Since Pluto is offically no longer a planet, Earthlings stationed on Pluto were ordered to come back home. The majority of the colonists were elated about the government’s decision. According to a poll survey, the number one reason for wanting to return to Mother Earth was the length of day. One Plutonian day is the equivalent of seven Earth days. The colonists kept lamenting to their relatives through electomagenetic mail about the lethargic days that never seemed to end. Following at a close second in the poll was losing fingers due to freezing temperatures. Third place went to the new Sewage is Food program.
COLONIST #1
(Calls COLONIST #2 at work) Hey dude, what’s up.
COLONIST #2
Not much just waiting for shipment of oxygen from corporate.
COLONIST #1
Sucks, I called in sick today. What are you doin’ tonight?
COLONIST #2
I don’t know dude. That’s like a week from now. Probably grow a goatee.
Originally posted 2006-08-28 13:26:39. Republished by Old Post Promoter.
Tags: family
They can’t just demote a planet like that. It isn’t even that simple to break up with someone. Pluto was and still is my favorite planet.
It’s ssssstill a planet…it just hangs out with snow white as a dwarf planet.
Actually, the cremated remains of the man who discovered Pluto are on their way to Pluto as we speak. Er, type.
I was having a conversation with my cousin Nathan about his upcoming bar mitzvah:
Martha: “Is it going to be a theme party?”
Nathan: “Yeah.”
Martha: “What is the theme going to be?”
Nathan: “Quantum physics.”
Martha: “No, that’s way too geeky. You went to space camp last summer. How about outer space instead?”
Nathan: “Yeah!”
Martha: “We could have nine tables for the nine planets!”
Nathan: “Pluto isn’t a planet anymore. It’s just a dwarf planet.”
Martha: “That’s why all the people at that table will be dwarves!”
God. Duh. Wasn’t that obvious? Kids are so stupid. . .
I realize you are writing humorously and for entertainment, but I ask that you not blindly accept the IAU’s controversial planet definition as the “official” one or as some sort of gospel truth, as it is far from that.
Pluto IS a planet because unlike most objects in the Kuiper Belt, it has attained hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning it has enough self-gravity to have pulled itself into a round shape. When an object is large enough for this to happen, it becomes differentiated with core, mantle, and crust, just like Earth and the larger planets, and develops the same geological processes as the larger planets, processes that inert asteroids and most KBOs do not have.
Not distinguishing between shapeless asteroids and objects whose composition clearly makes them planets is a disservice and is sloppy science.
As of now, there are three other KBOs that meet this criterion and therefore should be classified as planets—Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Only one KBO has been found to be larger than Pluto, and that is Eris.
The IAU definition makes no linguistic sense, as it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all. That’s like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear. Second, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were placed in Pluto’s orbit, by the IAU definition, it would not be a planet. That is because the further away an object is from its parent star, the more difficulty it will have in clearing its orbit.
Significantly, this definition was adopted by only four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists. No absentee voting was allowed. It was done so in a highly controversial process that violated the IAU’s own bylaws, and it was immediately opposed by a petition of 300 professional astronomers saying they will not use the new definition, which they described accurately as “sloppy.” Also significant is the fact that many planetary scientists are not IAU members and therefore had no say in this matter at all.
Many believe we should keep the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star.
We can distinguish different types of planets with subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, super Earths, hot Jupiters, etc.
We should be broadening, not narrowing our concept of planet as more objects are being discovered in this and other solar systems.
In a 2000 paper, Dr. Alan Stern and Dr. Hal Levison distinguish two types of planets—the gravitationally dominant ones and the smaller ones that are not gravitationally dominant. However, they never say that objects in the latter category are not planets.
I attended the Great Planet Debate, which actually took place in August 2008, and there was a strong consensus there that a broader, more encompassing planet definition is needed. I encourage anyone interested to listen to and view the conference proceedings at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ You can also read more about this issue on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com