Random Insanity Alliance Forum, Mark V
Cactuar Zone => Random lnsanity => Topic started by: Buck Turgidson on June 22, 2011, 08:43:13 am
-
The other day I saw a piece ont he web about new photos of the solar system's smallest planet, and they were pictures of Mercury.
While I am a staunch supported of the Astronomical Union, and have gone along with Pluto's demotion to a minor planet a few years ago, this piece (from APOD I believe), kind of bothered me.
What the AU (clever name - abbreviates to the same as Astronomical Units lol) really did in its demotion of Pluto was create 2 classifications of planets, when previously there was only one. So, the smallest planet should still be Pluto, and the smallest major planet should be Mercury. Incidentally, the largest minor planet should also be Pluto...
Anyhow, If the AU has bestowed upon itself the lofty ambition of cataloguing the heavens, and occasionally re-organizing it, shouldn't they demonstrate a certain diligence in ensuring that this kinf of re-segmentation is properly branded and well communicated? Otherwise they are really just sowing confusion rather than bringing clarity to their field.
Some steps they could take to execute:
- Ensure the terms "major planet" and "minor planet" are googleable in terms of updated search engine criteria, globally (unless their authority does not extend to every nation of this planet, in which case the move would be extraterritorial in nature).
- Burn all astronomy books written before their "Pluto Judgement" if I can be permitted to cap & quote the term.
- Organize anti-heresy squads to stamp out the notion that Pluto can still be counted among the major planets.
- Bring the relevance of this move to the people by selling them on the benefits of taking Pluto down a notch and creating a whole new class of planets.
All to say, Pluto does not seem to getting a fair shake, and by liberally thoring the term planet around, the entire solar system is suffering and each planet's individual contribution and message is being diluted.
Am I alone here? *crickets*
-
I expected this topic to be a joke about someones mum.
-
I expected this topic to be a joke about someones mum.
Actually it was a troll-trap. It is about your mom. The AU is considering declaring her a planet. Holy cow, what a fat bitch.
-
pluto is a planet, fuck yall.
-
(http://rialliance.net/hello.gif)
http://rialliance.net/index.php?action=logout (http://rialliance.net/index.php?action=logout)
-
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message body was left empty.
-
Actually, pluto is called a "Plutoid" which is the term used to describe any body that has enough gravity to form into a sphere, but is not of a specific mass/size.
-
I wager that the average inhabitant of Pluto is equally as useful as the average inhabitant of Earth, and therefore should be considered a planet.
-
I wager that the average inhabitant of Pluto is equally as useful as the average inhabitant of Earth, and therefore should be considered a planet.
You see, now we are going in circles. Pluto has fallen from grace, but remains nonetheless a planet, only it is a minor one. I should take the opportunity to update my earlier comments and highlight that Pluto is not the only minor planet, there are 4 others. For some lively reading on the subject please consult the Minor Planet Center's website at http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/ (http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/)
So if you are saying it is a planet, then you are in line with the AU. If you are arguing that it should rejoin the fold of major planets, then you are going against the AU and will hopefully be purged one day by that body. The words 'heresy' and 'apostate' will be attached to your name for as long as you burn in the neutron fires of astronomical hell.
Actually, pluto is called a "Plutoid" which is the term used to describe any body that has enough gravity to form into a sphere, but is not of a specific mass/size.
Actually a plutoid is simply a trans-Neptunian dwarf planet, of which there are only 4 such bodies in the solar system. This is the full definition according to the now-infamous 2006 ruling:
"Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a semi-major axis greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighbourhood around their orbit. Satellites of plutoids are not plutoids themselves."
So basically, with a sharp wit and poised pen, the AU has basically told Pluto that it is poor AND stupid, AND that is its own fault for not clearing its own orbit. Nowhere does it cite the numerous benefits accrued by planets like Neptune from Pluto's long wanderings. Nor a mention of the burden of responsibility owed by such planets to their fledgling neighbor. Don't even get me started on Uranus.
-
Last I had heard (From The Universe on the Science Channel), Plutoid had been extended to Ceres.
Usually, when I hear plutoid (at least, recently), it refers to Dwarf Planets within our solar system.
-
Vote Planet X!
No, astronomical classification is a dumb, bureaucratic, and sad sight.
-
I expected this topic to be a joke about someones mum.
I was going to go there and then you ruined it...
-
I expected this topic to be a joke about someones mum.
I was going to go there and then you ruined it...
Well then, perhaps you should go fuck your mom on Pluto.
-
Well then, perhaps you should go fuck your mom on Pluto.
1.5/5
-
1.5/5
[/quote]
In relative terms (no pun), this is the size ratio of Thunderstrike and his mom.
-
We're all going to die one day.
/existentialism
-
We're all going to die one day.
/existentialism
Odds are we will all die on different days.
/science
-
APOCALYPSE!
(http://loverev.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse.jpg)
/GOD
-
Why can't we just get along?
/Communist
-
Sure, if there's a profit in it.
/Capitalist
-
It's fucking retarded the classification system.
Compared to the gas giants all the inner planets are dwarf planets
-
It's fucking retarded the classification system.
Compared to the gas giants all the inner planets are dwarf planets
Well, it beats the original single classification for everything, which was "things in the sky".
I would be most willing, seriously, to approach the AU on behalf of the RIA with a formal proposal of a new classification system, as long as it does not back-peddle on the 2006 Pluto ruling.
Any thoughts? There seems to be a lot of pent-up frustration on this matter...
-
Well we always assumed that most star systems would be like ours, but now that we've discovered a lot of star systems, the solar system is the way it is because of dumb luck, basically.
Virtually every planet is completely unique. There are tiny gas giants, gigantic rocky planets, comets the size of Jupiter etc.
Uranus for instance is essentially a comet that's 17 times the size of Earth. Jupiter is essentially a star that is too small for thermonuclear-triggering pressures to result.
We either need a much more complicated classification system or just treat every stellar satellite as a distinct entity.
-
Well, the basis of science is to look for repetition in nature. Treating each planet like a unique occurrence would be like treating each person you meet like an individual... That said, perhaps scientists should not be in charge of this stuff. Maybe it should be artists, but I think they are the worst when it comes to categorizing their own work.
How's this - currentlywe measure astronomical distance in Astronomical Units - the distance between the Earth and the Sun. So, I guess Galileo did not win completely. That being the case, how about classifying stars in terms of size, relative to the Sun, and planets relative to the Earth?
This way each planet would be unique, with a baseline in terms we understand concretely.