I never had the mass to "pull itself into roughly a round shape"
If Mercury's too light to've collapsed into a sphere on it's own, then how did far smaller and less dense Ceres form itself into a sphere? It's suspected that the other 3 large asteriods may also be spherical but none've been imaged with sufficient resolution to confim or deny.
-
screw pluto if it had been discovered last year, nobody would call it a 'planet'.
A bit harsh. But true. Sentimentality has no place in astronomical definitions or designations. If Pluto is a planet, then so is Xena and so are a lot of other objects out there. But we're better off just calling them Kuiper Belt objects. They have much in common with each other but little in common with the other eight planets.
-
SAVE PLUTO's designation as a planet! :) http://www.petitiononline.com/iaupluto/petition.html --Geoff
-
Yeah Screw Pluto!! Just because the discoverer is an American, they don't want to give up on Pluto actual status. Me
el_pablo wrote:
Just because the discoverer is an American, they don't want to give up on Pluto actual status.
That's about an asinine of a statement as they come.
Jeremy Falcon The mind is like a parachute. It works best when it is open. - Colin Angus Mackay (2006-08-18)
-
This is just stupid! What drives those people is not reason, but emotion. People are not addapting well to changes. That's for sure. Imaging that this is just to change the cassification of an object too far way, that it is know for only 70-80 years. And there is a good reason for doing so. If, pluto is a planet, then what about all the rest objects with simillar sizes and orbits? Should we add them too and have a sollar system of say 647 or 1400 planets? Or sould we teach young childrens that objects that small are not planet, -expect of pluto-! All of you that find it hard to drop pluto as a planet, in the future think again before critisicing people that dont leave their homes before a volcano eruption, or people who are not used to see their prophet as a cartoon character, etc. -- modified at 10:35 Friday 25th August, 2006
Kastellanos Nikos wrote:
What drives those people is not reason, but emotion.
I agree. I was actually going to sign the petition until I read it. There wasn't one good piece of material that suggested it should be a planet on that petition, CNN did a better job of that for crying out loud. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon The mind is like a parachute. It works best when it is open. - Colin Angus Mackay (2006-08-18)
-
Paul Watson wrote:
No, not really. But thanks for trying
Well, actually it is correct[, or at least near so]. The reduction of Pluto from a planet has been a dedication of many scientists, sometimes more, sometimes less, almost since its discovery. Since 1992, it has grown almost religious in its dedication and massive amounts of money removed from searching for Apollo objects and asteroids into proving Pluto is not a planet. Compared to most Astronomy subjects, more money has been spent in the reduction of Pluto's planetary status than any other subject. The few exceptions are black holes, and other quantum objects/exceptions. -- modified at 11:36 Friday 25th August, 2006
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Compared to most Astronomy subjects, more money has been spent in the reduction of Pluto's planetary status than any other subject. The few exceptions are black holes, and other quantum objects/exceptions.
Are you serious? Can you really back that claim up? As for AIDS and cancer I doubt astronomers would be of much help solving them :)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Compared to most Astronomy subjects, more money has been spent in the reduction of Pluto's planetary status than any other subject. The few exceptions are black holes, and other quantum objects/exceptions.
Are you serious? Can you really back that claim up? As for AIDS and cancer I doubt astronomers would be of much help solving them :)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
Wow. You guys are really getting worked up over the fun we are having in cheering for Pluto. We like Pluto. We aren't going to war over it though. So relax.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Yes, let's not have any wars over the silly petition. Gee, whiz, if you don't agree with it, don't sign. :) People are awfully worked up over nomenclature, which is sort of the point of the petition in the first place. :confused: "They" ought to just grandfather Pluto into the Planets club, and everything else that's like it discovered from now on can be called a dwarf planet, "trans-Neptunian object" or whatever science deems necessary. Yes, this is an emotional appeal. Why else would I make this sort of appeal, it's not like I'm an astronomer, I'm a Perl and C# developer. :laugh: All I know is that if I were one of Tombaugh's great grandchildren, I'd be more than a little upset about it. Heck, I'm not an astronomer and I'm no relation to his family and I find it a little upsetting. :-O --Geoff
-
Yeah Screw Pluto!! Just because the discoverer is an American, they don't want to give up on Pluto actual status. Me
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Compared to most Astronomy subjects, more money has been spent in the reduction of Pluto's planetary status than any other subject. The few exceptions are black holes, and other quantum objects/exceptions.
Are you serious? Can you really back that claim up? As for AIDS and cancer I doubt astronomers would be of much help solving them :)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
Are you serious? Can you really back that claim up?
can you pull the microfiche on newspapers in Las Cruces and Alamogordo, NM since 1940's? Clyde Tombaugh retired here, so there was a great deal of local controversy over our resident. Astronomers would come from all over just to give speeches in our backwater community to show us that our resident knew nothing and convince us to throw him out as science has done. Google won't produce one result, but many results on the controversy of Pluto. Because Pluto was a controversy from almost day one. True AIDS and Cancer research probably weren't hurt by the Astronomers per se, but since the Astronomers were using their government grants for Apollo objects (threats to Earth) to research Pluto to downgrade it, there was often the demand for more money in finding Apollo objects because the money was being syphoned off. Governments pretty much gave up the search for a new planet after Tombaugh's statement, but various governments have been concerned about asteroid impacts, especially after a few "snuck up" on us because people were looking at Pluto instead of other parts of the sky. Of course, the Astronomers defend that even if they had not been looking at pluto with the time alotted for Apollo object searches, there is never a gaurentee to find anything "unknown" until it gets close enough to become "obvious" -- however, as a few people pointed out, if you never look, there is the gaurentee you will never find it. :) Think rather that the money was ill spent and required additional grants and budget extensions world-wide from money that could have been spent on many things other than trying to prove Pluto is or is not a planet. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
The only reason Murcury is considered a planet is because it is so close to the sun that the sun helped shape it. I never had the mass to "pull itself into roughly a round shape"
If Mercury's too light to've collapsed into a sphere on it's own, then how did far smaller and less dense Ceres form itself into a sphere? It's suspected that the other 3 large asteriods may also be spherical but none've been imaged with sufficient resolution to confim or deny.
dan neely wrote:
then how did far smaller and less dense Ceres form itself into a sphere?
there are some theories... One of the most accepted "with current knowledge" is that it once took a low orbit toward the sun, close proximity to the sun, like Mercury heated the rock slowly molding it to round. A near miss (why don't they call it a near hit) with another astronomical body changed the orbit to where it is now. It is one reason why we would like to land on Ceres and see if it perhaps has a hard core and a very light surface (which would spread out the light material evenly around a say iron core) -- which is one of the other more common theories. Think pumice around an iron core.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Or perhaps it is the lack of chaos in our "neighborhood" that prompts us to add more ourselves to balance it out. A race born in an "imperfect" system would strive for perfection to balance the chaos, rather than chaos to balance the perfection.
You, might be right, but will we be able to communicate with such perfect spiecies? :doh: I insist on searching for a perfect platetary system where we can find aliens with -common- sence! :rose:
Kastellanos Nikos wrote:
I insist on searching for a perfect platetary system where we can find aliens with -common- sence!
If you blow us up in an interplanitary war and I am telling on you!! ;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Pluto would be considered as the rule that puts our solar system back into "normality" since the relatively stable disks of our system seems to be, so far, exceptional.
That's an unprovable assertion since we currently cannot detect any planets in a solar system like our own. Our inner planets are too light, our massive ones too distant. -- modified at 13:20 Friday 25th August, 2006 Theorectically the stellar occultion technique could spot a terrestial planet, but the required alignments are so precise that we wouldn't be able to spot any additional planets in the system.
dan neely wrote:
That's an unprovable assertion since we currently cannot detect any planets in a solar system like our own. Our inner planets are too light, our massive ones too distant.
actually it is not unprovable, since we have found very few large planet systems with even planes as ours. Although we can only detect the larger planets, to medium planets, nothing as small as Earth. Very few fall all in near the same plane. Even the larger planets in other systems follow pluto like orbits against other giants, making for very strange orbits. It would be like putting Neptune and Jupiter in orbits as eccentric as Pluto. We would consider that strange, because our system doesn't look that way, but it seems in the exoplanet world, that it is more common to have a few planets in an off plane orbit with a strong eccentricity. Making pluto the rule, not our planets. So, as I said, the fact that pluto has an eccentric orbit in no way disqualifies it as a planet since even gas giants in other systems follow Pluto-like orbits. To base a definition on its orbit alone, we would have to disqualify one of the largest gas-giants every found (I can't remember if it has been demoted once or twice, I mostly remember its discovery and first demotion).
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)