Pluto Loses Planet Status

[crimsone]

Again, I rather doubt it. Pluto was never a target as it was never a planet - and that was the source of the problem.

There would be absolutely no reason to 'target' Mercury anyway, and so even if they wanted to, which they don't and never will, they couldn't.

Why people can't accept the authority of scientists over their own science I don't know. lol. It's not as though this has been a recent snap decision - the argument has been there since 1930 when the object was discovered, and science as eroded the agruments of the "pro-pluto" lobby further and firther since then. Now, there is next to no reason left that Pluto should be a planet, and an overwhelming body of evidence that says that it isn't one.

This isn't some wonderful nostalgia or feel-good thing. It's science. As I said earlier, I'd like to believe that the martians really did attack, but they didn't.

Edited August 24, 2006 by crimsone

[i luv snow]

Pluto will also remain a planet to me

science will never take that away

simple as

NINE PLANETS 4EVA

!!!!!!!!!

lighten up mate...pluto means more to soem people than others, what can i say???

gawwwwwwddd some people...

LEAVE PLUTO BE.com

Edited August 24, 2006 by i luv snow

[crimsone]

LOL. I guess some people would rather believe in a fantasy than in reality. Nothing wrong with that though - fantasy is often nicer than reality. It just doesn't make it so though.

WWW. THE MARTIANS REALLY DID ATTACK . COM

Edited August 24, 2006 by crimsone

[i luv snow]

[cheeky_monkey]

Pluto is a word that belongs to us all, and were we all asked?

damn rite i dont eva recall the public being consulted on this change of status...like sayin shep was never a blue peter dog...thts anotha of my childhood realities shattered yet again!!!

[crimsone]

But surely it was a scientific decision, not a public one? The public certainly weren't consulted on the decision to make Pluto a planet in te first place, nor is the public consulted over which way we should turn Hubble. It's science, not popular culture. If astronomy was popular culture the sun would still revolve around the earth, the earth would still be flat, and we'd be mining cheese from the moon.

Edited August 24, 2006 by crimsone

[cheeky_monkey]

mmmmm...cheeese!!!

[crimsone]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[pottyprof]

Yay!!!!!

As for astrology - the planetary status of pluto has actually skewed astrology - mainly because pluto is not and never has been a planet. It's merely another object in the solar system, and has been classified as a "dwarf planet" - a trans-neptunian object with no more status than a particularly large rock somewhere between earth and mars.

Finally, it gets the status it deserves :lol:

Hmm.. perhaps the pressure will be put back on to have the 13th house recognised in the natonal press etc.. :lol:

A good astrologer will always explain the 13th house.. as you can imagine its to do with the moon.. and the way it doesnt fit in with our 12 month calendar..

I feel sorry for the kids just learning about the planets and the confusion that will follow.. they will have to relearn what was a stable subject.. this is just another version of political correctness.. im surprised they didnt find another word or so 'dwarf' in their wisdom on the way... like planet of small stature.. :lol:

Edited August 25, 2006 by pottyprof

[crimsone]

I agree Pottyprof (I think). Though as for confusion, I guess that's what comes from teaching an evolving science as a stable subject. I think it's less about political correctness and more about scientific fact - Dwarf is an established astronomical term (like red or white dwarf for example - though red dwarf is somewhat ironic in that context.)

[pottyprof]

I agree Pottyprof (I think). Though as for confusion, I guess that's what comes from teaching an evolving science as a stable subject. I think it's less about political correctness and more about scientific fact - Dwarf is an established astronomical term (like red or white dwarf for example - though red dwarf is somewhat ironic in that context.)

hi crimsone..

yeah i know.. i jest.. :lol: but the point is there..

but to remove things from one status to another without consulting the educational field is a bit off.. we have future astronomers and scientist who think they understand.. and now they dont.. (talking about 9 / 10 year olds)

would it have been better just to roll this out over a few years to readjust them?? been talking to one tonight and he thinks its all lies.. pluto is a planet.. end of chat.. ok another year things may change.. but there ya go..

edit.. bearing in mind most 9/10 year olds know everything.. :lol:

Edited August 25, 2006 by pottyprof

[crimsone]

You may have a point there pottyprof, but I'm not sure that it would be possible to roll it out. I think it's would be probably better to make sure that kids know from the outset that science is an evolving subject, and that things change sometimes - or perhaps the way to roll it out would be to express that exact sentiment, but at the same time, when teaching a contraversial issue, a little extra-curricular information should be taught with it. In this case, it would be that you would teach a kid that we thought (as the official situation was before to day) that Pluto is a planet, but we have never actually completely decided and it may not be one. If kids were taught this, then come a day like today where the textbooks are finally corrected, kids would accept the facts far more easily.

At the end of the day, scientific subjects evolve, sometimes changing the textbooks very suddenly and that really can't be helped. The way that sciences are taught though can be changed. At least, this is my perspective. I was a very intelligent child and would have accepted this easily even at a very early age. Whether other kids can cope with this level of the reality of sciences though I can't answer - best to ask a teacher on that issue :lol:

Edited August 25, 2006 by crimsone

[Stratos Ferric]

I think it is a real shame ...

http://news.uk.msn.com/newPlanets_pluto.aspx

I'll tell you what, if you're an astrologist it's more than a shame, it's a damned inconvenience! In one fell swoop the scientists seem to have rather undermined pluto rising, and all that...

I feel sorry for the kids just learning about the planets and the confusion that will follow.. they will have to relearn what was a stable subject.. this is just another version of political correctness.. im surprised they didnt find another word or so 'dwarf' in their wisdom on the way... like planet of small stature.. :lol:

PP, you're being silly; kids don't learn about planets these days. They learn to count to ten, with a calculator of course; they learn all about Posh and Becks; drugs; and how to make chocolate krispies - at least some parts of the curriculum never change.

[crimsone]

LOL SF... Though perhaps there's only one PP - we wouldn't want any confusion there I'm sure :lol: :lol:

[pottyprof]

You may have a point there pottyprof, but I'm not sure that it would be possible to roll it out. I think it's would be probably better to make sure that kids know from the outset that science is an evolving subject, and that things change sometimes - or perhaps the way to roll it out would be to express that exact sentiment, but at the same time, when teaching a contraversial issue, a little extra-curricular information should be taught with it. In this case, it would be that you would teach a kid that we thought (as the official situation was before to day) that Pluto is a planet, but we have never actually completely decided and it may not be one. If kids were taught this, then come a day like today where the textbooks are finally corrected, kids would accept the facts far more easily.

At the end of the day, scientific subjects evolve, sometimes changing the textbooks very suddenly and that really can't be helped. The way that sciences are taught though can be changed. At least, this is my perspective. I was a very intelligent child and would have accepted this easily even at a very early age. Whether other kids can cope with this level of the reality of sciences though I can't answer - best to ask a teacher on that issue

have to agree with that post crimsone.. but how do you tackle a subject in schools that is so variable?? how do you get kids to belive that 'things do change'?? at the end of the day they expect stability in something like science..

(that said they expect stability in education but thats another subject)

would it be better to leave the solar system out of education until secondary school?? and just discuss earth?? to me it would but the twins are so facinated by the stars.. they are only 4.. so i know i can start with a new set of rules.. as for the eldest shes 15.. she can reason with it.. but those caught up in the middle.. they find it difficult enough to see how variable maths can be nevermind changing their basic observation from earth..

this will have some major implications for our education system.. but as you say.. started early enough.. they can adapt.. its just those in the middle.. unfortunately once again it happens..

I'll tell you what, if you're an astrologist it's more than a shame, it's a damned inconvenience! In one fell swoop the scientists seem to have rather undermined pluto rising, and all that...

PP, you're being silly; kids don't learn about planets these days. They learn to count to ten, with a calculator of course; they learn all about Posh and Becks; drugs; and how to make chocolate krispies - at least some parts of the curriculum never change.

LMFAO!!!! :lol: :lol:

you for got about turning the calculator upsidedown and spellin wombat or other words the filter wont let me type.. :lol: :lol: chocolate Krispies.. is that the new space cake?? :lol:

ps.. im not an astrologer either.. but i do know there is a 13th house.. not sure where its situated.. think its between one of the new year (calender wise) signs or between piscies and aries.. ill have a look..

off to bed..

regards to all..

Edited August 25, 2006 by pottyprof

[crimsone]

how do you get kids to belive that 'things do change'?? at the end of the day they expect stability in something like science..

That's the thing though - they shouldn't expect absolute stability. Sure, they should expect that it's a mostly stable subject, but as long as it is set in their minds from an early age that not everything is certain in science, then when given information about things they are being taught that tells them that the subject isn't an absolute, then they will easily accept a change to that subject.

To be honest, I think that the classical solar system should be taught in primary school - mercury, venus, earth, asteroid belt (made of asteroids), mars, saturn, jupiter, uranus, and finally kuiper belt (made of kuiper belt objects that are a little like asteroids). If it's limited to that, I see no real harm. Anything further should probably be left to secondary school. Heck, I don't think that we are too far away from Astronomy to become a whole module of GCSE science in it's own right. Maybe we'll soon even have an a-level option in it.

Sure, it's tough on those caught in it all now, but it can't be helped. It's really the teaching methods that are at fault. Not nessecarily the teachers themselves, but the methods that they are taught and told to use. Of course, there's thenthe very human element of assurances passed on - if the teacher believes something to be certain, the kids get that idea too - even if it's not certain. What to do about that is probably a bit of a challenge, but it's not insurmountable.

[M'Lady]

I told my children yesterday that Pluto had been demoted from planet status. "Oh no," said Eldest (aged :lol: . (His friend who was with him looked utterly blank... I don't think he'd ever heard of Pluto.) However, Youngest (aged 7) was most concerned; firstly he wanted to know what Pluto had done that was so naughty and secondly he needed me to climb a step ladder to remove Pluto from the set of planets adorning his ceiling...

Scientists really don't consider the impact of their decisions on ordinary people. I mean, what am I going to do with a part used glow in the dark cardboard cut out of Pluto?

[Weather-history]

I agree with the decision.

It is a better solution than the silly idea of promoting Ceres to planet status yet again and it doesn't warrant it, a lot of the satellites such as the Moon, Titan etc are much bigger than Ceres.

Planet Ceres? Pull the other one! :lol:

[Blackie]

Planet Ceres? Pull the other one! :lol:

Well, there's Planet Hollywood. Named after the place full of stars, some of them with egos bigger than Uranus! :lol:

Scientists really don't consider the impact of their decisions on ordinary people. I mean, what am I going to do with a part used glow in the dark cardboard cut out of Pluto?

But just imagine if the decision had gone the other way, you would have had to do three more cut-outs and try and persuade your kids that actually there aren't 9 planets after all, there are 12. Well, sort of... And imagine trying to teach them a snappy name like 2003 UB313. I wonder what sort of animal Disney would have made that as well? :lol:

Edit: backlash against the decision has already started: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm

Edited August 25, 2006 by Blackie

[crimsone]

I wonder what sort of animal Disney would have made that as well?

That's easy. A Platypus! :lol:

[M'Lady]

Well, there's Planet Hollywood. Named after the place full of stars, some of them with egos bigger than Uranus! :lol:

But just imagine if the decision had gone the other way, you would have had to do three more cut-outs and try and persuade your kids that actually there aren't 9 planets after all, there are 12. Well, sort of... And imagine trying to teach them a snappy name like 2003 UB313. I wonder what sort of animal Disney would have made that as well? :lol:

Edit: backlash against the decision has already started: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm

I want one of the bumper stickers... Honk if Pluto's still a planet!

We could cope with 3 extra planets... and we've decided they should be called Skaro (Eldest's choice with a Dr Who influence methinks.) Raxacoricofallapotorius (Youngest...similar influence and a mean streak to make me type it!)

And I'd call the last one Jeff.

[SnowBear]

Backlash certainly has started, interesting too how the voting was done in the end, why couldnt those people who had to leave early cast paper ballots?

I agree with the definition of a planet has to be spherical caused by its own gravitation, also with being in its own orbit around the sun, but the "cleared its orbit of other objects"...

The whole lot seems a hash up to me, something that has been rushed through.

And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a definition implied that the vote had effectively been "hijacked".

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

[kold weather]

Just how big does a planet have to be then?

Surely there must now be an arguement that our very own moon is a dwarf planet and that we could actually be something of a binary planet system, be it the Earth is obviously the dominant one the moon does affect the Earth's orbit ever so slightly as well.

Just throwing ideas into the ring!

[crimsone]

There's no such argement KW, because Luna is a sattelite, and therefore cannot be a planet. For the moon not to be a sattelite, it would have to have a barycenter outside of the Earth.

Edited August 25, 2006 by crimsone

[Weather-history]

What do you think Monty Python would have made of it?

"It's not planet'! 'It's passed on! This planet is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'Its a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the charts it be pushing up the Kuiper Belt! Its volcanic processes are now 'istory! Its off the orbit! Its kicked the bucket, 'Its shuffled off 'its magnetic core, run down the Milky Way and joined the bleedin' dark matter invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PLANET!!!"