|
|
|
|
 |
|
August 24th, 2006, 08:54 PM
|
 |
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 15,630
Thanks: 0
Thanked 30 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
Its true, Pluto is no longer considered a planet persay.
Link
NY Times
Today they say Pluto is NOT, repeat, NOT a plant now. 
__________________
Creator of the Star Trek Mod - AST Mod - 78 Ship Sets - Conquest Mod - Atrocities Star Wars Mod - Galaxy Reborn Mod - and Subterfuge Mod.
|
August 24th, 2006, 09:09 PM
|
 |
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kailua, Hawaii
Posts: 1,860
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
Imagine all the text books that are now wrong...
__________________
Slick.
|
August 24th, 2006, 09:18 PM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,623
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
Quote:
Slick said:
Imagine all the text books that are now wrong...
|
Burn them all!
It's a sad day for Plutonians. |
August 24th, 2006, 10:27 PM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 15,630
Thanks: 0
Thanked 30 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
What exactly is a darf planet and how will that relate to SEIV? Is it smaller than a tiny planet? Will we have to update all of the stellor files? Oh and poor Fyron, I fear an update for FQM and FQM D is needed now.
Darf Planets... ROTFLMAO
__________________
Creator of the Star Trek Mod - AST Mod - 78 Ship Sets - Conquest Mod - Atrocities Star Wars Mod - Galaxy Reborn Mod - and Subterfuge Mod.
|
August 24th, 2006, 10:36 PM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Union, SC
Posts: 1,166
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
Science textbooks are always out of date by the time they are published anyway.
__________________
Caduceus
|
August 25th, 2006, 01:09 AM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,903
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
Well, Pluto being demoted I think is better than making Charon into a planet like they were proposing earlier.
Maybe oneday they'll discover another planet beyond Pluto and bring the total up to 9 again, though that's unlikely.
|
August 25th, 2006, 01:15 AM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gettysburg Sector
Posts: 785
Thanks: 7
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
Nah, we'll just take Chauron, Pluto, and a few old russian sats and duct tape it together to get the mass required for a planet.
|
August 25th, 2006, 02:10 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,205
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
Seems to me like this is one big beaurocratic screw up.
The IAU put together a special committee to define the word "planet" two and a half years ago!
Several days ago they release what they finally came up with, after two and a half years of painstaking (yeah right) debate and research...and what happens? A few astronomers get together, slap a different definition together and that's the one they go with!
I just find it so utterly stupid that a committee could debate this on and off for so long, and have their careful definition fall victim to a quickly slapped together definition. Oh how horrible beaurocracy can be!
On a slightly more serious note, I think the definition they've gone with is utterly senseless. From what I've heard, the new definition relies on some vague terminology to work. For example, for a planet to be a planet it has to be the dominant body in its "neighborhood"...OK, so what is a planet's neighbourhood? What do they mean by has to be the "dominant body"? Does this mean that, if we discover two planets the size of Jupiter sharing the same orbit (could easily happen around some other star), does that mean that neither one fits the definition of "planet" since neither one really dominates it's neighborhood? After all, two objects can't "dominate" the same neighborhood, can they?
Personally, I highly favor a definition based upon gravity or mass. Either one, it sets a definite limit.
Heh, and they still haven't defined the upper limit on planetary size...wonder how they'll screw that one up??
__________________
Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says "I'll try again tomorrow".
Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future.
Download the Nosral Confederacy (a shipset based upon the Phong) and the Tyrellian Imperium, an organic looking shipset I created! (The Nosral are the better of the two [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Grin.gif[/img] )
|
August 25th, 2006, 04:38 AM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Woodland,CA
Posts: 918
Thanks: 14
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
Quote:
KlvinoHRGA said:
Nah, we'll just take Chauron, Pluto, and a few old russian sats and duct tape it together to get the mass required for a planet.
|
ROTFLMAO !!! |
August 25th, 2006, 04:46 AM
|
|
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle, UK
Posts: 1,826
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: OT: Pluto Not A Planet!
I can't remember who said it but yesterday was an "undiscovery" for the human race
At least now I can grow up to be a crotchety and ripe age and tell my grandchildren that "when I was a lad we had 9 planets!" |
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|
Run if you like, you'll only die tired....
