Who is the Geekiest Dad of them all?

[Don Coyote]

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/SR/PDF/09600SR0046lv.pdf

*coughisaplanetinIllinoiscough* 

[Phox]

Poorly worded non-binding state Senate resolution > scientific consensus. Fact.

[Kai]

I personally consider the "Pluto shift" to mean that we have MORE planets in our solar system, not less.

Seriously, "dwarf planet" still has "planet" in it. It's not like they're calling Pluto, Ceres, etc, "rocks". I totally blame the mnemonic for the stupidly which surrounds this (it's easier to drop Pluto than come up with an accurate mnemonic).

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out that the whole problem was the rote memorization of planets rather than the understanding of the different types of objects in the solar system, of which the terrestrial and jovian planets are just two types of many. It's the same way whereever you look in education, most of all in the sciences. The very obvious reason people identify so much with Pluto is twofold A) it's much smaller than the other classic planets and B) when they see "Pluto" they think Mickey's dog. They're very well not thinking of a fucking god of the underworld. They don't actually know a damn thing about it, that it's transneptunian, that it mostly rock and ice, that it's just one of many kuiper belt objects, etc etc. All they know is "pluto is the 9th planet". Which is perhaps one of the most useless factoids I have ever heard.

[Phox]

I personally consider the "Pluto shift" to mean that we have MORE planets in our solar system, not less.

Seriously, "dwarf planet" still has "planet" in it. It's not like they're calling Pluto, Ceres, etc, "rocks". I totally blame the mnemonic for the stupidly which surrounds this (it's easier to drop Pluto than come up with an accurate mnemonic).

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out that the whole problem was the rote memorization of planets rather than the understanding of the different types of objects in the solar system, of which the terrestrial and jovian planets are just two types of many. It's the same way whereever you look in education, most of all in the sciences. The very obvious reason people identify so much with Pluto is twofold A) it's much smaller than the other classic planets and B) when they see "Pluto" they think Mickey's dog. They're very well not thinking of a fucking god of the underworld. They don't actually know a damn thing about it, that it's transneptunian, that it mostly rock and ice, that it's just one of many kuiper belt objects, etc etc. All they know is "pluto is the 9th planet". Which is perhaps one of the most useless factoids I have ever heard.

Poorly worded non-binding state Senate resolution > scientific consensus. Fact.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Pluto's a planet.

Rationale:
It's spherical and orbits the sun.

Should we demote the terrestrial planets because they're too small? Hell, Pluto has 2 Moons, Mercury doesn't. Should we count out Neptune and Uranus because they're "Ice Giants"? It's silly. If it's spherical and orbits a star it's a planet. Maybe a planet should be something very large and spherical that has its own system of satellites, thus leaving out Mercury and Venus. Maybe Mars doesn't count because its moons look funny.

Scientists shouldn't be shy about having more. So by the end of the century we end up finding that Sol has 60 some odd planets by my definition. What, is DeGrasse reluctant to count that high? I like the dude, but come on.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also, as a side note, when I hear Pluto, I think of it in the following order:

The God (Latin spag, after all)
The Planet












Oh, wait, yeah there was a cartoon dog named after one of those.....

[Requia ☣]

Question: Why does Neil get so much crap over the dwarf planet thing?  Wasn't that some major vote?

[Kai]

Pluto's a planet.

Rationale:
It's spherical and orbits the sun.

Should we demote the terrestrial planets because they're too small? Hell, Pluto has 2 Moons, Mercury doesn't. Should we count out Neptune and Uranus because they're "Ice Giants"? It's silly. If it's spherical and orbits a star it's a planet. Maybe a planet should be something very large and spherical that has its own system of satellites, thus leaving out Mercury and Venus. Maybe Mars doesn't count because its moons look funny.

Scientists shouldn't be shy about having more. So by the end of the century we end up finding that Sol has 60 some odd planets by my definition. What, is DeGrasse reluctant to count that high? I like the dude, but come on.

The problem is, before the consensus IAU definitions there were only colloquial, folk ideas of planets. There were these whole class of bodies orbiting stars for which we had no definitions because we didn't think we needed them. Until, of course, we started discovering extrasolar planetary systems, and all these kuiper belt objects.

So, the definitions are now as follows:

1) Those objects large enough to have homeostatic equilibrium on surface (having a curved, smoothed surface by gravity and generally spheroid) and generally cleared their solar orbit of other bodies are termed planets. Those planets which are largely composed of gasses are considered in the subcategory "gas giant" or "jovian". Those planets largely composed of solids are "rocky planets" or "terrestrial".

2) Those objects large enough to have homeostatic equilibrium but share orbit with similar sized objects are termed dwarf planets.

3) Those objects not of great enough mass to achieve homeostatic equilibrium are variously planetoids, asteroids, comets, etc, depending on their position and composition.


It's not about fucking numbers, or easiness of education, it's about fucking SCIENCE! Instead of rote memorizing the names, maybe students should actually learn about them. It's like Richard Feynman's story about a kid bothering him because he didn't know the name of a bird they saw, and that his dad must not teach him anything. The truth is, his dad said, that is so and so in this language, and this in this language and this in this language, and once you've gone and learned all that, you know absofuckinglutely nothing about the bird.

So lets watch the bird.

[Kai]

Question: Why does Neil get so much crap over the dwarf planet thing?  Wasn't that some major vote?

He gets crap because he thinks it was stupid to make a deal over and he wrote a book about it.

[Kai]

In other words, I wish we went with greek instead of roman names for the solar system bodies, because nobody would have given a shit about a dwarf planet named Hades.

[Phox]

In other words, I wish we went with greek instead of roman names for the solar system bodies, because nobody would have given a shit about a dwarf planet named Hades.

Unless Walt Disney had decided to name his new cartoon dog after the recently discovered planet Hades. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

In other words, I wish we went with greek instead of roman names for the solar system bodies, because nobody would have given a shit about a dwarf planet named Hades.

I would. Actually that would be even cooler. Hades sounds bad-ass.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Pluto's a planet.

Rationale:
It's spherical and orbits the sun.

Should we demote the terrestrial planets because they're too small? Hell, Pluto has 2 Moons, Mercury doesn't. Should we count out Neptune and Uranus because they're "Ice Giants"? It's silly. If it's spherical and orbits a star it's a planet. Maybe a planet should be something very large and spherical that has its own system of satellites, thus leaving out Mercury and Venus. Maybe Mars doesn't count because its moons look funny.

Scientists shouldn't be shy about having more. So by the end of the century we end up finding that Sol has 60 some odd planets by my definition. What, is DeGrasse reluctant to count that high? I like the dude, but come on.

The problem is, before the consensus IAU definitions there were only colloquial, folk ideas of planets. There were these whole class of bodies orbiting stars for which we had no definitions because we didn't think we needed them. Until, of course, we started discovering extrasolar planetary systems, and all these kuiper belt objects.

So, the definitions are now as follows:

1) Those objects large enough to have homeostatic equilibrium on surface (having a curved, smoothed surface by gravity and generally spheroid) and generally cleared their solar orbit of other bodies are termed planets. Those planets which are largely composed of gasses are considered in the subcategory "gas giant" or "jovian". Those planets largely composed of solids are "rocky planets" or "terrestrial".

2) Those objects large enough to have homeostatic equilibrium but share orbit with similar sized objects are termed dwarf planets.

3) Those objects not of great enough mass to achieve homeostatic equilibrium are variously planetoids, asteroids, comets, etc, depending on their position and composition.


It's not about fucking numbers, or easiness of education, it's about fucking SCIENCE! Instead of rote memorizing the names, maybe students should actually learn about them. It's like Richard Feynman's story about a kid bothering him because he didn't know the name of a bird they saw, and that his dad must not teach him anything. The truth is, his dad said, that is so and so in this language, and this in this language and this in this language, and once you've gone and learned all that, you know absofuckinglutely nothing about the bird.

So lets watch the bird.

In response to this, I know about the extra qualifier of clearing its orbit. I don't see that as necessary. Spherical and orbits a star is sufficient. That's pretty scientific, I think.

Why not categorize gas giants as something else? Why not call them substars or something? They end up having their own systems themselves. My point is throwing in the clearing of orbit is just as arbitrary as any other definition. A solid sphere shape seems good enough to me. And jumping to it, yes, I'm cool with considering the Earth-Moon system a binary planet. Large enough to be round, small enough to not initiate nuclear fusion. I'd rather think of irregular asteroids as dwarf planets. If I recall, they used to be called planetesimals, though I don't know if that is still in use.

[Payne]

I'm going to ask NdGT what he thinks of RWHNs kid's lunchbox then. That shit if off the hook.

And I also want to know his opinion on why the fridge in the older infants room is smaller, knowing that there'll be some scientific explanation that I would only believe if I heard it in his voice.

[AFK]

I just thought it was a cool lunchbox. 

And I like Neil deGrasse Tyson.  I think he's done a great job of getting a little more attention to astrophysics if for no other reason than he actually has a personality and can describe things in a way that doesn't put most laypeople to sleep.  I just like giving him shit because it's fun. 

Now, as someone who grew up with the Nine Planets, Pluto being one of them....I actually think whatever attachment people have had to Pluto goes beyond the fact that it shares a name with a Disney dog.  I really don't think that is it.  I mean, I don't recall when we learned the planets a bunch of other kids going "Cool, Pluto, where's Goofy?"

No, I think it was more to do with the fact that Pluto was so fucking different.  And if you were a kid that felt different from the rest of the kids in school, you could relate to Pluto.  Here is little Pluto, way out there, doing it's own thing.  It's orbit was way fucking different than the rest of the planets, and it was so far away, we really didn't know what it really looked like.  Just some grainy, really pixellated snapshots from robotic spacecraft. 

And at the end of the day, I think that is just fine.  Because you know what?  It undoubtedly got kids interested in science and space.  Who cares if, at the time, it wasn't a 100% accurate of the Real Solar System.  We learn more about the space around us all the time.  I mean, long, long, long ago, civilizations thought the stars in the skies were basically little chandeliers hanging from the ceiling of Earth. 

So I don't really have any big problem with Pluto being demoted.  I do have a fondness for the little planet because I was one of those kids who got fascinated and interested in space because of weird little Pluto.