Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Goodbye Pluto

Goodbye Pluto
Pluto Loses Status As A Planet (BBC News Online; Thursday 24th August 2006)


( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 24th, 2006 02:38 pm (UTC)
I bet they think the Earth is flat too...
I think that the astronomers are wrong... It just shows their sense of style, it was always going to be cooler to have 12 planets... And now they have taken one of them away.

Pluto. I wont forget you!

Ignore the asronomers, you will always be a planet to me.

Aug. 24th, 2006 02:41 pm (UTC)
Will Walt Disney follow suit and downgrade Pluto's status as a dog then?
Aug. 24th, 2006 02:47 pm (UTC)
I like the way those stodgy astronomers steadfastly refuse to call 2003 UB313 by the name Xena :-).
Aug. 24th, 2006 04:16 pm (UTC)
And yet they have been happy to go with Uranus for years for much classroom hilarity...
Aug. 24th, 2006 04:25 pm (UTC)
Until those killjpoy astronomers changed the pronounciation :-(.
Aug. 24th, 2006 05:12 pm (UTC)
They are no fun...

Hell, everyone knew it would have been cooler to live in a solar system with 12 planets... but here they go, getting all technical and paying no attention to what the masses want, just to show off their knowledge...

People wonder why the nerdy kid in school gets picked on... Now we know...

(Deleted comment)
Aug. 25th, 2006 12:03 pm (UTC)
I don't :P

As soon as I had a reasonable understanding of what Pluto was and it's behaviour, and the other miriad Pluto like objects out there, I wanted it demoted. So I'm happy - apart from the IAU definition - which is still shit. No other way to say it really. ;)
Aug. 24th, 2006 05:25 pm (UTC)
thank fu*k for that - at last a sensible response to 'the pluto problem'!

I've been wanting it demoted for years :)
Aug. 24th, 2006 07:15 pm (UTC)
I think then in that case they should revert back to its original title of 'Yuggoth'.

Dave the MiGo
Aug. 24th, 2006 07:32 pm (UTC)
Hmmm, good is what I say, but I still don't understand why they didn't specify that a true planet had to have (in all probability) formed from gas and dust in the early solar system. Pluto is in all probability a collection of left over rubble. I suppose if you specify conditions you have to be able to prove that an object meets these - so they played it safe with their specifications for planet definition. Like I said in my recent song:

I propose a song:

Pluto, you're nothing more than a clump of old ice and rock,
You never had a classic upbringing - you never got hot,

It was a classic mistake, of a nineteen thirties case,
No-one knew your true size, to put you in your place,

For a while, you caused trouble and made a ruckus,
Go, join cold friends, Sedna, Quaoar and Orcus,

So there you go Pluto, bye-bye,
I won't shed a tear, no not I.

Aug. 25th, 2006 08:12 am (UTC)
"I still don't understand why they didn't specify that a true planet had to have formed from gas and dust in the early solar system."

You know what. Technically, on a cosmic time scale, by that particular definition everything is a planet. Even you and me.

Aug. 25th, 2006 12:00 pm (UTC)
yup, that's true - so it's a tricky definition to get right. I guess you'd have to say something like ... 'formed inchoatively into a celestial body from gas and dust...'. A dwarf planet or other could then be '...formed into a celestial body from a collection of pre-formed elements...'.
Something like that. But really the IAU should be able to come up wih a better definition than they have done! Shame on them.
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow