[Falling Down]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5282440.stm

Wow... whatever next?

[SA Chris]

Pity, he seemed like a nice dog. Mickey must be gutted. 

[Houdini]

I think they've got some cheek.  It has 3 moons/fuck off satellites orbitting it.  God of the underworld.  He had a good spot there down at the bottom of everything and they've nicked his place and given it to some other God.

Now the outer limits have just got closer.  What's out there?

[slim]

its never been a planet by the definition of a planet...
just the americans discovered it, so they wanted to seem important and called it one...

[Falling Down]

its never been a planet by the definition of a planet...
just the americans discovered it, so they wanted to seem important and called it one...

I wouldn't be so hasty...

The backlash begins.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm

There are spittle flecked beards and steamed up glasses as the worlds astronomers declare 'foul' on the comittee and the vote to downgrade Pluto.  There's blood splattering the grey carpets of observatories as I type..

Where's Ru with the SCIENCE when we need him?

[Stu Littlefair]

I can tell you that this has been the cause of an almighty shitstorm within the astrophysics community.

The International Astronomical Union (fusty old bastards in leather armchairs) had arrived at a nice sensible definition of a planet which made some sort of sense and left us with twelve planets (adding pluto partner Charon, UB313 and Ceres). Unfortunately they ignored a community of scientists who model the motion of the planets, and they kicked off massively in the debate in Prague a few days ago. They proposed the new definition that a planet has to clear it's orbit of debris. The upshot is that we're left with the new wierd-ass definition which (if applied logically) would demote Earth and Neptune and Mars from their planetary status (as they haven't cleared their orbits either). What a fuck up.

 

[Stu Littlefair]

Houdini - there's a whole lot of stuff "out there". Here comes the SCIENCE (and a little politics)

When our sun was young it was surrounded by a giant disc of material, which would have lasted 5 Myr or so. The material in this disc would have slowly stuck together to form large chunks of rock. The largest of these chunks would have grown very quickly and formed the 'planets' we know and love. It also formed "not quite planets" which are pretty big and there's probably hundreds of these out beyond the orbit of Pluto still to be found. There's also enormous belts of minor rocks (from centimetres to city sized) floating around beyond the orbit of Neptune, and an even larger belt of stuff further out called the Oort cloud (note - we've never actually seen this, but we know it's there because we can track the orbits of the comets back to it).

The problems we're having now is because there is a shitload of rocks orbiting our sun which have a wide range of sizes and don't split neatly into two categories. Are they all planets? When does an asteroid become a planet? It's like dividing things neatly into birds and mammals and fish, and then finding a herd of duck-billed platypi in your back garden.

Worse still, lot's of people have vested interests in Pluto being a planet (or not) and lots of people have strong opinions which are heavily biased by the fields in which they study. Hence the "dynamicists" who study the effect that planets have on the rocks around them want a definition of a planet which reflects the effects of planets on those rocks, whilst people who model how planets form want a definition which reflects how planets form. You can't please everyone so it's going to be handbags at dawn whatever. And that's before we get started on the people who publish astronomy textbooks for schools...

[Falling Down]

Firstly - have some waddage for a such a succinct description of the history of our solar system.

Secondly Stu, which side are you on?  Dynamicist (I guess not) or Planetery Geologist?  As a total ignoramus, I'm siding with the latter.  I'm all for a dose of relativism, but defining something solely by it's interaction with the world (universe) around it could lead to all sorts of dodgy SCIENCE..

Bring back Pluto and Charon and surely we can think of something Graeco Roman for UB313 given its proximity to Mars.

[Andy_P]

How can anyone have a vested interested in whether or not a lump of rock is called a planet or not? It is just a name; pluto is still just a lump of rock (and ice). Kids in schools will just be asked to cross Pluto off the list of planets. Surley its no big deal. Is it?

[soapy]

i like xena for ub313; it reflects our mcdumbed-downâ„¢ world


now if they'd only get kelly le-brock back on the screen..

[Slide]

have we forgot to mention the hoo ha going on fat roly poly gay russel brands house?

[Stu Littlefair]

Andy - you'd be surprised. People who study Pluto for a living are going to find it a lot harder to get funding after it's demoted to a "minor planet", for example.  The NASA group who are working on sending a probe to Pluto are properly fucked off  Plus, the textbook lot were lobbying fairly hard for some more planets, because that would require reprints of textbooks and schools would have to order more etc.

I'm on the side of any definition of a planet which makes sense. The current definition is insane! How can you have a practical definition of a planet which invalidates Earth? Still that's what you get when you ask a room of people who are so busy being important astronomers that they have to go on expensive junkets to prague I guess 

The original definition proposed by the IAU was pretty sensible. It stated that the object had to be large enough to be made spherical by it's own gravity, and had to orbit a star (otherwise we'd have to upgrade all the moons). The only objections people could raise was that we might end up with a very large number of planets inside our own solar system, which is fine by me. I don't think it will be long before an agreement along those lines is reached, probably after a more democratic polling of astronomers and planetary geologists.

I like Xena for UB313 as well.

[Andy_P]

Surely the availability of funding to scientists should be based on the objectives and utility of their studies, not on Pluto's status in the solar system measured against, as you clearly point out, a flawed (surely soon to be discredited) yardstick. Perhaps this view is naive and idealistic and in the eyes of potential funders Pluto is now somehow a lesser celestial body even though it is the human defined criteria and not Pluto that has changed. But if this is the case, is it not the criteria potential backers use to select studies for funding that is the problem, not the status of Pluto.

Again, why should the NASA group care. Pluto is still the rock it once was. If interested parties suddenly withdraw their funding shouldn't they be on the receiving end of those who are properly fucked off? Not the scientists who had one too many glasses of absinthe in Prague. New developments in science should not have to depend for their funding on labels but on what those studies can deliver. After all, science is not about enabling guys to pose questions and subsequently find funding to answer them just for the sake of giving them something to do that pays for their living to enable them to spend even more time at the Tor getting ridiculously strong. It is about advancing something, anything with a practical application, even if it is some kind of chemical that enables one to produce the goods from ones arse before leaving the house to go to the crag and therefore avoiding the embarrassing moment when ones pale arse is discovered by a group of curious walkers being adventurous and leaving the beaten track whilst on their yearly excursion into the Derbyshire wilderness.

[dave]

Pluto was always the shittest disney character anyway, i say good riddance. stupid dog.

[soapy]

.. even if it is some kind of chemical that enables one to produce the goods from ones arse before leaving the house to go to the crag and therefore avoiding the embarrassing moment when ones pale arse is discovered by a group of curious walkers..

andy, you really missed out on the obvious comedy tin reference to uranus, tsk..

[SA Chris]

Pluto was always the shittest disney character anyway, i say good riddance. stupid dog.

More importantly, the crucial question is; If Pluto and Goofy are both dogs, how come one can talk and the other can't?

Let the scientific community debate that one.