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
You know something, I would really like it if you would go away now. You openly advocate ignorance of the universe outside the planet we live on :|. In your sig, you also quote from a forum post on www.dailywtf.com that disparages the work of contributors to The Code Project :mad:.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
SAVE PLUTO's designation as a planet! :) http://www.petitiononline.com/iaupluto/petition.html --Geoff
-
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:
Of course, by the time we discover a truly advanced civilization we will be completely unable to communicate with them. They'll actually want to talk, and we'll only be able to communicate by blackberry. The first interplanetary incident will probably be when our first contact specialist rudely ignores the alien ambassador in order to read his IM's or answer his cell phone!
-
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.
JLengi wrote:
Sentimentality has no place in astronomical definitions or designations
Very true... But the logic to disqualify Pluto is flawed, and we don't even know if there really is a Kuiper Belt, much less the nature of it. One article said that a "Planet" had to follow 3 rules: 1. Orbit the sun. 2. Be large enough to have a fairly spherical shape. 3. Must have accumulated all (or most) matter in it's path. They disqualified Pluto because it's orbit passes through Neptunes, so they claim #3 was broken. So why is Neptune not disqualified from planet status on the same grounds?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
No I want 8 planets, so I don't have to remember every rock in our solar system as a planet. 8 is easier then currently 12.
--------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
Thank God scientists don't base their beliefs on there own laziness of memory. That's why we invented paper.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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
Is it not emotion instead of reason that makes you not "want" 647 planets?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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
There will NEVER be a cure for AIDs. Never. No virus in all of human history has been cured. Have a nice day.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Yeah Screw Pluto!! Just because the discoverer is an American, they don't want to give up on Pluto actual status. Me
You're an idiot. Is there anything else I can clear up for you?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
JLengi wrote:
Sentimentality has no place in astronomical definitions or designations
Very true... But the logic to disqualify Pluto is flawed, and we don't even know if there really is a Kuiper Belt, much less the nature of it. One article said that a "Planet" had to follow 3 rules: 1. Orbit the sun. 2. Be large enough to have a fairly spherical shape. 3. Must have accumulated all (or most) matter in it's path. They disqualified Pluto because it's orbit passes through Neptunes, so they claim #3 was broken. So why is Neptune not disqualified from planet status on the same grounds?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Well, estimates of the total number of so-called KBOs larger than 100km in diameter range in the tens of thousands, which seems reasonable, since a thousand or so KBOs have already been found, so I don't think there's a debate any more about whether the Kuiper Belt exists. The only difference between Pluto and those objects is that Pluto was discovered several decades earlier.
-
Of course, by the time we discover a truly advanced civilization we will be completely unable to communicate with them. They'll actually want to talk, and we'll only be able to communicate by blackberry. The first interplanetary incident will probably be when our first contact specialist rudely ignores the alien ambassador in order to read his IM's or answer his cell phone!
:laugh:
-
Is it not emotion instead of reason that makes you not "want" 647 planets?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Is it not emotion instead of reason that makes you not "want" 647 planets?
In the current context, no. It isn't. :rose:
-
SAVE PLUTO's designation as a planet! :) http://www.petitiononline.com/iaupluto/petition.html --Geoff
My Very Early Marrows Just Suited Uncle Ned. That's all, folks. Yes, poor little Pluto has been kicked out of the family. Pretty rough. It was always obvious that he was adopted (orbital plane is way out of line with his siblings). The International Astronomical Union has decided that, to be called a planet, an object must have three traits. It must orbit the sun, be massive enough that its own gravity pulls it into a nearly round shape, and be dominant enough to clear away objects in its neighborhood. i.e. to be a "real" planet, you've got to be a big, fat bully. Pluto is relegated to runt-planet status, along with new girl on the block, Xena, and (humiliatingly) Ceres, a mere asteroid.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Is it not emotion instead of reason that makes you not "want" 647 planets?
In the current context, no. It isn't. :rose:
It seems to me that most people arguing both sides of the issue are driven by emotion, though those that agree with the decision mostly claim to be non emotional. Science is charged with describing reality as accurately as is possible. Tinkering with the definition of a planet to fit the list we "want" doesn't accomplish that goal. If 647 objects fit the description, then 647 planets there are. What's next, we're limiting the list of planets to the number of Olympic gods that we have to name them after? At the same time, it's equally asinine to argue that it should keep its status because children relate to its small size, or because that's what we were taught. When I was in school, they were still teaching that protons neutrons and electrons where the smallest constituants of matter. Particle Physics has come a long way since then. Obviously the solar system is more complex than our previous understanding, but I think this is just a quick fix. I vote for 647, and I still reserve the right to critisize those that fail to respond to warnings of impending doom. New Orleans should relocate, not rebuild. But that's another discussion. Cheers
Arguing on the internet is a lot like running in the special olympics... Even if you win, you're still a retard. ;P
-
Well, estimates of the total number of so-called KBOs larger than 100km in diameter range in the tens of thousands, which seems reasonable, since a thousand or so KBOs have already been found, so I don't think there's a debate any more about whether the Kuiper Belt exists. The only difference between Pluto and those objects is that Pluto was discovered several decades earlier.
Ok, then you would argue that Mercury is different souly by it's proximity to the sun? It's just a tiny sun baked rock. Or does it have an orbit that conforms more to your liking? All I'm saying is that if they want to discount it, at least provide a valid reason, other than there are others that fit the bill. Proximity and low eccentricity were not criteria put forth for consideration, though I suspect proximity is the real reason they've wanted to discount it all along. They stated that a planet must: 1. Orbit the sun. 2. Be large enough to take on a mostly spherical shape. 3. Have accumulated most of the material in it's path. Because Pluto occationally crosses Neptunes orbit, they claimed 3 was broken. Which in my mind should discount Neptune on the same grounds. It's just not a valid argument as is.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Ok, then you would argue that Mercury is different souly by it's proximity to the sun? It's just a tiny sun baked rock. Or does it have an orbit that conforms more to your liking? All I'm saying is that if they want to discount it, at least provide a valid reason, other than there are others that fit the bill. Proximity and low eccentricity were not criteria put forth for consideration, though I suspect proximity is the real reason they've wanted to discount it all along. They stated that a planet must: 1. Orbit the sun. 2. Be large enough to take on a mostly spherical shape. 3. Have accumulated most of the material in it's path. Because Pluto occationally crosses Neptunes orbit, they claimed 3 was broken. Which in my mind should discount Neptune on the same grounds. It's just not a valid argument as is.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
I am not an astronomer, and I have not studied this, but I believe this is something like what happens. A star system starts as a sparse, amorphous, gravitationally bound cloud of matter in space. It has a certain mass distribution and angular momentum. Because the matter is not evenly distributed, it clumps at local density maxima. And because of the angular momentum, that which does not fall into the center settles into a basically planar accretion disk. Clumps with eccentric orbits eventually collide or get gravitationally ejected from the system by a close encounter with a larger clump. The result favors less eccentric orbits, orbits that are in resonance with each other, and similar planetary spins. Mercury has successfully undergone and survived this process. Pluto has not. The Kuiper belt is the remnants of the planetary accretion disc. Whether or not accretion is still in progress there, I don't know. I suspect successful accretion becomes less likely the further out you go. Pluto only survives because its orbit is in roughly a 3:2 resonance with the orbit of Neptune. But that resonance isn't perfect, and, eventually, Neptune is going to assimilate it or sling it somewhere. Something could happen to Pluto even sooner if its orbit is perturbed by an encounter with another KBO in the outer reaches of its orbit. Something like that is probably how it ended up in its current orbit. Suffice it to say, however, that whatever Pluto does will have little impact on Neptune. Therefore, Neptune satisfies rule #3. I suspect the rule is intended to be relative to the mass of the object concerned. (Note that whenever a giant planet like Neptune ejects another object from the solar system, the angular momentum of the solar system decreases, and the slinger (e.g., Neptune) falls into an ever-so-slightly lower orbit. The result is that, over time, giant planets tend to migrate inward toward their star until nearly all the mass of the system has either been accumulated by a planet or ejected. Note, too, that beyond the Kuiper Belt is the spherical Oort Cloud, which, I suspect, is the extremely sparse remnants of the original nebula that, so far, have avoided interactions that would have ejected them or dropped them into the accretion disc.) So, to sum up, my qualm with Pluto has nothing to do with its size or its distance, but rather its history and its destiny.
-
It seems to me that most people arguing both sides of the issue are driven by emotion, though those that agree with the decision mostly claim to be non emotional. Science is charged with describing reality as accurately as is possible. Tinkering with the definition of a planet to fit the list we "want" doesn't accomplish that goal. If 647 objects fit the description, then 647 planets there are. What's next, we're limiting the list of planets to the number of Olympic gods that we have to name them after? At the same time, it's equally asinine to argue that it should keep its status because children relate to its small size, or because that's what we were taught. When I was in school, they were still teaching that protons neutrons and electrons where the smallest constituants of matter. Particle Physics has come a long way since then. Obviously the solar system is more complex than our previous understanding, but I think this is just a quick fix. I vote for 647, and I still reserve the right to critisize those that fail to respond to warnings of impending doom. New Orleans should relocate, not rebuild. But that's another discussion. Cheers
Arguing on the internet is a lot like running in the special olympics... Even if you win, you're still a retard. ;P
Those who agree with the redefinition, if there were to get emotional, that probably were to be in a form of sympathy. What i see is that they have reasonnable claims, while the others has reasons too, based on emotion. Let's now see some scenarios: case 1: We drop pluto. Pluto, will be taught at schools as the first discovered object in the outer zone of our system, where there are a lot of similar objects. It was onced call called a planet. case 2: We name every singe object, down to pluto size, a planet. The solar system has a few inner rocky planets, a few gas giants, and 630 small outer planets. You just have to remember that pluto was the first one to be discovered, children! I believe that future generations will hopefully make the necesary clasification based on importance of each obects, whether it's called a planet or not. Nicknames like 'baby-planets' will naturally ocure in case of #2 scenario. In #1 case, people will call pluto "a rock" with no tears or anger, with the easy we accept earth to be round nowdays. Whatever we call it, pluto will not change it's orbit,size or name. Will forevever be what it is, and always get mentioned in classrooms for historical reasons. (...and possibly for it's anecdotes!)
-
I am not an astronomer, and I have not studied this, but I believe this is something like what happens. A star system starts as a sparse, amorphous, gravitationally bound cloud of matter in space. It has a certain mass distribution and angular momentum. Because the matter is not evenly distributed, it clumps at local density maxima. And because of the angular momentum, that which does not fall into the center settles into a basically planar accretion disk. Clumps with eccentric orbits eventually collide or get gravitationally ejected from the system by a close encounter with a larger clump. The result favors less eccentric orbits, orbits that are in resonance with each other, and similar planetary spins. Mercury has successfully undergone and survived this process. Pluto has not. The Kuiper belt is the remnants of the planetary accretion disc. Whether or not accretion is still in progress there, I don't know. I suspect successful accretion becomes less likely the further out you go. Pluto only survives because its orbit is in roughly a 3:2 resonance with the orbit of Neptune. But that resonance isn't perfect, and, eventually, Neptune is going to assimilate it or sling it somewhere. Something could happen to Pluto even sooner if its orbit is perturbed by an encounter with another KBO in the outer reaches of its orbit. Something like that is probably how it ended up in its current orbit. Suffice it to say, however, that whatever Pluto does will have little impact on Neptune. Therefore, Neptune satisfies rule #3. I suspect the rule is intended to be relative to the mass of the object concerned. (Note that whenever a giant planet like Neptune ejects another object from the solar system, the angular momentum of the solar system decreases, and the slinger (e.g., Neptune) falls into an ever-so-slightly lower orbit. The result is that, over time, giant planets tend to migrate inward toward their star until nearly all the mass of the system has either been accumulated by a planet or ejected. Note, too, that beyond the Kuiper Belt is the spherical Oort Cloud, which, I suspect, is the extremely sparse remnants of the original nebula that, so far, have avoided interactions that would have ejected them or dropped them into the accretion disc.) So, to sum up, my qualm with Pluto has nothing to do with its size or its distance, but rather its history and its destiny.
Relatively undisturbed accretion would be a much more reasonable criteria, but that's not what they chose to use. I personally don't really consider Pluto a planet because of that. But as someone mentioned earlier on this thread, from what little we can see of other systems, an undisturbed accretion disc seems out of the norm. Fuel for the Rare Earth advocates. Anyway, good discussion.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Those who agree with the redefinition, if there were to get emotional, that probably were to be in a form of sympathy. What i see is that they have reasonnable claims, while the others has reasons too, based on emotion. Let's now see some scenarios: case 1: We drop pluto. Pluto, will be taught at schools as the first discovered object in the outer zone of our system, where there are a lot of similar objects. It was onced call called a planet. case 2: We name every singe object, down to pluto size, a planet. The solar system has a few inner rocky planets, a few gas giants, and 630 small outer planets. You just have to remember that pluto was the first one to be discovered, children! I believe that future generations will hopefully make the necesary clasification based on importance of each obects, whether it's called a planet or not. Nicknames like 'baby-planets' will naturally ocure in case of #2 scenario. In #1 case, people will call pluto "a rock" with no tears or anger, with the easy we accept earth to be round nowdays. Whatever we call it, pluto will not change it's orbit,size or name. Will forevever be what it is, and always get mentioned in classrooms for historical reasons. (...and possibly for it's anecdotes!)
I don't disagree with the reclassification, just the weak argument they used to do it. In any event, it's done, and probably for the best. I hope some day we have a better picture of what's out there. It's frustrating that we know so little about our own system beyond the planets. What's in the Kuiper Belt and what lurks in the ort cloud beyond. I'm sure that as we learn more, other classifications may change as well.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
SAVE PLUTO's designation as a planet! :) http://www.petitiononline.com/iaupluto/petition.html --Geoff
THANKS! I have Pluto in my 7th house (astrological), which governs marriage, enemies and partners. That's what's caused me to never get married but to have some good enemies. If they do away with Pluto I might have to get married and my enemies won't be so interesting! psully99 at bellsouth dot net