Planets again
...And now the AP says the IAU has gone in the less expansive direction, distinguishing between dwarf planets and real planets and demoting Pluto. I can't tell exactly from the article but it sounds as if there's a qualifier that excludes objects obviously part of a population of similar bodies in similar orbits.
(The article claims that Pluto is disqualified because its orbit "overlaps" Neptune's, but that can't be right without further detail, or it would disqualify Neptune too! I would think that Pluto is disqualified because it's one of a whole population of similar bodies in similar orbits, some of which are of comparable or even greater size.)
(The article claims that Pluto is disqualified because its orbit "overlaps" Neptune's, but that can't be right without further detail, or it would disqualify Neptune too! I would think that Pluto is disqualified because it's one of a whole population of similar bodies in similar orbits, some of which are of comparable or even greater size.)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Quick! Call it back!
Sheesh.
(no subject)
no subject
Looking at the full text, I can't see how Pluto's crossing of Neptune's orbit is relevant. Maybe the thinking is that Pluto didn't clean up its region of the solar system because Neptune did (and Neptune's failure to get rid of Pluto is too small an omission to worry about.)
(no subject)
no subject
I Have No Science Here, I Just Want To Say
Re: I Have No Science Here, I Just Want To Say
Re: I Have No Science Here, I Just Want To Say
no subject
"Dwarf" as a modifier usually doesn't undermine the attribute it modifies, but apparently it does in this case.
Dwarf stars are still stars, right?
(no subject)
(no subject)
BULLSHIT MR HAN MAN!
What about Uranus?
no subject
(no subject)
Won't anybody think of the children?