BH
Veteran Member
I think Pluto should be considered a planet because in Star Blazers or Battleship Yamamoto both Earth and the Gamilons thought it was worth fighting a battle over. Earth had its ass handed to it but it gave a good fight. ![Wink ;) ;)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png)
![Wink ;) ;)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png)
Life would be so much easier if people didn't respond to criticism with non-sequiturs.Life would be so much easier without standardization.
So, do you propose that the primary criterion, for deciding what qualifies as a planet, should be that the category must result in a small enough number of planets as to be able to be readily memorized by schoolchildren?Isn't the main problem of the old definition for Pluto merely convenience. Pluto being a planet is fine... only that if Pluto is a planet, the number of planets in the solar system just shot up by a million or a billion. Good luck kids memorizing those!
Perhaps NASA could send a roomba or something to give them a bit of a spruce-up; We wouldn't want the aliens to think we were too slovenly to keep our icy outer-Solar-System bodies clean.I'll compare some outer-Solar-System bodies, giving their radii and mean densities. Their surfaces are all icy, even if often dirty ice
Since the 1780s we've been discovering new objects over 2000 km across in solar orbits at a steady clip of about one every 75 years. Who cares what kids will have to memorize in 75 million years?Isn't the main problem of the old definition for Pluto merely convenience. Pluto being a planet is fine... only that if Pluto is a planet, the number of planets in the solar system just shot up by a million or a billion. Good luck kids memorizing those!
They won't have time for planets, they'll be too busy trying to memorize the names of all the Presidents.Since the 1780s we've been discovering new objects over 2000 km across in solar orbits at a steady clip of about one every 75 years. Who cares what kids will have to memorize in 75 million years?Isn't the main problem of the old definition for Pluto merely convenience. Pluto being a planet is fine... only that if Pluto is a planet, the number of planets in the solar system just shot up by a million or a billion. Good luck kids memorizing those!![]()
A planet is whatever people want it to be. The IAU can make any rulings it likes, but they are not the boss of me; If I want Pluto or Ceres or Luna or Titan to be planets, then they are. For me. And nobody has to agree with me at all.![]()
The tallest mountain on Earth is Mount Chimborazo, whose peak is 6384.4km from the planet's centre.List of tallest mountains in the Solar System - I will calculate sqrt(hmax*R) for these mountains.![]()
- Earth - Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea - 6371 km, 10.2 km - 254 km - 344 km
The IAU are just picking on Pluto because it's small.A planet is whatever people want it to be. The IAU can make any rulings it likes, but they are not the boss of me; If I want Pluto or Ceres or Luna or Titan to be planets, then they are. For me. And nobody has to agree with me at all.![]()
I want Pluto to be a planet again, because of its cool name and because of the big valentine shape on its surface. Actually, it IS a planet still for me, and my fave planet.
It's not arbitrary - it's nearby flatland - ocean floor, plain, plateau. It's ambiguous for Mt. Everest, because it depends on which side of that mountain, but it isn't ambiguous for either of those two Hawaiian volcanoes.The tallest mountain on Earth is Mount Chimborazo, whose peak is 6384.4km from the planet's centre.List of tallest mountains in the Solar System - I will calculate sqrt(hmax*R) for these mountains.![]()
- Earth - Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea - 6371 km, 10.2 km - 254 km - 344 km
Base-to-peak heights are arbitrary and depend on your definition of "base".
Height: Vertical distance from the point of observation on the Earth's surface to the point being measured. Altitude: Vertical distance from mean sea level to the point being measured.
Death Valley/Elevation
-282.2′
How do you get 91??So, do you propose that the primary criterion, for deciding what qualifies as a planet, should be that the category must result in a small enough number of planets as to be able to be readily memorized by schoolchildren?Isn't the main problem of the old definition for Pluto merely convenience. Pluto being a planet is fine... only that if Pluto is a planet, the number of planets in the solar system just shot up by a million or a billion. Good luck kids memorizing those!
Perhaps we should also return to the ancient definition of element, because four elements are easy to remember, while 91 is far too many for anybody (except Tom Lehrer, obvs.), and that's before we even consider elements without extant primordial isotopes.![]()
The Dead Sea laughs at you.An old debate.
Height: Vertical distance from the point of observation on the Earth's surface to the point being measured. Altitude: Vertical distance from mean sea level to the point being measured.
Death Valley/Elevation
-282.2′
How would you expect me to know that? I'm no Tom Lehrer, you know.How do you get 91??So, do you propose that the primary criterion, for deciding what qualifies as a planet, should be that the category must result in a small enough number of planets as to be able to be readily memorized by schoolchildren?Isn't the main problem of the old definition for Pluto merely convenience. Pluto being a planet is fine... only that if Pluto is a planet, the number of planets in the solar system just shot up by a million or a billion. Good luck kids memorizing those!
Perhaps we should also return to the ancient definition of element, because four elements are easy to remember, while 91 is far too many for anybody (except Tom Lehrer, obvs.), and that's before we even consider elements without extant primordial isotopes.![]()
If you count stuff which is truly primordial you have only 84. And if you count stuff that's present from decay then you have 93.
Both "nearby" and "flat" are opinions. As you note:It's not arbitrary - it's nearby flatland
Which ambiguity could not occur were it not arbitrary.It's ambiguous for Mt. Everest
That's not an answer.How would you expect me to know that? I'm no Tom Lehrer, you know.How do you get 91??So, do you propose that the primary criterion, for deciding what qualifies as a planet, should be that the category must result in a small enough number of planets as to be able to be readily memorized by schoolchildren?Isn't the main problem of the old definition for Pluto merely convenience. Pluto being a planet is fine... only that if Pluto is a planet, the number of planets in the solar system just shot up by a million or a billion. Good luck kids memorizing those!
Perhaps we should also return to the ancient definition of element, because four elements are easy to remember, while 91 is far too many for anybody (except Tom Lehrer, obvs.), and that's before we even consider elements without extant primordial isotopes.![]()
If you count stuff which is truly primordial you have only 84. And if you count stuff that's present from decay then you have 93.