http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/pluto-should-be-a-planet-astronomers-claim-controversial-demotion-was-based-on-since-disproven-reasoning/ar-BBN67yG?ocid=ientp
Pluto SHOULD be a planet: Astronomers claim controversial demotion was based on 'since-disproven reasoning'
Mark Prigg For Dailymail.com
"More than a decade after it was demoted, the debate over whether Pluto is a planet has been reignited by a new study.
New research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando claims the reason Pluto lost its planet status is 'not valid'. " (click link to read more).
I find this article a good example of scientists moving in circles (is a planet... is not a planet.... is a planet) because they try to impose 3-D physical constraints on everything in the Universe. One day, when they remove their 3-D parameter tinted spectacles, they may be able to envision the universe as alive and peopled with beings: ones that experience existence on more levels than just one dictated by space and time.
The 2006 definition coined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is an example of scientific gobbledygook: 'A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters.'
Not surprisingly, this kind of non-speak, or science-speak, is just confusing the issue and blurring the edges.
Pluto SHOULD be a planet: Astronomers claim controversial demotion was based on 'since-disproven reasoning'
Mark Prigg For Dailymail.com
"More than a decade after it was demoted, the debate over whether Pluto is a planet has been reignited by a new study.
New research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando claims the reason Pluto lost its planet status is 'not valid'. " (click link to read more).
I find this article a good example of scientists moving in circles (is a planet... is not a planet.... is a planet) because they try to impose 3-D physical constraints on everything in the Universe. One day, when they remove their 3-D parameter tinted spectacles, they may be able to envision the universe as alive and peopled with beings: ones that experience existence on more levels than just one dictated by space and time.
The 2006 definition coined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is an example of scientific gobbledygook: 'A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters.'
Not surprisingly, this kind of non-speak, or science-speak, is just confusing the issue and blurring the edges.
