Log In | Register
Plan Would Add Planets to Solar System
The International Astronomical Union (IAU) President Ronald Ekers makes his inauguration speech during the opening ceremony of the 26th General Assembly of the IAU in Prague, on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2006. The main aim of the 12-day conference is to agree on the definition of planets. The supreme astronomical conference, which is held in Prague after 39 years, is to be attended by 2,500 delegates from 75 countries. (AP Photo/CTK, Michal Krumphanzl)
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (11)
My Very Elegant Mother Just Served Us Nine Pickles didn't exactly roll off the tongue anyway.
- 3 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:06 AM EDTWhen I learned it, it was - my very eager mother just served us nine pickles. Last night on Colbert, he said, my very educated mother...
I wonder how many different versions of this mnemonic device are out there
...and what the new one will be.
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, and the provisionally named 2003 UB313 (xena).
- 4 votes
My Very Eager Mother Cindy Just Served Us Nine Pickeled Chicken Uvulas.
- 2 votes
Why was 800 km picked for the minimum diameter instead of a metric like 1000 km? The only reason I can think of is so Ceres is included. I would prefer the 1000 km minimum diameter.
- 1 vote
#2 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:57 AM EDTThe diameter should be removed from the qualifications.
Roundness is key, experts said, because it indicates an object has enough self-gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape. Yet Earth's moon wouldn't qualify because the two bodies' common center of gravity lies below the surface of the Earth.
The qualification should be based on the common center of gravity, whether the object in question has enough self-gravity to form into a spherical shape, and that it does not revolve around a larger object (other than our star).
- 1 vote
#3 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:37 AM EDTThe diameter might make sense if there's a statistical justification for it (though I doubt there is unless someone knows better). But I definitely agree that the orbit should primarily be around the Sun. Calling Charon a planet, no matter how big, is bizarre.
I believe Charon and Pluto both orbit the sun, but the center of their rotation is somewhere between the two of them. Since Charon isn't simply revolving around Pluto like the Moon revolves around Earth, it is a all-or-nothing deal; both planets or neither.
- 1 vote
....my very eager mother just served us nine pickles, chopped in 2003, under bananas.....313 of them.......
- 1 vote
#4 - Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:30 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
