we may have 3 planets added to out solar system

[Clint]

we may get 3 more planets. awesome.

msn article

 

[PlantAKiss]

I saw that. That's really interesting. I still think they need to rename Uranus.

 

[Est]

This is taxonomy of the stars.'

Same way we've had folks down here going "No, it's NOT a crysanthumum, it's 14 different sub-genera with impossible names!" we've got folks looking upwards and doing the same.

Lumpers want us to think there's 3 planets. Splitters want us to think there's 27. And people wanna just make Uranus jokes.

Been following this topic for quiiiiite a while now; it all starts with Pluto "If Pluto is a planet then MY planet should be a planet" or "Pluto isn't a planet, so your rock shouldn't be, either."

 

[seedjar]

I don't understand what's the big deal with calling some of these things planets. Would 53 planets in our system be such a terrible problem? It's not like just because they're planets you have to worry about every single one of them. And I don't like the way that the article above makes it out as, "Anything that's round is a planet! This meteor is a planet! This cantaloupe is a planet! This balled-up pair of socks is a planet!" I think that a body's own gravity being sufficient to give it a roughly spherical shape is an excellent criterion; simple, sensible, and testable. I also don't understand the objection to distinguishing between 'double planets' and satellites. Certainly, a satellite is not a planet, and a body is not a satellite if it's not revolving around a planet, so shouldn't it be that bodies orbiting an empty point revolving around a star are planets? Unless you want to accept an empty point as a planet, I don't see any other logical choice.
The one thing I really hate about science is these symantic debates. I'm beginning to prefer the arts, where the distribution of belligerence and criticism is more uniform.
~Joe

 

[trashcan]

I would prefer 2003 UB313 over Xena.

 

[Clint]

i say , and i stand by this, we name is planey zoot.

 

[herenorthere]

Fortunately, most scientists don't get into the name game.  Most geologists, to speak of the science I know best, study how things happen and don't get obsessed about what the end result is called.  I've often heard Pluto is a planetoid or whatever the word is, but don't care one way or the other.

As for semantics, I consider all Sarracenias to be one species since their ranges overlap and they so readily interbreed.  But I definitely lean towards the lumper, not the splitter end of the spectrum.

 

[Clint]

lol, i don't think most people agree with there being one species of sarracenia.

 

[herenorthere]

It's just me.

 

[BigCarnivourKid]

Quote[/b] (PlantAKiss @ Aug. 16 2006,10:38)]...I still think they need to rename Uranus.

Would it still be mine if it was named somebody else?

 

[back2eight]

Quote (PlantAKiss @ Aug. 16 2006,10:38)
...I still think they need to rename Uranus.

Would it still be mine if it was named somebody else?


LOL!! LOL!!!

 

[kahnli]

I heard that there has been sightings of Kligons arround Uranus.

 

[BigCarnivourKid]

So you think some lye soap and flea powder for my next bath would get rid of them?

 

[Dyflam]

Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Aug. 16 2006,1:59)]Would 53 planets in our system be such a terrible problem?

Only if you were asked to name them all on a test.

 

[PlantAKiss]

LOL Steve. Well I have heard some people name other body parts...

....but if you want to rename Uranus, be my guest. Just don't call it late for dinner.

 

[BigCarnivourKid]

I think I'll name it George Bush. They're both full of the same thing

. Just hope the Klingons don't cause a rash..

 

[nepenthes_ak]

well I dont think Bush is coverd in gas... he might be full of it... Im sure you dont have to worry about the klingons to much, I hear they lower blood pressure. I think Bush announced that.