RIP PLUTO

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:58 pm

It was nice while itlasted

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:01 pm

oh no
sitchin will have to rename his book
what a tragedy
why didnt the annunaki know this
hehehe

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:05 pm

now the kids are gonna have to recite:

Man Very Early Made Jars So Used Nothing

I shudder to think what interplanetary Janet is gonna go..

School House Rock just lost one

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:48 pm

what really is the motivation behind such a move? what does it really prove? pluto has an orbit that is constant so what is the problem? mercury is tiny also, should we eliminate that one from planet status?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:06 am

Arch - Plutos' orbit intersects the orbit of Neptune. That is outside the definition of a planet. The article that I posted earlier in Cool Links explains that I think.

That's where Michelle has asked us to post links that are not Archaeology related.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:08 am

The problem with Pluto is that it orbits in a region of space along with possibly hundreds of similar sized objects - we've already found one (Xena) which is larger.

Easier to say that they're all 'dwarf planets' than argue over which of the other Kuiper Belt Objects are planets and which are not.

Also means no-one needs to worte another half dozen movements to Holzt's 'Planets Suite' (though I was looking forward to hearing 'Xena - the bringer of kick ass action ...

)

Starflower · Post by **Starflower** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:01 am

And here I thought they did it so they wouldn't have to name a planet Xena. Guess I have to revise my opinion of them after all.

stan · Post by **stan** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:05 pm

While they were at it, why didn't they do something worthwhile, like
giving UR-ANUS another name?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:27 pm

Arch - Plutos' orbit intersects the orbit of Neptune. That is outside the definition of a planet. The article that I posted earlier in Cool Links explains that I think.

haven't checked that thread much but my knowledgeof astronomy is similar tomarine archaeology so my questions may be elementery here.

i guess i don't see why we need to fiddle with smething that really has no bearing on life. whether pluto is a planet or not doesn't really change or affect what we do here.

so i guess i don't take it as such a big deal.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:31 pm

whether pluto is a planet or not doesn't really change or affect what we do here.

Are you kidding? Millions of people have had their horoscope messed up.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:06 pm

Are you kidding? Millions of people have had their horoscope messed up.

are you being serious? i do not believe in horror scopes so i would not consider them in what i was saying-- sorry.

still how will that affect people's lives? except to point out the fallacyof such a belief.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:34 pm

That was a joke Arch.