"F*** Pluto"
lol
Labels: demotepluto, pluto
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Illinois plutocrats are frakkin’ goofy
"RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE NINETY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that as Pluto passes overhead through Illinois’ night skies, that it be reestablished with full planetary status, and that March 13, 2009 be declared "Pluto Day" in the State of Illinois in honor of the date its discovery was announced in 1930."
Dear Illinois legislature: Get back to work.
Dear Illinois legislature: Get back to work.
Labels: demotepluto, illinois, pluto, politics, wtf
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Mike Brown - What is a Dwarf Planet?
"Our best estimate is that a complete survey of the Kuiper belt would double this number, so there are roughly 100 dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt, of which 50 are currently known."
Labels: demotepluto, dwarfplanets, mikebrown, planets, pluto
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Phil Plait on the Planet Debate
"I don’t think our science should be driven by public opinion — if they want Pluto to be a planet, that may be too bad if it doesn’t fit the bill. But it would be kinda nice to give them an answer to that, one that can be easily understood."
Labels: badastronomy, demotepluto, pluto
The "Prokofy Neva" of Pluto Debates is into Astrology
Astronomers, do you trust a pagan horoscope reader to set the agenda on planetary classification for you?
Labels: astrology, demotepluto, laurelkornfeld, pluto
Simplify, Simplify, Simplify
The whole point of the "dwarf planet" debate and the demotion of Pluto was to simplify planetary classification and make the solar system easier to understand.
Recent IAU addenda to the categorization of Pluto-like objects -- reference "Plutoids" -- are not only confusing and unnecessary, but are inexplicably and narrow-mindedly Sol-centered categorizations, inapplicable to exoplanets in other systems which have no regard for Neptunian mass or orbit. This calls into the question the judgment of the IAU scientists minding the terminology and taxonomy of Pluto and other Kuiper Belt Objects like it.
If this arbitrary nitpickery keeps up I just change my mind and throw in my lot with the "call everything in Sol orbit a planet" people.
Recent IAU addenda to the categorization of Pluto-like objects -- reference "Plutoids" -- are not only confusing and unnecessary, but are inexplicably and narrow-mindedly Sol-centered categorizations, inapplicable to exoplanets in other systems which have no regard for Neptunian mass or orbit. This calls into the question the judgment of the IAU scientists minding the terminology and taxonomy of Pluto and other Kuiper Belt Objects like it.
If this arbitrary nitpickery keeps up I just change my mind and throw in my lot with the "call everything in Sol orbit a planet" people.
Labels: demotepluto, iau, pluto
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Plutoids
"There is still a small but extremely vocal group of astronomers who remain incensed about Pluto's demotion. They will use this as a soapbox to repeat their initial complaints about Pluto. Other astronomers are likely to yawn. Plutoids? Sure, why not. Most astronomers have moved well beyond the Pluto-debate and the semantics associated with it. If Pluto is happy being a Plutoid then it is probably OK with the rest of us."
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
"Mod Parent Clueless"
"Dude, there are hundreds, if not thousands of Pluto sized planetoids. Pluto was discovered first of those objects, and mistakenly thought to be very unique.
"Planets are the huge and few main satellites of the sun. It's a category defined entirely by scarcity. There are only 8. Not 8000. Pluto can't be a planet and the hundreds or thousands of larger objects not be, but the fact that there were thousands of similar objects wasn't discovered until after Pluto was added to the planet list. It's just an act of intellectual honesty to note that Pluto is only unique historically for being seen early. But now we know: It's not a major satellite sufficient to be in the planet category. You call this arbitrary, but it's as unarbitrary as anything could be.
"What the hell does this have to do with how big a moon is? Any object orbiting a planet is automatically a satellite, any satellite that is naturally occurring is automatically a moon (by some definitions, anyway). Perhaps you should invest in a good dictionary. They are free on the internet.
"Thank goodness we don't have to rely on your inane concepts of 'fairness' in celestial bodies for our language needs."
Slashdot commenter
"Planets are the huge and few main satellites of the sun. It's a category defined entirely by scarcity. There are only 8. Not 8000. Pluto can't be a planet and the hundreds or thousands of larger objects not be, but the fact that there were thousands of similar objects wasn't discovered until after Pluto was added to the planet list. It's just an act of intellectual honesty to note that Pluto is only unique historically for being seen early. But now we know: It's not a major satellite sufficient to be in the planet category. You call this arbitrary, but it's as unarbitrary as anything could be.
"What the hell does this have to do with how big a moon is? Any object orbiting a planet is automatically a satellite, any satellite that is naturally occurring is automatically a moon (by some definitions, anyway). Perhaps you should invest in a good dictionary. They are free on the internet.
"Thank goodness we don't have to rely on your inane concepts of 'fairness' in celestial bodies for our language needs."
Slashdot commenter
