<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx</link><description>You win some, you lose some: That truism goes for planets as well as presidents. Pluto may have lost an election at the International Astronomical Union's general assembly almost three years ago, but it won the backing of the Illinois Senate last month.</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)</generator><item><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx#1835333</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:23:59 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1835333</guid><dc:creator>Laurel Kornfeld, Highland Park, NJ</dc:creator><description>Thanks for reminding everyone that the IAU's resolution is no more binding than that of the Illinois legislature. I plan to wear one of my many &amp;quot;Pluto is a Planet&amp;quot; shirts (yes, I have several).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The Illinois legislature has way more sense than the International Astronomical Union has shown in two-and-a-half years. It’s the IAU who have acted like idiots, with one tiny group forcing a nonsensical planet definition on everyone. The truth is there is NO scientific consensus that Pluto is not a planet. The criterion requiring that a planet “clear the neighborhood of its orbit” is not only controversial; it’s so vague as to be meaningless. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Even now, many astronomers and lay people are working to overturn the IAU demotion or are ignoring it altogether. Kudos to the Illinois Senate for standing up to this closed, out of touch organization whose leadership thinks they can just issue a decree and change reality.</description></item><item><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx#1835769</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:38:06 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1835769</guid><dc:creator>Jack Kennedy, Wise, VA</dc:creator><description>It is amazing to see how much 'pull' Pluto has in Illinois. Perhaps this is just a start of a comeback with the International Astronomical Union's general assembly this summer! </description></item><item><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx#1835795</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:47:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1835795</guid><dc:creator>James H, Fort Worth, TX</dc:creator><description>What always gets me about those who criticize the IAU definition of a planet is they fail to give on of their own. &amp;nbsp;If you have a better alternative, please let me know. &amp;nbsp;Many are quick to come to the aid of Pluto, but will you also then classify Eris, Ceres, Makemake and others as planets as well? &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Do have eight planets, nine planets, or over 300 in our solar system? &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Not having a definition for so long is what caused this controversy. &amp;nbsp;Not having any formal definition is just bad science. &amp;nbsp;Imagine trying to do anything in regards to chemistry without a formal definition of matter.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you disagree, fine, that is your right. &amp;nbsp;But, I have yet to hear an alternative definition that is any better. &amp;nbsp;Most of the time I here nothing at all but angry rhetoric on how wrong the IAU is.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Happy Pluto Day!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;</description></item><item><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx#1836106</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:39:14 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1836106</guid><dc:creator>Conservatives have Rush, Liberals have Olbermann, Science has Me</dc:creator><description>[The current thinking is that Triton is a bigger cousin of Pluto's that broke out of the icy Kuiper Belt and was somehow captured in Neptunian orbit.]&lt;br&gt;--So a planet has to be round, orbiting a star and have cleared it's orbit of debris. &amp;nbsp;It's the third one that's a issue. &amp;nbsp;I wish Pluto could be a planet (I'm resistant to change), but I can certainly understand and support it's demotion to a planetoid, or something like that. &amp;nbsp;Things need to be defined in a logical/objective manner.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;--What I don't like is that politicians feel they can arbitrarily intervene with science results and debate--especially with no training or understanding in the field. &amp;nbsp;How many scientific fields to politicians need to get their grubby little hands on(I think we know what I'm getting at)? &amp;nbsp;It's not good for science, it doesn't allow for debate that teaches non-science people the subject and it minimizes the relevance of the field.</description></item><item><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx#1837121</link><pubDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:45:48 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1837121</guid><dc:creator>Laurel Kornfeld, Highland Park, NJ</dc:creator><description>I have provided an alternate planet definition in responses to prior posts on this subject, one advocated by many planetary scientists such as Dr. Alan Stern. In the words of my first astronomy instructor, Al Witzgall, a planet is &amp;quot;a non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star.&amp;quot; In other words, if it is large enough to have attained hydrostatic equilibrium and pulled itself into a spherical shape or that of an oblate spheroid, it is a planet. Distinctions between types of planets can then be made through the use of subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, etc.</description></item><item><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx#1837213</link><pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:42:32 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1837213</guid><dc:creator>Dan Jensen, Indianapolis</dc:creator><description>Gee...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I thought Al Gore said HE invented the internet!</description></item><item><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx#1837236</link><pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:52:49 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1837236</guid><dc:creator>Alex Cook Amherst MA</dc:creator><description>Happy Pi Day! &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Check out the Pi Day Challenge:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;www.PiDayChallenge.com</description></item><item><title>Happy Pluto Day (and Pi Day)</title><link>http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/13/1835119.aspx#1837276</link><pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 05:22:35 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1837276</guid><dc:creator>James, Pensacola, FL</dc:creator><description>I agree we need a better definition of what a planet is, however I don't care if it keeps Pluto as a planet.&lt;br&gt;A definition could be similar to this: A planet is and spacial body that orbits a star and has an average diameter over 3000 km. if that body has a natural satellite greater then 1/3 of its diameter then the center of orbit of the satellite must be inside the diameter or within 1/10 of the diameter of the body. or something like this. I realize this definition excludes pluto, but oh well.</description></item></channel></rss>