Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Serious Discussion -> The IAU Planetary Draft
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mune'R0x on 2006-08-16 at 12:29:16
The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is trying to change, or actually define for the first time, the definition of what a planet is.

Wiki Wiki gots an article about it. I think maybe they're making a too big of a deal over it. Yeah, it could leave our solar system with a lot more plants, somewhere around 50. Actually, those would be candidates for our solar system. And not to mention thousands of other undiscovered bodies in the solar system.

What's your opinions/input?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2006-08-16 at 16:19:32
hell why not more planets might be interesting.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Voyager7456(MM) on 2006-08-16 at 22:01:35
Ceres as a planet? Ahhh, wtf?

Charon too? Nooo! I'll stick to the classic 9... sad.gif
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DiscipleOfAdun on 2006-08-17 at 10:14:05
I never did believe Pluto really should be a planet. They should also be looking at orbits, not just size+self gravity. Ceres is in the asteroid belt. It's a 'half-planet' in my opinion, because Jupiter wouldn't let it become one. The object nicknamed Xena is wierd. It's orbit looks more like that of a comet(just not so close to the sun), so, size nonwithstanding, I keep the same view that it is not a planet. Besides, who wants to have to memorize more planets, when the new ones are just large rocks out in+beyond the Kupier belt. One main thing I also factor in is the theory behind how solar systems are formed. That's another reason I don't like Pluto for being a planet.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CAFG4reals on 2006-08-19 at 20:41:11
y do i have to follow a smart post?

yeh, there shouldnt be more than 10, because its only matters to the elementry schoolers and we dont want them to think too hard.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-08-20 at 07:10:39
they dont have to learn all of them at once. i.e. ) learn something easy first, learn hard things later.

and you should follow a smart post because this is a "serious discussion".

In my opinion, the definition of the planet is unstable, and never will be stable in our lifetime. Because more things that are being discovered as we speak.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mune'R0x on 2006-08-24 at 16:06:46
Wikipedia has some information on the final definition of a planet. Pretty lame I think.

I bet it was just a bunch of mega nerd geniuses getting into a NASA building, wearing their starched lab coats and holding onto their beakers and flasks. 30 of them that will meet up in a room, sit in their NASA approved chairs. (Not to be confused with Tempur-pedic, the matress made by NASA.) And then they all just busted out facts about planets and what should be a planet and all this crazy smart shiet. That's how I see it anyways.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-08-30 at 05:42:22
Does it really matter what we call them? Pluto will still be pluto even if its not a planet..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by WoodenFire on 2006-08-30 at 06:56:11
I've been waiting my entire lifetime for this to happen.
Next Page (1)