Are you spamming or what?NO!! it should be called Kettlebell!!
If a Ninth Planet is discovered in the Outer Solar System, should it be called Hercules?
- Thread starter INACTIVERedDwarf
- Start date
^ Joey P, just a friendly note, it's generally frowned upon to accuse people of spamming, trolling, etc. If you have concerns about the content of a post, please use the "Report" button to notify staff of your concerns.
And just for the record, this is not spamming. @Santaman is just having some light-hearted fun. No issues here.
And just for the record, this is not spamming. @Santaman is just having some light-hearted fun. No issues here.
Oh, sorry about that.
Relevant thread on another forum (sorry if this counts as spam):
https://www.tor.com/2016/01/21/ninth-planet/
https://www.tor.com/2016/01/21/ninth-planet/
I think Cassandra (spelt with a "C" to prevent confusion with 114 Kassandra) from "A Journey To Other Worlds" by John Jacob Astor IV might be a good name. The entire book is available online for free to read.
Or Kassandra from Assassin's Creed
You know our Solar System is "weirder than you think" right? If Persephone/Planet Nine does not exist then we have no super-Earths...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/our-solar-system-is-even-stranger-than-we-thought/
What about "Wérunos", the reconstructed god of the night sky and rain from proto-Indo-European mythology? (He already has a planet named after his Greek name, and the planet Neptune goes by his Hinduism name in the Hindi language)
There already are 9 planets.
No Pluto isn't a planet anymore so 8 planets.
Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere. Make it 7.
Venus has no moons. Better be 6.
Earth isn't a planet, it's the earth. We live on it. So, 5.
Saturn is the density of a milkshake. Planets need to be more solid. That leaves 4.
Jupiter should have been a sun but it wound up too small. So it's a failed star, not a planet. 3 left.
Uranus is on its side. Planets shouldn't do that. It's unseemly. We are now at 2.
Thus, Mars and Neptune are the only PLANETS in the solar system.
Or we can just say Pluto is still a planet and leave it at that.
Venus has no moons. Better be 6.
Earth isn't a planet, it's the earth. We live on it. So, 5.
Saturn is the density of a milkshake. Planets need to be more solid. That leaves 4.
Jupiter should have been a sun but it wound up too small. So it's a failed star, not a planet. 3 left.
Uranus is on its side. Planets shouldn't do that. It's unseemly. We are now at 2.
Thus, Mars and Neptune are the only PLANETS in the solar system.
Or we can just say Pluto is still a planet and leave it at that.
Or we can just accept that astronomy is a science, not a nostalgia trip for your feelings, that it needs agreed upon, objective terminology which is applied consistently, and that that terminology can't include Pluto as a planet without also including a whole lot of other small bodies on the edge of the solar system, which no one wants to do.
And what's to stop them from deleting another body from planethood?
500 years ago, there were 6 planets.
100 years ago, there were 8.
When I was in school 40 years ago, there were 9.
Today, we're back down to 8.
Tomorrow, if scientists change their minds again, there could be 7, or 13, or whatever. And I expect you'll be just as insistent that there are eight, as I am that there are nine. Because that's how you learned it.
First of all, your assumptions are stupid. I learned 9 just like you did.
Secondly, your premise is stupid. Science *is always subject to change*. That's what makes science work. Because it follows objective interpretation of new evidence, not dogmatic insistence on tradition. If your argument were applied in the past, Pluto would never have been considered a planet at all because everyone knows there are only six planets.
If, 20 years from now, scientists find a good reason why they should change the definition and that results in there being six planets or six hundred in the solar system, I don't care. As long as the definition they're using is *consistently applied*, *universally understood/agreed upon within the field* and *scientifically useful* for the astromony needs of the time, they should do it.
Frankly, the fact that anyone who isn't actually an astronomer even cares whether Pluto is currently considered a planet or not is idiotic. The word that professional astronomers use in their careers does not impact your life in the slightest. And as for the precious horror of kids learning things that aren't exactly the same as what you learned in school - get used to it, because it's never going to stop. Science advances. Knowledge is gained that we didn't used to have. The world changes. Society changes. Life changes.
I don't expect you to adopt anything.
I just find it utterly pathetic for anyone to demand that scientists abandon scientific principles for no other reason than because changing the designation of planetary bodies makes you uncomfortable. Your comfort doesn't matter to the objectivity of astronomical definitions.
Last edited:
Hmmmm tricky, tricky. I'm torn between Persephone/Proserpina and Dionysius for Planet Number Nine (if there is one)
But... How about Zagreus? I know he was sometimes considered to be an aspect of Dionysius. But a mysterious, underworld-deity sometimes referred to as the Chitonic Zeus, sounds like a fitting name for a planet/brown dwarf somewhere beyond the kuiper belt, doesn't it?
But... How about Zagreus? I know he was sometimes considered to be an aspect of Dionysius. But a mysterious, underworld-deity sometimes referred to as the Chitonic Zeus, sounds like a fitting name for a planet/brown dwarf somewhere beyond the kuiper belt, doesn't it?
For the record, I never did actually insult you at all. I said your assumption that I would defend the number of planets I grew up with just like you do was stupid, which it is, because I grew up with the same number of planets you did.
And I said that your premise that scientists changing their mind about how many planets are in the solar system is a bad thing was stupid, which it is, because that's literally what the scientific method *is* - refining understanding in light of new information. Science without that is not science, nor even useful at all.
Whether you are stupid or not is impossible for me to say because I don't know you. My mother used to believe that Austria was a part of Germany, and that it had been that way since WWII. That's a pretty stupid idea, very easily disproven, but she is by no means a stupid person. And I make no claim whatsoever to have any significant insight into your intelligence level. Just the very, very poor logic of your argument.
*I also said that it's stupid for anyone to care about the official designation of pluto because it's a random piece of information that doesn't directly impact anyone's life in any way, though that I will agree is my opinion and your mileage may vary. People can care about whatever they want to care about, obviously.