bruce wrote:

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:You can't help but see people's stupid mnemonics if you descend into a forum or discussion on this Pluto thing.

My violent eroticism makes jism spurt up noses.

Bruce

P.S. JESUS I must be drunk because it took me like four edits to get that right.

Your sobriety is shot to Hell. Perhaps with time back forward post again. Copy all seen. Never again should will it shall be good????

bruce wrote:My violent eroticism makes jism spurt up noses.

Old, broken: My very elegant mother just sucked uncircumcised negro penis.

New hotness: My very elegant mother just sucked upon nads.

Bruce

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:You can't help but see people's stupid mnemonics if you descend into a forum or discussion on this Pluto thing.

My violent eroticism makes jism spurt up noses.

Bruce

P.S. JESUS I must be drunk because it took me like four edits to get that right.

That's the thing -- I'd like to think that those guys would come up with a definition of a planet that worked for other solar systems as well.

We currently can't see any worlds in other solar systems that are smaller than Jupiter (last I heard). I'd really like to think that scientists are accepting the possibility that there could be a star with gas giants that have orbits which are "perpendicular." Or, like you said: what about binary stars.

What bugs me is that in an attempt to come up with a Sciencey! definition for "planet"... these guys hardcoded in a reference to the Sun. (At least, the version I read.) Fisting Christ.

And I guess I don't see the deal with there being 53 planets. You can't help but see people's stupid mnemonics if you descend into a forum or discussion on this Pluto thing. Man, everyone thinks they are the comedy master. "But what will my mother serve now!?!?!" Slashdot is particularly guilty of this sort of stupidity. I can not comprehend just not knowing the name and order of the planets. It's like not knowing the towns directly east and west of the one you grew up in. In the last two weeks I have apparently developed a mental filter to immediately discount any sentence that starts out with an "M" and is directly followed by a "V." HOW DO YOU JUST NOT KNOW?!?!!?

53 isn't that much, seriously. There's 47 active players on the Saints and after cuts I'll be able to name them all. (There's 53 including the inactives, FWIW.) Christ, there's probably only 53 interesting, named objects in the solar system as is. From memory:


Sun
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Moon
Mars
Phobos
Deimos
Ceres
Jupiter
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto
Saturn
(I can never remember Saturian moons)
Hyperion
Mimas
Pan
Atlas
Sinope
Prometheus
Uranus
Puck
Portia
Caliban
Oberon
Titania
Neptune
Triton
Neriedia (sp)
Galatea (which I only remember because of Emily)
Pluto
Charon
Nix
Hydra

And then 2003 UB313, Sedna, Quaoar, UB313's moon, I think Sedna has three moons, blah blah blah. So that's about 40 objects, there were plenty of moons I had heard of but didn't want to make a night of this, and I have never taken an astronomy class. I don't think 53 planets are all that tough for everybody else's children to memorize if you can identify something interesting about each of them.

And on preview, I see that Sinope orbits Jupiter, not Saturn. I fine myself 200 BULLETIN BOARD POINTS for that.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Objectively, if they can come up with a definition where people go, yeah, that makes sense, Pluto isn't a planet any longer, then fine.

Well, that part's easy:

Planets have orbits within +/- 5 degrees [n.b. just pulled this out of my ass, adjust to fit "all the planets besides Pluto" if necessary] and elliptical orbits, with the Sun [what do we do about other solar systems? Especially those in, say, binary systems?] at one focus, which are within 5% [again, adjust as necessary] of circular. Also, a planet must be big enough to have pulled itself into something resembling a sphere through its own gravity.

See, Pluto would here fail because of the eccentricity of its orbit, and maybe the orbit's inclination to the ecliptic (dunno about that part for sure).

Bruce

P.S. Let a thousand flowers bloom, I say: Pluto is a planet. Ceres is a planet. Quaoar is a planet. Xena is a planet. Quohog is a planet. B2003-X47-B7-stroke-6 is a planet.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~coppelia/images/ ... re_sad.gif


Is this an actual photo of that?



THE
SPELLCHECK
AARDVARK

Whatever happened to Quaoar?

Hey, a link:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~chad/quaoar/

What's your favorite planet? Mine's the Sun!

Draal wrote:Throwing objective theory to create an arbitrary label from the ashes of an all inclusive idea that large, singular objects, are merely there and merely planets because thats fine...

Instead of refining the idea of astronomy, they redefined a stupid notion about culture, forgetting completely that "Hey! Pluto's still exactly the same regardless of the name its called!"

And me here screaming from the bleachers "Its not the size! Its how its formed!" Wondering if the process and material composition will be considered as opposed to an arbitrary consideration of size (which will fall apart because of its seeming nature of committee power, dictation and arbitrary fancies of redefining reality).

Here's the thing I don't get. Jupiter has 63 moons, a ring, and an enormous amount of shit near it. How has Jupiter "cleared its neighorbood"? Meanwhile, yes, there is a Kuiper Belt near Pluto but Christ, it has its three moons nicely under control, at least.

Oh, and Jupiter is also between the sun and an asteroid belt.

I think the definition was stupid. Objectively, if they can come up with a definition where people go, yeah, that makes sense, Pluto isn't a planet any longer, then fine. But the definition they're using, through my limited understanding of astronomy, isn't all that great.

It's just one of theose soapbox schemes they do to get attention. It's not a planet anymore, people. Sure and they are gonna print all new sixth grade textbooks for everyone just on thier say so...


THE
GO THERE FIRST
AARDVARK

Throwing objective theory to create an arbitrary label from the ashes of an all inclusive idea that large, singular objects, are merely there and merely planets because thats fine...

Instead of refining the idea of astronomy, they redefined a stupid notion about culture, forgetting completely that "Hey! Pluto's still exactly the same regardless of the name its called!"

And me here screaming from the bleachers "Its not the size! Its how its formed!" Wondering if the process and material composition will be considered as opposed to an arbitrary consideration of size (which will fall apart because of its seeming nature of committee power, dictation and arbitrary fancies of redefining reality).

I really don't like an international committee deciding that the only planet discovered by an American is no longer a planet.

On the other hand, this single-handedly proves that the idea of an international criminal court is fucking laughable.

::shakes fist!

Merrrikkkans!!!!!!

Thursday August 24, 2006





Pluto Becomes Dwarf Planet
Associated Press
File photo
Published Aug 24, 2006
Pluto is no longer.

Astronomers now say Pluto is actually a dwarf planet and that it no longer meets the new definition of a planet.

A second category for celestial bodies called "dwarf planets" was created. A third category also exists for all other objects now known as small solar system bodies. It does not include satellites.

The International Astronomical Union, meeting in Prague, stripped Pluto of the status it has held since it was discovered in 1930.

The icy rock, formerly known as the farthest planet from the sun, was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh.



Well that bites.

Think of astrology like the drinking game quarters. Three in a row and you can make up a rule. The more rules, the more interesting it becomes. So, the more rules about chunks of rock and ice orbiting in our solar system the better your day will be. Simple.

THE
URANUS
IS ASCENDING
AARDVARK

So does this mean when I look up my horoscope and it says the planet Pluto is aligning with my 5th house, blah blah blah...I'm all confused now. I feel lied to. It's.....it's a travesty.

I LOVE Pluto. I hate the stupid vote.

It has three moons for Christ's sake. How can they say it's not the dominant object in its "neighorhood"? They are one day going to find two planets that are bigger than Pluto and Charon and the revolve point will be between them. I guess they're not planets, though, because they revolve around each other and their star and not just their star. That's stupid.

The ability to have an atmosphere was an interesting path... roundness was interesting (although it was a crushing blow to my childhood to know that the one planet in the background of the Transformers movie that had several right angles would be impossible to ever see) ... seeing these clowns have to skate around Mercury (which they want to be a planet) and exclude Pluto was pathetic.

I now put the odds, as you were saying Bruce, at a zombie Tombaugh game coming down the pipe at like 125%. It's practically a definite.

But now Robb has all the excuse he needs to write a game where the Zombie Clyde Tombaugh rises from the grave to eat the brains of IAU members.

Bruce