|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 21, 2017 18:43:05 GMT
After all that nonsense, they want to reclassify Pluto as a planet again? Pluto a planet again?Pluto was always a planet. Pluto was never a planet. Pluto was always a planet. Why can't they make up their minds? Yeah, don't believe the Bible, folks. Believe NASA.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Feb 21, 2017 18:53:01 GMT
I don't care how they classify it as long as they don't change the name. Unless they want to name it Plato. I'd be cool with that.
I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all. Now it's called Urectum.
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Feb 21, 2017 19:01:40 GMT
Mickey Mouse will be happy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 19:11:50 GMT
I don't care how they classify it as long as they don't change the name. Unless they want to name it Plato. I'd be cool with that.
I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all. Now it's called Urectum.
Ϝορσανός from *ṷorsó- (also found in Greek ouréō ‘to urinate’, Sanskrit varṣá ‘rain’, Hittite ṷarša- ‘fog, mist’) The basic Indo-European root is *ṷérs- ‘to rain, moisten’ (also found in Greek eérsē ‘dew’, Sanskrit várṣati ‘to rain’, Avestan aiβi.varəšta ‘it rained on’), making Ouranos the ‘rainmaker’. A less likely etymology is a derivative with meaning ‘the one standing on high’ from PIE *ṷérso- (cf. Sanskrit várṣman ‘height, top’, Lithuanian viršùs ‘upper, highest seat’, Russian verx ‘height, top’). Georges Dumézil’s equation of Ouranos’ name with that of the Vedic deity Váruṇa (Mitanni Aruna), god of the sky and waters, is etymologically untenable.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Feb 21, 2017 19:39:11 GMT
I've always ignored the "Pluto isn't officially a planet" thing anyway. I've always told the folks back at school, I still call it a planet.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Feb 21, 2017 23:05:14 GMT
After all that nonsense, they want to reclassify Pluto as a planet again? Pluto a planet again?Pluto was always a planet. Pluto was never a planet. Pluto was always a planet. Why can't they make up their minds? Yeah, don't believe the Bible, folks. Believe NASA. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 21, 2017 23:15:14 GMT
After all that nonsense, they want to reclassify Pluto as a planet again? Pluto a planet again?Pluto was always a planet. Pluto was never a planet. Pluto was always a planet. Why can't they make up their minds? Yeah, don't believe the Bible, folks. Believe NASA. What's your point? NASA are liars, and the Bible is so much more reliable.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Feb 21, 2017 23:25:11 GMT
The Doctor referred to Pluto as a planet in The Sun Makers.
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Feb 21, 2017 23:32:54 GMT
The Doctor referred to Pluto as a planet in The Sun Makers. I remember that one. Leela was probably his sexiest assistant.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Feb 22, 2017 11:29:11 GMT
The whole planet/dwarf planet distinction is nearly meaningless anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 11:32:51 GMT
Sounds like some astronomers at NASA are angling to get some more academic papers published.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 22, 2017 18:51:13 GMT
Thanks to all who replied. As for me, I'm still collating.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 22, 2017 18:56:10 GMT
After all that nonsense, they want to reclassify Pluto as a planet again? Pluto a planet again?Pluto was always a planet. Pluto was never a planet. Pluto was always a planet. Why can't they make up their minds? Yeah, don't believe the Bible, folks. Believe NASA. Erj - They asked this poor man 42$ to read your article. But nothing to worry bro, I am reading from another source. I wish Pluto were classified as planet but it depends upon what properties scientists define for planets.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 23, 2017 6:23:43 GMT
Strange, AJ, but it was a read-for-free article when I posted it. Glad you found other sources. If Pluto is making a comeback on the planetary scene, perhaps some inspiring music is in order: youtube.com/watch?v=ioE_O7Lm0I4
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Feb 23, 2017 7:55:27 GMT
Strange, AJ, but it was a read-for-free article when I posted it. Glad you found other sources. If Pluto is making a comeback on the planetary scene, perhaps some inspiring music is in order: youtube.com/watch?v=ioE_O7Lm0I4Video not available, so how about something appropriate instead. And before anyone says it, yes I know Pluto wasn't part of The Planet Suite.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Feb 23, 2017 11:11:44 GMT
To those that couldn't see it, the video wasn't a big deal. It just said a small group of NASA scientists (the ones involved with the New Horizons mission involving pluto) want to change the classification, because anything not labelled planet gets less interest for exploration. Their proposed definition is anything round, smaller than a star, which makes our moon a planet. NASA itself isnt advocating it, just some scientists in this group.
This is why I asked erjen what his point was, and he failed to give one.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 23, 2017 16:52:03 GMT
Yeah, don't believe the Bible, folks. Believe NASA. There's nothing to believe or disbelieve. It's simply a debate over how to define "planet." NASA isn't making any factual claims about the actual nature of Pluto. Good article on this subject that actually uses Pluto as an example of how language works on a cognitive level: lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 23, 2017 16:57:25 GMT
Thanks, Eva. I'm glad you are interested in the topic.
So, if the boys at NASA put their domes together and decide that yes, Pluto is a planet, it will mean that Pluto was always a planet, although for about a decade and a half Pluto was never a planet, but merely a dwarf planet, which is kind of like a planet, but not really. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 23, 2017 17:28:29 GMT
So, if the boys at NASA put their domes together and decide that yes, Pluto is a planet, it will mean that Pluto was always a planet, although for about a decade and a half Pluto was never a planet, but merely a dwarf planet, which is kind of like a planet, but not really. Got it. You're misunderstanding me. Asking "is Pluto a planet" depends entirely on how we define "planet." How we define "planet" is not dependent on any facts about Pluto. Pluto doesn't change depending on how we choose to define it. Pluto was the same before we knew it existed, when we discovered it and called it a planet, when NASA decided it wasn't a planet, and it will stay the same if they decide to call it a planet again. The only thing that's changed is our definition. So, again, there's nothing to "believe NASA" about. Deciding how to define words isn't dependent on any factual statements about the objects we're trying to classify. That article I posted lays this out as lucidly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 23, 2017 17:36:40 GMT
jonesy1:
re: The Planetary Suite
Nice, but long. I'm going to have to listen to the rest over the weekend. Thanks for posting.
|
|