Editing 1551: Pluto
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
It can be compared to preliminary descriptions by geologists, e.g. [http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2015/07140911-new-horizons-best-look-at.html?referrer=http://t.co/ExQJ6cKS1Q New Horizons' best look at Pluto before close approach|The Planetary Society]. | It can be compared to preliminary descriptions by geologists, e.g. [http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2015/07140911-new-horizons-best-look-at.html?referrer=http://t.co/ExQJ6cKS1Q New Horizons' best look at Pluto before close approach|The Planetary Society]. | ||
| − | The comic probably winks at {{w|Percival Lowell}} whose observatory photographed Pluto in 1915 "known" as Planet X. Unfortunately Percival Lowell is most famous for his drawings of the {{w|Martian canal|Canals on Mars}} which are widely misunderstood as channels based on wrong translations from Italian to other languages. | + | The comic probably winks at {{w|Percival Lowell}} whose observatory photographed Pluto in 1915 "known" as Planet X. Unfortunately Percival Lowell is most famous for are his drawings of the {{w|Martian canal|Canals on Mars}} which are widely misunderstood as channels based on wrong translations from Italian to other languages. |
The title text refers to the debate as to whether Pluto should be classified as a full or dwarf planet. This debate was particularly brought into the public eye and came to be seen as a matter of controversy, following the 2006 {{w|IAU definition of planet}}. The text may imagine that this debate winds on, with definitions being created and revised until a ridiculous state is reached whereby Pluto has a special class of celestial body named after it called a 'Pluto' but fails to fulfill the arbitrary criteria set up for it, and hence is called a 'dwarf Pluto'. There actually exist the terms {{w|Plutoid}} and {{w|Plutino}}, that relate directly to groups that Pluto belongs to, but see those pages for details of their use and usage. There has been a real naming conflict whilst generating those two categories, where Plutons was the name chosen initially, whereas Pluton is the usual name of Pluto in some languages. | The title text refers to the debate as to whether Pluto should be classified as a full or dwarf planet. This debate was particularly brought into the public eye and came to be seen as a matter of controversy, following the 2006 {{w|IAU definition of planet}}. The text may imagine that this debate winds on, with definitions being created and revised until a ridiculous state is reached whereby Pluto has a special class of celestial body named after it called a 'Pluto' but fails to fulfill the arbitrary criteria set up for it, and hence is called a 'dwarf Pluto'. There actually exist the terms {{w|Plutoid}} and {{w|Plutino}}, that relate directly to groups that Pluto belongs to, but see those pages for details of their use and usage. There has been a real naming conflict whilst generating those two categories, where Plutons was the name chosen initially, whereas Pluton is the usual name of Pluto in some languages. | ||
