Holy Crap!! When did that happen?
Pluto got screwed
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Holy Crap!! When did that happen?
You know, that's very rude. That whole "fixed" thing where you edit someone else's text without consent -- it's invasive and obnoxious. It's actually against the rules on at least one other BBS I know of. If you disagree with my terminology, then express that disagreement in a civil and straightforward way, please. Don't alter my words.
I mostly agree with his argument, except that I still think there should be a way to differentiate between MAJOR planets--bodies that are the dominant gravity source for its assorted companions--and minor planets, aka "moons" who can only be said to orbit major ones. A dwarf planet would essentially be a moon that isn't orbiting a major planet.
True, but I tend to think of Ceres as a dwarf planet, not an asteroid. The same I think could be said for most asteroids large enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium. Actually, I tend to think the only difference between a dwarf planet and a moon is that a moon orbits another body and a dwarf planet does not; if Charon were to suddenly fall out of pluto's orbit, it would be a dwarf planet too.
"Probably" is good enough for me (actually, on most subjects it's good enough for most scientists).
You've said that MANY times. However, since neither one of us are actual scientists, that's kind of a moot point isn't it?
Ceres is one of the five officially recognized dwarf planets. And it's the only one other than Pluto that's firmly rather than tentatively on the list, because it's the only one close enough for us to be really sure it's spherical.
There probably aren't any of those in the Main Belt besides Ceres. 2 Pallas is pretty large and close to spheroidal, but it appears to be irregular and thus not in equilibrium. (In fact, it's the largest irregular body in the system.) 4 Vesta might have been in equilibrium once, but it was deformed by an impact that left a huge crater at one pole, so it's kinda pumpkin-shaped now. And the only other one that might be massive enough in theory is 10 Hygiea, but lightcurve models show it's rather oblong and definitely not in equilibrium.
Not just dwarf planets either. Remember, Ganymede and Titan have larger radii than Mercury (albeit less than half its mass).
Not unless there are actual measurements to back it up. Like I said, scientists don't feel the need to pretend they have certain knowledge when they don't. That's why only five bodies have been designated as dwarf planets and the rest are just candidates -- because the rest haven't been measured well enough yet to allow a reasonable conclusion to be drawn.
You know, that's very rude.
You know, I disagree. It's not rude at all. It's your reaction that's rude.
I don't recognize your authority to lecture me on good netiquette, or anything else, for that matter. So just keep your finger-wagging to yourself.
See above.
But not this BBS.
It's not a matter of me disagreeing with you. It's a matter of you being wrong, and me correcting you.
Earth's moon has a proper name in English, and that name is "the Moon". To quote the Gazeteer of Planetary Nomenclature: "Every civilization has had a name for the satellite of Earth that is known, in English, as the Moon. The Moon is known as Luna in Italian, Latin, and Spanish, as Lune in French, as Mond in German, and as Selene in Greek." For an English speaker to refer to the Moon as "Luna" makes about as much sense as me calling you by the name "Christophorus."
Now, that said--if you want to use your own private term to refer to the Moon, then by all means, go ahead. You can call it "Bob" for all I care.
But it seems a little strange and inconsistent to me that you would spend several pages defending the IAU's definition of a planet, only to turn around and call the Moon by a private name--and then get indignant when someone corrects you.
Perhaps you don't really need to wonder about all the folks who got upset about Pluto being relabelled, after all. If you consider your own reactions in this case, it might actually help you to understand theirs.
I did. You're welcome.
I'll consider your request. But barring an intervention by the moderators, whether I grant it or not will really depend on your future behaviour--and in particular, to your response to this post. I'm a firm believer in doing unto others as they do unto me.
It's not about you "correcting" me, it's about the way you did so, as I explained. There are rules for how to edit quoted text, and how not to edit it. It should always be indicated with marks such as ellipses and brackets, and quoted text should not be changed in any way except to shorten or clarify it (for instance, replacing a pronoun with its antecedent in brackets). It is improper to change the meaning of quoted text. The ethical thing to do is to accurately quote the text you're engaging with and to critique it in your own words outside the quote.
And changing someone else's words and saying you've "fixed" it is condescending, immature, and yes, rude. In a playful context, it can be taken as a joke, but you've made it clear that you weren't joking. Saying "fixed it" means "My opinions are objectively more correct than yours," and that's hardly a polite way to dissent.
And it's not a "private name." Maybe it's not the official name, but it's a longstanding practice in science fiction, at least, to refer to Earth's Moon as Luna, because when you're writing science fiction set in space, it's not necessarily unambiguous which moon is being referred to. In that context, it adds clarity to give Earth's satellite a less generic name. I've been an SF reader and writer for so long that I just take it for granted that Luna is a valid formal name for Earth's satellite. And given the context -- a list of the Solar System's regions and their main bodies -- it seemed appropriate to avoid a generic designation for the same reasons.
And changing someone else's words and saying you've "fixed" it is condescending, immature, and yes, rude. In a playful context, it can be taken as a joke, but you've made it clear that you weren't joking. Saying "fixed it" means "My opinions are objectively more correct than yours," and that's hardly a polite way to dissent.
And it's not a "private name." Maybe it's not the official name, but it's a longstanding practice in science fiction, at least, to refer to Earth's Moon as Luna, because when you're writing science fiction set in space, it's not necessarily unambiguous which moon is being referred to. In that context, it adds clarity to give Earth's satellite a less generic name. I've been an SF reader and writer for so long that I just take it for granted that Luna is a valid formal name for Earth's satellite. And given the context -- a list of the Solar System's regions and their main bodies -- it seemed appropriate to avoid a generic designation for the same reasons.
The article I linked to suggests that the difference between a major planet and a minor one is like that between a major river and a minor river. If that's the case, the distinction would be clear enough in a general sense, but perhaps fuzzy at the boundary (given that a major/minor boundary is likely to be arbitrary, ultimately).
I've also seen the argument - which that article partly makes - that planets that orbit other planets should be called "satellite planets," no matter how large (e.g. Endor and Pandora, from space fantasy/science fiction), satellite describing their orbital status, planet their object type; Phobos and Deimos, which we now call moons, would be termed "satellite asteroids" under that system.
My personal feeling is that the major planet/minor planet list is probably something like this:
Major and Giant Planets: (mass pie diagram)
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Earth
Venus
Semi-Major Planets: (mass pie diagram)
Mars
Ganymede
Titan
Mercury
Callisto
Io
Luna
Europa
Triton
Pluto
Eris
Minor Planets: (remainder)
Titania
Rhea
Oberon
Makemake
Iapetus
Charon
Umbriel
Ariel
Haumea
Dione
Tethys
Ceres
Enceladus
Mimas
Mars could probably be in either category, but it seems more like the semi-major planets to me than like the major. I recognize that my relative mass criteria makes the major/minor distinction highly local to our solar system, but I suspect that the question of which planets are major and which minor will tend to be a local one - again, much like local conditions affect one's estimation of which cities and bodies of water are merely minor.
I took Goliath's comment as a playful form of disagreement - the point of view communicated isn't a joke, but the manner of its expression is.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the rule you describe doesn't exist. This type of playful "correction" is common online, and is commonly accepted. From the standpoint of clarity of authorship, Goliath's comment is written to indicate - in a manner different from the traditional style, which you prefer - what was changed vis-a-vis your original post (the manner in which points of ellipsis are used in your novels similarly irritates me).
Last edited:
I'm not a moderator, and I don’t play one on television. But here’s my two credits’ worth:
Goliath: For heaven’s sake, there’s nothing wrong with referring to Earth’s Moon as “Luna,” especially, as Christopher pointed out, in a science-fiction context. It’s like calling the Earth “Terra” or the Sun “Sol.” Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Christopher: You're overreacting a bit, I think. Yes, there are formal rules for quoting and editing someone else’s text. In actual writing. This is a bunch of geeks schmoozing on an internet BB.
In any case, “Fixed it for you” is cheapened when it’s used merely to “correct” another person’s usage or grammar. It should properly be used when altering someone else's words in a snide or sarcastic way, usually in the context of a political or sociological discussion. Like on TNZ.
Meanwhile, back on Pluto . . .
Goliath: For heaven’s sake, there’s nothing wrong with referring to Earth’s Moon as “Luna,” especially, as Christopher pointed out, in a science-fiction context. It’s like calling the Earth “Terra” or the Sun “Sol.” Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Christopher: You're overreacting a bit, I think. Yes, there are formal rules for quoting and editing someone else’s text. In actual writing. This is a bunch of geeks schmoozing on an internet BB.
In any case, “Fixed it for you” is cheapened when it’s used merely to “correct” another person’s usage or grammar. It should properly be used when altering someone else's words in a snide or sarcastic way, usually in the context of a political or sociological discussion. Like on TNZ.
Meanwhile, back on Pluto . . .
That's a good explanation of what it is, Christopher. My Dad actually met Clyde Tombaugh in the 80's, so there's a definite sense of nostalgia there.
Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, calling the Moon, Luna is just as valid as calling it the Moon. It's just an alternate way to refer to it, much like aliens in Sci-Fi will often refer to the Earth as Terra. And in fact, I'm pretty sure they're the more scientific terms, them being the Latin words for those planets.
Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, calling the Moon, Luna is just as valid as calling it the Moon. It's just an alternate way to refer to it, much like aliens in Sci-Fi will often refer to the Earth as Terra. And in fact, I'm pretty sure they're the more scientific terms, them being the Latin words for those planets.
Why not Ancient Greek? Or is this a case of 'As long as it sounds foreign/ancient/fancy'?
Not really. We call the Earth the Earth without reference to Latin, except for the odd pomposity scattered round the board. Similarly I'm always tickled by the Trek (and other sci fi) names for Mars, slavishly following Victorian whimsy instead of what will most likely happen: New New York.
What Trek names for Mars? Utopia Planitia? It's an actual geographic location.
Luna is not equally valid in English, imo, but it helps avoid confusion if there ever is a risk (the moon vs. a moon).
Luna is not equally valid in English, imo, but it helps avoid confusion if there ever is a risk (the moon vs. a moon).
I love "New New York" since I've heard David Tennant pronouncing it "ñoo ñoo yourk".
Oh I dunno many sci fi genres call it Terra, and humans Terrans as much as Earth and Earthlings (the latter sounds too cheesy to modern ears). I've also seen Earth referred to as Sol 3 and we've adopted the 'Solar System' into English which involves accepting Sol as an appropriate name for our sun. I would say that there are scientific denominations and which are applied by the multinational scientific community in documentation and colloquial denominations used in language specific conversations.
Isn't this whole debate symptomatic about the definititon of Pluto? It hasn't changed, it has just been re-categorised for scientific purposes. The real question is how to adjudicate a game of Trivial Pursuit if the answer card hasn't been updated yet.
I call the Earth the Earth and the Moon the Moon but if I was drawing up a star chart I'd write Sol 3 (Terra) and Luna.
