Illuminati-R-Us

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm

Out with the Typex, there are only 8 planets; Pluto is demoted for years of underachievement, poor annual reviews etc.

I've always wondered why we had a planet named after Mickey Mouse's dog. . .

Great...Just another reason for all the countries t ogo into more debt...Having to change all the science books, so that they say Pluto isn't a planet. Oh joy. That won't be costly.

I applaud this new definition, and here is my short list why.

1. HELIOCENTRISM - Planets are now defined as orbiting the Sun. Take that, extrasolar planets. Orbiting a star other than the Sun? Boo-hoo. Take your place as second-class citizens. Terrestrial Planet Finder? We can cut funding now; by definition there can be no planets orbiting other stars. This is further supported by the category of Trans-Neptunian Objects, a classification that could only be relevant in solar systems that have an object named Neptune.

2. JARGON - We now have "dwarf planets." Jargon is always a good thing. Using jargon makes you sound cool. I propose that at the next meeting, we create the categories of Trans-Mercurian Object, Subjovian Planet, Subdwarf planet, dwarf satellite, Trans-Ganymede Jovian Satellite, Xena-oid, and quasi-Juno.

3. BUREAUCRACY - This ties in with jargon. Someone now has to remain busy classifying and reclassifying these objects. Additionally, we will undoubtedly have to have more meetings in the future to discuss modifying the definition to include extrasolar and rogue planets, and possibly create new categories as these are discovered. This will generate much paperwork, ensuring that bureaucrats will survive long after the cockroaches are killed off by nuclear war.

4. BREVITY - Many people can just barely remember a seven-digit phone number, and yet for almost six decades we've had nine planets. Nine is an unacceptably-large number. My Very Eager Mother Just Showed Us Nine... uhh... how's that go? Eight planets will be much easier to remember. I propose that our next order of business should be to find an excuse to reclassify Jupiter as a superplanet, thus reducing the number of planets we have to memorize to a convenient, lucky seven.

[/sarcasm]

An Mercury...

We should find a way to dump Mercury too. Maybe we could destabilize its orbit and send it careening into the Sun somehow.

Hey, I support Pluto not being considered a "real" planet. It was just a large asteroid anyways, with a wonky revolution.

Besides, who REALLY cares about Pluto? Really? The only "good" mark about it that makes it memborable (besides the small amount of planets in the first place) is that it's farthest away from the Sun. Wow... it's memorable because it really sucks so much.

It's small, it's far away, and it really doesn't matter.

The fatal blow to Pluto's claim at planet status:

it has cleared its orbit of other objects

At first I was in agreement with this. But it occurs to me that Mars, Jupiter, and at lest one other planet are disqualified because of Trojan asteroids. Oops.

I'm all for calling Pluto what it is: an EKBO, not a planet - but these criteria are just not right. (And not an asteroid either; asteroids are made of rock whereas EKBOs are made of ice.)

Now we get to see the debate about whether the Moon is a planet, depending on whether it orbits the Sun or the Earth.

A few days ago the CBS morning news announced that scientists would be deciding to increase the number of planets "in the Milky Way" to 12 from the current 9. Looks like we must be alone after all.

Yea, they changed their criteria the next day I think. That's what you get from the media before a actual decision is made.

I'm going to miss Pluto, it feels lonely in the neighborhood with just 8 planets. Hopefully planet X will roll in soon and fill the gaping hole in my heart. :(

Yep, in fact it will just crush you're entire body when it collides to earth. :P

Dragon Star wrote:Yep, in fact it will just crush you're entire body when it collides to earth. :P

yikes that sounds kinda bad, maybe we'll just squeeze past and everthing will be cool. . .

Enzo wrote:A few days ago the CBS morning news announced that scientists would be deciding to increase the number of planets "in the Milky Way" to 12 from the current 9. Looks like we must be alone after all.

Dragon Star wrote:Yea, they changed their criteria the next day I think. That's what you get from the media before a actual decision is made.

Also you get stupidity for talking heads not realizing that the galaxy must contain alot more planets than our solar system would.

Dragon Star wrote:That's what you get from the media before a actual decision is made.

Well, the two cardinal rules for the media are a) be first and b) be right. They are somewhat in conflict :P

Lonewulf wrote:Hey, I support Pluto not being considered a "real" planet. It was just a large asteroid anyways, with a wonky revolution.

Besides, who REALLY cares about Pluto? Really? The only "good" mark about it that makes it memborable (besides the small amount of planets in the first place) is that it's farthest away from the Sun. Wow... it's memorable because it really sucks so much.

It's small, it's far away, and it really doesn't matter.

I've considered it a KBO for a long time. Probably since I was in the seventh grade and did a solar system report and found that Pluto was more like a KBO than a planet. Go twelve-year-olds.

Besides, it's not alone. It's got it's friend Charon. Are they making that a dwarf planet also?

I honesly don't see why the Astronomical Big-Wigs couldn't have just said "Oops, we goofed a long time ago. Pluto's not a planet, it's just a KBO that kinda resembles a planet if you ignore some goofy characteristics. Anyway, it's not a planet. Sorry for the mix-up." Would have saved a bunch of time with all this dwarf planet nonsense.

--hippie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm?ls

Looks like a whole bunch of astrologers chose to leave early for a long weekend rather than stay and vote. Now they are bitching that the vote went against them.

I think including Pluto was wrong and that has been corrected, but the rest is just junk. Stars, planets, moons, rocks.

umop: was there some interminable argument on BABB/BAUT about the Moon and whether it actually orbited the Sun or Earth? I never got my head round that one, the same as I never quite got sidereal days.

My Grand Theory of Everything, will of course include the orbital mechanics of the Moon, sidereal days and whether 0.99999 = 1. :D

Heid the Ba' wrote:umop: was there some interminable argument on BABB/BAUT about the Moon and whether it actually orbited the Sun or Earth? I never got my head round that one, the same as I never quite got sidereal days.

There may have been, but the search function doesn't seem to be working at the moment.

Basically, some argue that the Earth and Moon are 2 different planets orbiting the Sun at roughly the same distance and mean anomaly, perturbing each other's orbit so that they remain in close proximity. One point in favor of this arguement is that the Moon's trajectory appears concave even when seen from the Sun. One point against it is the fact that the Earth-Moon barycenter is beneath the Earth's surface, thus the Moon is actually orbiting the Earth.

A sidereal day is the time it takes for a given fixed star to appear to return to the same position in the sky (ignoring precession and nutation). On Earth it's about 23 hours 56 minutes. During that time the Earth advances in its orbit so that the Sun appears to have moved with respect to the background stars. It takes an extra 4 minutes to catch up with the Sun's new apparent position, thus making a 24 hour day.

umop ap!sdn wrote:A sidereal day is the time it takes for a given fixed star to appear to return to the same position in the sky (ignoring precession and nutation). On Earth it's about 23 hours 56 minutes. During that time the Earth advances in its orbit so that the Sun appears to have moved with respect to the background stars. It takes an extra 4 minutes to catch up with the Sun's new apparent position, thus making a 24 hour day.

I understand the concept, I followed the threads on BABB about it, it just makes no sense in my head. I can't always picture things in three dimensions, Rubic's Cubes are completely beyond me. On the other hand I can carry heavy objects and reach high shelves. :D

umop ap!sdn wrote:Basically, some argue that the Earth and Moon are 2 different planets orbiting the Sun at roughly the same distance and mean anomaly, perturbing each other's orbit so that they remain in close proximity. One point in favor of this arguement is that the Moon's trajectory appears concave even when seen from the Sun. One point against it is the fact that the Earth-Moon barycenter is beneath the Earth's surface, thus the Moon is actually orbiting the Earth.

Er, and how about the fact that the moon revolves around the earth in a predictable fashion, to the point where we set our clocks by it? I can't imagine the moon moving around the Earth by revolving around the sun... it would take a bit of astronomical acrobatics.

Either that, or I just don't understand the theory, and am misinterpreting it...

This leads to a question, however: If the Earth was removed, would the moon continue to revolve around the sun with a similar orbit? Would it be drawn in towards the sun?

My recollection is that it is argued that although the moon orbits the Earth, it's trajectory takes it round the Sun without crossing its own path, so the Moon and Earth are both planets, and follow near identical Sun orbits.

Were the Earth removed the Moon would be the third planet, presumably renamed, and certainly not called the Moon.

Always with the caveat that I don't even pretend to understand orbital mechanics.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... post762953

Enjoy. Or not. Among the petulance and knobbery there are links and explanations of why the Moon orbits the Sun.

There is a better thread but I couldn't find it in the time available.

Lonewulf wrote:Er, and how about the fact that the moon revolves around the earth in a predictable fashion, to the point where we set our clocks by it? I can't imagine the moon moving around the Earth by revolving around the sun... it would take a bit of astronomical acrobatics.

Well the perturbations of asteroids by Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are predictable (within limits of accuracy in our ability to determine their position) so it's not really a stretch to say that. But personally, I do think it's silly to say that the Moon is anything other than a natural satellite.