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 this blog
Profile
I am working on some very smart things to say here. Really. Meanwhile, there's this and this. Welcome.
Suggestions
Recent Posts
- Burma
- Larry Page on how to change the world
- What OLPC now needs
- Global food crisis
- Book podcasts
- Crisis of lifestyle and character
- Laughing out loud
- There's turbulence in the air..er..water?
- A question about Matter
- Goodbye to John Archibald Wheeler
Recent Comments
- csrster on Burma
- jillumadrasi on Laughing out loud
- NoAstronomer on Global food crisis
- Bill the Cat on Global food crisis
- R N B on Laughing out loud
- Prashant on Laughing out loud
- JStein on A question about Matter
- selva on A question about Matter
- Ambitwistor on A question about Matter
- selva on Goodbye to John Archibald Wheeler
RSS Feed
Archives
- 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
I frequent
« 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
Send this entry to:
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
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 08:53 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 04:04 PM