Colbert thrashes the new planets. Neil de Grass Tyson, Astrophysicist and Director, Hayden Planetarium, of New York City is on the show. A planet is something that's round?
The Scientific Indian
Science as a way of life
Search
Profile
I am working on some very smart things to say here. Really. Meanwhile, there's this and this. Welcome.
Suggestions
Recent Posts
- Entangled Reality
- A matter of Life and er... Matter
- Things Fall Apart, in India
- Raymond Carver: On Writing
- Pollution in China
- Gin and Tonic
- Higgs Bosons from the future are messing about at LHC
- Bladeless fan
- Could Evolution Stop?
- The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind
Recent Comments
- anon on A matter of Life and er... Matter
- Len on A matter of Life and er... Matter
- God on A matter of Life and er... Matter
- Sun on A matter of Life and er... Matter
- Universe on A matter of Life and er... Matter
- Dhaval Rathod on Raymond Carver: On Writing
- IanW on Raymond Carver: On Writing
- small indian cock on How a man's penis got so big
- Deepankar Pradhan on Is there a limit to human memory?
- andy on Gin and Tonic
RSS Feed
Today's recommendations
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
« Islam and the West | Main | Hail Mumbai! The city that drinks a sea full of shit. »
Colbert and The New Planets
Category: Creative commons
Posted on: August 18, 2006 11:15 PM, by Selva
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/19066
Comments
I think it's a great definition. Something that orbits a star, not another planet, and that's gravity has collapsed its structure to be round.
It's better than "a planet is whatever we arbitrarily decide in some meeting at some point", which is more or less the current definition.
;)
Posted by: Ryan | August 21, 2006 8:53 AM
Ok, so does "Sharon" (Or is it Charoon, after the Greek boatsman?..), previously considered Pluto's moon, orbit the Sun, Pluto, or both (making it a double-planet system)? Anyway you see it, the same applies for our (or should I say America's) moon, and any other moon. There's no clean cut, it's a continuum, and there will always be arbitrary decisions about that.
(Maybe the definition could be reconstructed so that the point the two "planets" revolve around has to be outside the perimeter of both planets. somewhere in between. I don't know if this is the case for Pluto and Charoon.)
Posted by: Kim | August 22, 2006 4:04 PM