Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:58 am
by Canuckster1127
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sc ... 1263692006
Continued furor over the decision.
This article caught my eye for this statement made by an astronomer.
Martin Hendry, a senior lecturer in astronomy at Glasgow University and member of the IAU, said: "Unless the science underlying this is rigorous, how can we expect to agree on a definition that will be not only understood by ourselves, but other forms of life if and when we encounter them?"
How's that for throwing in a new factor?
Bart
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:00 pm
by sandy_mcd
Pluto is no longer a planet. The reaction all over the world has been one of shock, horror, and an overwhelming sorrow. Yet this news should have come as a surprise to no one. The disappearance of Pluto was predicted over a quarter of a century ago:
http://www.maryellenandtom.com/2002/pla ... utoart.gif
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:21 pm
by David Blacklock
"How can we expect to agree on a definition that will be not only understood by ourselves, but other forms of life if and when we encounter them?"
I think I would be willing to tke my chances on that problem. I vote that we get rid of what was called Pluto, as a planet. That would leave us free to get rid of the horrible name "Uranus," and rename that poor planet "Pluto."
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:59 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
What's wrong with Uranus?
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:15 pm
by Gman
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:What's wrong with Uranus?
Nothing as far as I can see... (Sorry I couldn't resist...).
Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:30 pm
by David Blacklock
>>What's wrong with Uranus?<<
Ask any 7th grade science teacher
