What's in the Name?
Whenever our dear politicians have found nothing interesting to do, they change the names of places. They do it with such rigour that we get a feeling that the places would cease to exist if their names were not changed. Let alone the big cities like Mumbai/Bombay, Chennai/Madras, Kolkata/ Calcutta etc., the names of streets and roads have changed so much so that there seem to be a expiry date associated with them. Even the names of government transport systems change, PTC (Pallavan Transport Corporation) to MTC (Metropolitan Transport Corporation) being one.
The name-changing bug seems to have bitten the likes of the astronomers now. I am not sure if classifying Pluto to be a "Dwarf planet" is going to change anything. But the International Astronomical Union (IAU) sure believes that it is important. Their reasoning seems to be that there should be some base on which planets should be called planets. Pluto does not conform to the basis that they have formed and so, should be relegated to a lower classification. Sounds good, that is, until we read the comments of other astronomers. The criterion that Pluto has missed is that a planet must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit i.e., there should not be any other big land mass around it. Pluto orbit overlaps with that of Neptune and thereby it has been concluded that Pluto has not cleared its orbit. Just a sec.... doesn't that also mean that Neptune hasn’t cleared its orbit? I am also not sure of what they classify as clearing the neighbourhood. Does that mean that the planet should not even have satellites? In that case wouldn't most planets (Pardon my lack of knowledge, it could as well be "all the planets") lose their 'planet' status?
Checkout the comments section here. Some really funny comments.
Samples:
"I understand that the Plutonians are to downgrade Earth as they have realised from watching the situation in Lebanon that there are no signs of intelligent life here."
"George W Bush: ...does this mean I can push the button now to destroy Pluto? Because I'm running out of Earthling sites."
The name-changing bug seems to have bitten the likes of the astronomers now. I am not sure if classifying Pluto to be a "Dwarf planet" is going to change anything. But the International Astronomical Union (IAU) sure believes that it is important. Their reasoning seems to be that there should be some base on which planets should be called planets. Pluto does not conform to the basis that they have formed and so, should be relegated to a lower classification. Sounds good, that is, until we read the comments of other astronomers. The criterion that Pluto has missed is that a planet must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit i.e., there should not be any other big land mass around it. Pluto orbit overlaps with that of Neptune and thereby it has been concluded that Pluto has not cleared its orbit. Just a sec.... doesn't that also mean that Neptune hasn’t cleared its orbit? I am also not sure of what they classify as clearing the neighbourhood. Does that mean that the planet should not even have satellites? In that case wouldn't most planets (Pardon my lack of knowledge, it could as well be "all the planets") lose their 'planet' status?
Checkout the comments section here. Some really funny comments.
Samples:
"I understand that the Plutonians are to downgrade Earth as they have realised from watching the situation in Lebanon that there are no signs of intelligent life here."
"George W Bush: ...does this mean I can push the button now to destroy Pluto? Because I'm running out of Earthling sites."
posted by Jammy at 7:14 PM
3 Comments:
the funny part is that such things are being decided by vote!!
Its a conspiracy by the astrologers to prove that they are right.
First they create a definition and based on the definition name Pluto as a planet. Then they muddle the waters with some crappy logic and decide that Pluto is not a planet after all. Finally to add more confusion they name it a dwarf planet. I am sure the defining charactaristics of a dwarf planet would be as muddled as those of a planet. In the end the distinction is so damned clouded that defining a body as a planet or not is simply on the whims of certain powerful members in certain powerful bodies.
Let these astronomers play their games. I have better things to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home