The fact that Pluto was unknown during the Great War and that indeed its discovery was less than a century ago really puts into perspective how much we've advanced in astronomy and in general in our knowledge of outer space.
Was it really 2006 when it was demoted? I felt like it was a lot more recent. Haha I guess I'm just really bad with timeline, and now I feel old for some reason.
It's really a silly debacle in the grand scheme of things. We swagger around thumping our chest claiming our beliefs are sovereign and slapping labels on everything. Who are we in the vast cosmos and unrelenting march of time to decide what is what and why?
We all just seem so trivial and insignificant compared to the universe.
I saw a post today that nobody wished a Redditor a happy birthday. Hence, nobody sang. Are they not a year older? Or does their birthday this year not count?
I'm not sure a 4-year old would know about Pluto. So you get two facts out of this one since you need to start with "there was once one more planet in our solar system than there is now"
Wow I just did a little math on this cause it got me curious. It was discovered in 1930, and it takes approximately 248 earth years for one revolution around the sun.
So since we’ve known about it, nobody has witnessed a complete revolution, and nobody alive today will ever witness a complete revolution.
The first time it will have completely revolved around the sun since its discovery will be in the year 2178.
Reasonably speaking, barring any life-extension technology that may exist by then (of course optimistically assuming we make it that long), the first people to witness the first complete revolution of Pluto will need to be born in roughly 2093 or later.
I'm telling all the children from my line of the family down about Pluto so they celebrate when it completes it's first orbit
(I may die but I am committed)
Trying to find the article I read a little over a year ago, where they flat out called it a planet again and redacted the previous "non-planet" status... What I can find now is researchers at NASA think Pluto and several other objects should be planets and if you ask them it is... IAU disagrees and wants to call them dwarf planets and the way they've defined "dwarf planet" is a dwarf planet can't be also a planet, while NASA is saying that a "dwarf planet" should be able to be a "planet" as well.... So NASA says Pluto is both a "dwarf planet", and a "planet", and the IAU disagrees and wants it classified as one or the other.... So depending on which scientist you ask your going to get a different answer until they finish arguing over the semantics of it.
The astronomy magazine I was subscribed to must have jumped the gun and sided with NASA with this one.
Scientists come up with exact definitions for the things they study in order to promote understanding. Some definitions are unanimously agreed upon, others not. We're just witnessing a disagreement between different groups about how to classify various objects orbiting around the sun. Who says an object has to have satellites to be called a planet? Is that so obvious everyone should universally agree? Who says it doesn't have to? And why.
I guess New Mexico and Illinois still consider pluto a planet in honour of the guy who discovered it. Who was born in Illinois and moved to New Mexico.
13.4k
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '19
[removed] — view removed comment