I find it hilarious that a creator god is called make-make.
the pronounciation is approximately "mah-keh mah-keh"Not sure how it's supposed to be pronounced, but the way my brain is pronouncing it, "Makemake" sounds completely ridiculous.
Yup, and so much for the five moons argument. I mean Charon is obviousy a mass-relay-turned-icicle.The IAU are gonna look really bad about dissing Pluto once we find that mass relay orbiting it.
Now, that's just Goofy.No, but you can see Minnie Mouse on Wrigley's Pleasure Planet.You can see Pluto from Wrigley Field?
I just wish the IAU would settle on what constitutes being a planet.
Where are Alvin & Dave???![]()
And next week in science...Brontosaurus was actually real!!!
While I understand why this was done in the first place, I just wish the IAU would settle on what constitutes being a planet.
Uh, it reminds me of a girl I knew once.And next week in science...Brontosaurus was actually real!!!
There is a Dinosaur by the name of Brontomerus (Thunder Thighs), though.
To be completely honest, there are some issues with the definitions adopted by the IAU. It is badly worded, at least. (By definition, dwarf planets are not considered planets -- while dwarf stars and dwarf galaxies are obviously considered stars and galaxies respectively; the meaning of "clearing the orbital neighbourhood" is not clearly defined; etc.) As with anything resulting from a negotiate and a compromise, it's not perfect, but it works pretty well in the context it's used. In fact, most of the critiques are actually semantic arguments dressed up as scientific debate, and they stem from nostalgia instead of actual astronomical concerns.Isn't the controversy precisely because they have settled on what is a planet, but some people dislike the definition?
Because most people do not care about actual astronomy, they only care about what they learned in elementary school and don't want it to change. How dare actual astronomers mess with stuff I learned in a book when I was 7? The gall of some people!Anyway, why is there no love for Ceres? Everyone talks about Pluto getting "demoted" from Planet to Dwarf Planet. However, Ceres got demoted from planet all the way to freakin' asteroid.
Skywalker has yet another winner av.
Your cheque is in the mail, Deckerd.Skywalker has yet another winner av.Just now, on this thread, I finally keep that avatar from distracting my attention towards it,
and then you bring it up again?!?
![]()
To be completely honest, there are some issues with the definitions adopted by the IAU. It is badly worded, at least. (By definition, dwarf planets are not considered planets -- while dwarf stars and dwarf galaxies are obviously considered stars and galaxies respectively; the meaning of "clearing the orbital neighbourhood" is not clearly defined; etc.) As with anything resulting from a negotiate and a compromise, it's not perfect, but it works pretty well in the context it's used. In fact, most of the critiques are actually semantic arguments dressed up as scientific debate, and they stem from nostalgia instead of actual astronomical concerns.Isn't the controversy precisely because they have settled on what is a planet, but some people dislike the definition?
Because most people do not care about actual astronomy, they only care about what they learned in elementary school and don't want it to change. How dare actual astronomers mess with stuff I learned in a book when I was 7? The gall of some people!Anyway, why is there no love for Ceres? Everyone talks about Pluto getting "demoted" from Planet to Dwarf Planet. However, Ceres got demoted from planet all the way to freakin' asteroid.![]()
I support making a distinction between "moons" (enough mass to achieve hidrostatic equilibrium, i.e. become almost spherical) and mere "natural satellites". It would "demote" a whole bunch of objects from moons to satellites, but I got no problem with that.Am I the only person who thinks the definition of moon needs to be changed so any random rock that goes too close to Jupiter doesn't become a moon? The most obvious definition I can think of (being round as opposed to irregularly shaped) would probably exclude some popular moons like Phobos and Deimos, though.
I just wish the IAU would settle on what constitutes being a planet.
Well, until recently, we didn't have much evidence of planets orbiting other stars. Given that we only really have our own solar system to go on, it stands to reason that definitions might change as we continue to learn more.
I just know that it will be a victory for my childhood if Pluto becomes a planet again.
A couple of quick questions that some with more knowledge than me might be able to answer
1) I believe that Pluto's moons all have a retrograde orbit. Do any other moons in the solar system have a retrograde orbit?
And 2) could its moon's retrograde orbits have any bearing on whether Pluto is considered a planet or not?
Edited to add - Does Pluto itself have a retrograde orbit?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.