« My Criticism Of Bush |
Main
| Good News For The Theatre »
Pluto Gets Downsized
I haven't had much (anything, in fact) to say about the Pluto imbroglio. I do think a lot of the commentary about it is kind of silly, anthropomorphizing an icy rock with talk of "poor Pluto." Get over it, folks.
Here's what I would have written, if I'd had the time and more inspiration.
Posted by Rand Simberg at August 26, 2006 07:18 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/6098
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
this post from
Transterrestrial Musings.
Comments
Good riddance.
Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 26, 2006 09:02 AM
Given that we're talking about a cold rock "good riddance" makes as much sense as "poor Pluto".
Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 26, 2006 09:05 AM
"Given that we're talking about a cold rock "good riddance" makes as much sense as "poor Pluto"."
Bottle the knee-jerk contrarianism, if you please. Including Pluto in 1930 was nothing more or less than a mistake based on limited information, and it was an embarrassment to the field that sentiment allowed it to be mislabeled for so long. And it is aesthetically pleasing when nomenclature reflects reality instead of having a lot of pointless, obtrusively arbitrary elements. I say "good riddance" to sentimental distortions of science, not to one outer system iceball in quadrillions.
Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 26, 2006 10:11 AM
The scientific establishment could use a bit more humility. Consequently, I think this should be highlighted more as the astronomical "boo boo" that it is. After all, "mistakes" and their correction are what science is all about.
Posted by K at August 26, 2006 12:57 PM
Isn't this just a semantics issue? Just take the new definition of a planet and add an addendum: "and pluto."
Crisis over, now the IAU can go back to those stupid hissy fits about humans vs robots.
Posted by Chris Mann at August 26, 2006 03:15 PM
"Isn't this just a semantics issue? Just take the new definition of a planet and add an addendum: "and pluto.""
Sorry, science isn't dictated by Disney. Junior will just have to take scissors to his shoelace-and-styrofoam solar system.
Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 26, 2006 06:38 PM
Personally,
I always thought Pluto was a Mickey Mouse planet anyway............
Posted by Mike Puckett at August 26, 2006 09:40 PM
I don't think orbit should be a factor of what defines a planet. Mass, sphericity, and composition should be the sole determinants. Pluto still loses out on planet status if "planet" means "smaller than Mercury."
What should define the line between planet and dwarf planet? Whether it has enough gravity to prevent a fastball from achieving escape velocity?
Posted by Alan K. Henderson at August 27, 2006 12:34 AM
Bottle the knee-jerk contrarianism, if you please.
Irony alert.
Posted by McGehee at August 27, 2006 06:12 AM
"Irony alert."
Squared.
Posted by Brian Swiderski at August 27, 2006 08:58 AM
Maybe perhaps a planet should be a body large enough to power a molten core either currently or at some point in its history.
Posted by Josh Reiter at August 27, 2006 06:54 PM
Post a comment
