Goodbye, Pluto?

Hope someone remembers to tell all this to Pluto, Ceres, 'Xena', Triton, Charon, the Moon, et. al.. They probably would be interested to know it.

Oh yeah, as one who memorized a list of nine, from the sun outward, over 40 years ago, I might still suffer a relapse, 'scientific opinion' notwithstanding.

Ed

 

Remembering the 8 is going to be much easier than the 500 or so we'd otherwise have gotten around to naming .

 

Poor guy!

:tear:

 

Yeah. Dog gone.

 

Lets see, it has satellites and revolves around the sun. What more do you want to call it a planet.

 

Obviously was nevera planet.. I know, I listen to Holst's 'Planets' regularly .. only 8 movements, and Pluto isn't one of them. Just shows the musician knew more than the astronemers

Regards
Bob

 

does this mean our science is improving?:laugh:

 

I wonder what the astrologers out there will have to say about this? That all of a sudden Pluto in your chart doesn't quite matter as much as before? Just shows how much "science" that is.

 

That is the nature of science...new discovery expands our knowledge. However, in this case, it is less science and more semantics and definition.

 

The nature of science is that the latest and greatest thing proves that the last latest greatest thing wasnt ever so great or in fact correct. What will we think of Pluto in 20 years.

 

The scientific method is the best tool we have for new discovery and knowledge. Science has no dogmas, it assumes nothing. It makes hypothesis, tests them, and if new evidence arises that sheds new light on old ideas, they are revised or eliminated; rather than being clung to because they are sacrosanct.

Ptolemaic views of the cosmos were replaced by Copernican views as new evidence and ideas were proven. Newtonian concepts that work well on smaller scales are enhanced by Einstein's view of the Universe.

This self-correcting quality of the scientific method is its greatest strength. It would be stupid to hold to discredited theories in the light of newly discovered evidence.

But again, the reclassification of Pluto, Ceres and Xena to the new category of "Dwarf Planet" is just that...reclassification, not new discovery. It doesn't change anything about the nature of Pluto or Charon.

 

Size and a regular, more rounder orbit, I think. Its satellite is almost as big as itself.

Is this going to affect astrology, you think? *** darn, Debby beat me! ***

 

I certainly cannot argue with that. I see the effects of gravity and the effects of seasonal changes and I say there is something you can reley on. I see things like this, the redefining of planets and I think, just how reliable is science. In so many cases its not proven facts but just theories. The problem that concerns me is that these theories are expressed as fact unless you really press those who put forth these theories. Science is unreliable not because of the science itself but because of how it is presented.

 

Theories explain facts - facts are the "what" while theories are the "how". As awareness of the facts change and accumulate, the theories explaining them change.

Philosophy & religion are the "why".

 

Im getting dizzy.

 

Actually, this is just formalizing what scientists had known for many years. Naturally, the popular press gets it garbled a bit, and then we get the "I don't like daylight savings time, because the extra sun ruins my cabbage." kinds of arguments from the yahoos.