I say 9 as well. You CANNOT convince me Pluto is no longer a planet.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
-
Welcome to the Community Forums at HiveWire 3D! Please note that the user name you choose for our forum will be displayed to the public. Our store was closed as January 4, 2021. You can find HiveWire 3D and Lisa's Botanicals products, as well as many of our Contributing Artists, at Renderosity. This thread lists where many are now selling their products. Renderosity is generously putting products which were purchased at HiveWire 3D and are now sold at their store into customer accounts by gifting them. This is not an overnight process so please be patient, if you have already emailed them about this. If you have NOT emailed them, please see the 2nd post in this thread for instructions on what you need to do
Interesting - Earth Has a Second Moon?
- Thread starter Seliah (Childe of Fyre)
- Start date
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
quietrob
Extraordinary
Thank you! There is no planet X or the tenth planet as far I know. You know, it's not like the age of Galileo where progress where was deliberately retarded in order to forward the wishes of the church. Most people can take the data given and decide for themselves if they want to downgrade an entire planet. Hey! Hey Neil DeGrasse Tyson, much respect to you and the other astronomers but none of you discovered Pluto. Who are you to downgrade it?
Come get some Tyson!
Come get some Tyson!
So my understanding about how the downgrading of Pluto started was with someone discovering a 10th planet in a similar orbit to Pluto (in the Kuiper Belt). And then they started to realize that their might be a lot more planets out there if they kept to the current definition and allowed Pluto in. If you were to include the 3 dwarf planets (which include Pluto) I think we are at 11.
quietrob
Extraordinary
I was going to make a wisecracker comment about there always being one...
Except that you are right, Gadget Girl. If we say Pluto IS a dwarf planet ( which I don't know as I don't know the size of the two other planetoids you've mentioned nor their names) but I'd rather go with 11 planets rather being downgraded to 8.
The reason being is that we have moons larger than Mercury. If we eliminate Pluto due to it's size, we must eliminate Mercury for the same reason. I'm pretty sure that Ganymede and Titan are bigger than Mercury. Soooo, should we up the count to 13 or do we not want to count heavenly bodies that orbit other heavenly bodies?
3dcheapskate
Busy Bee
Size* has nothing to do with it (stop giggling at the back!), and satellites** are explicitly identified as being a separate class of objects. According to the IAU.
*Except that a planet (and dwarf planet) must have enough mass to be 'nearly round'. That's in resolution 5A, which also makes it clear that the dwarf prefix is purely down to whether or not it's cleared its neighbourhood. And isn't a satellite - I guess they had to add that clause to avoid Charon being a dwarf planet too?
**Resolution 5A also states that satellites are distinct from planets, dwarf planets, and Small Solar System Bodies but doesn't elaborate further. I'd guess that size is the decider when it comes to differentiating between a planet (or dwarf planet) and its satellite(s)? E.g. the Charon/Pluto distinction mentioned above.
So for those wondering, the two other Dwarf Plantes I found are called, Haumea, and Makemake. I didn't post that originally, because the one I heard about being discovered that lead to the downgrading of Pluto had a different name. I'm pretty sure it was Eris, which it looks like may not even have made it to the dwarf planet club. However, at the moment I'm lazy and getting my info from wikipedia, which in the Kuiber Belt article calls Eris a scattered disc object, but the wikipedia page for Eris calls it a dwarf planet. So you know, that's why you shouldn't use wikipedia for your source material.
eclark1894
Visionary
One of the problems I have with the whole "Pluto not being a planet" thing is that it wasn't even a majority of the scientists that made the decision. I was only about 450 of them and as I understand it, 60% of them didn't even vote.
Same here. Something like that should have a majority of members voting.
The funny thing about it is that the planet that caused all this ruckus ended up being smaller than Pluto after all.
The most ignorant comment I heard from the instigators for removing Pluto as a planet is that it would be waaaayyyyy too hard on children to have to know a whole bunch of planets.
As if US children don't have to memorize even longer lists like ... 50 states and 50 capitals. Should we say no more US Presidents because it's too hard on school children to remember all of them (and their order).
Or perhaps, we should banish spelling and grammar because there are entirely too many arbitrary rules on spelling and grammar ... and entirely TOO many words (and every day more) that we have to memorize how to spell! We can all just spel wurdz tha wey thay soun and hope others hear them the same way.
The funny thing about it is that the planet that caused all this ruckus ended up being smaller than Pluto after all.
The most ignorant comment I heard from the instigators for removing Pluto as a planet is that it would be waaaayyyyy too hard on children to have to know a whole bunch of planets.
As if US children don't have to memorize even longer lists like ... 50 states and 50 capitals. Should we say no more US Presidents because it's too hard on school children to remember all of them (and their order).
Or perhaps, we should banish spelling and grammar because there are entirely too many arbitrary rules on spelling and grammar ... and entirely TOO many words (and every day more) that we have to memorize how to spell! We can all just spel wurdz tha wey thay soun and hope others hear them the same way.
eclark1894
Visionary
I can't do it anymore but I definitely remember having to do all the state capitals. As for the planets, I still remember M-VEM-J-SUN-P.
I'm totally with you on the learning States and their Capitals thing, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on the spelling thing. Do you know Spelling is only taught in English speaking countries? That's because other written languages do have an actual system behind them. I used to say I could spell in four languages, and English wasn't one of them (Latin, French, Somali, and Farsi for those of you wondering) except I haven't used French in so long that I can't remember which way the accents go anymore. But I'm sure I could relearn it again very easily.
I also had a Pakistani friend, who was failed on a paper turned in at US University because he misspelled color, colour (he had learned to read and write English from the British instructors).
And then there is grammar. Now I'm a Linguist. I take grammar very seriously. But what we teach in schools in the US and UK isn't actual grammar. It's mostly a series of rules taken mostly from Latin (or in the case of the no double negatives rule, math) and forced onto the English language with no understanding about the differences between the languages.
And commas, oh commas, the bain of my existence. I really tried very hard to learn comma rules in especially in high school where I had an English teacher that counted you off a percentage point for every bad comma. The problem was, that I only had my Dad, an English Professor to proofread my essay's. Every time I was told a comma was wrong, the high school teacher could never explain to me why. So I asked my Dad. He would pull down one of his books on the subject, that would say I was right. So my high school teacher would reference something in our text book. So my dad would find another book that also proved me right, and so on. Eventually I got tired of carrying grammar books to and from school so I just gave up on learning how to use commas 'correctly'.
And as I have no doubt there are some grammar (and possibly spelling errors in what I wrote) let me just warn you about Muphry's Law before you correct me
Okay, linguist rant done. Please feel free to summon the big cat to tear me limb from limb
eclark1894
Visionary
Things must have changed a lot since i was a kid. I don't know one teacher who would have flunked anyone for the English spelling of colour. Of course even as i say that my spellcheck just flagged colour as being misspelled.
Well, the spellchecker is "thinking" American English. Funny thing is, I had a friend at work who was from England, and she found it odd the only English spelling I've ever used, and still use, is the color grey, instead of gray. Not sure why I ever started doing that, but I've been spelling it that way for decades.
eclark1894
Visionary
The only English word spelling that actually throws me is theatre. Or is it theater? And lieutenant-leftenant... what the hell's that all about?
Lorraine
The Wicked Witch of the North
And Fred's your Aunt!
That I've heard before, but . . .
this one I don't think I've ever heard.
Last edited:
Zaarin
Brilliant
The answer is either eight or thousands.