Calling astronomers and astrologers - Pluto is still a planet - yippee!

[speedymama]

I have been following this debate and it looks like the way that planets are categorised is going to be changed. What it does mean is that Pluto will still be a planet and 3 more will be added to the new class.

We have been teaching our 2yo DTS about the solar system and they can now recognise all the planets. However, Pluto as well as Mars were the first ones that they remembered so I was a bit concerned about having to explain to them why Pluto was no longer considered a planets if Plutos' detractors had got their own way.

Anybody else out there with an interest in astronomy?

Out of interest, if Pluto had been declassified from being a planet, what impact would this have had on astrology?

There has always been controversy about Pluto (bet he has fleas for example) because of its size (smaller than continental USA) and the fact that it isn't in the same plane of orbit as the rest of the planets. It also doesn't follow the pattern of 'solid' planets in the inner solar system and gas giants on the outer solar system.

The astonomers are being systematic, I think.

R astrology....load of old toffee IMHO and dons flack jacket. Since the constilations only exsist in the human mind why should the atrologers care what is, or is not a planet?

MB is right as usual, astrology is bobbins.

Astronomy OTOH....relieved that we still have Pluto tho I do see why its status was controversial. Impressed that yr 2yos can rememebr any planets speedymama.

We have a poster of the planets on their bedroom wall and every night we boldly go where no man has gone before. We just point to the planets and discuss its colour and size. We were surprised that they actually remembered - they now point to the planet and say its name without any prompting [smug mummy emoticon].

I personally do not believe in astrology. However, I was just curious about how all the changes would affect the way that astrologers make their forecasts. Don't they make predictions based on how the planets are aligned and aren't star signs associated with certain planets?

But given that star sign constilations are not is any physical way 'real' IYSWIM, would they really care if Pluto is now called a planetoid? Since their predictions are not based on any real science why would they care what scientists say?

There is a thing called an "orrery" (sp?) which is a mdoel of the planets from years ago in our museum here (a famous painter painted a picture involving it which is also in the museum) and the kids love that.

Must get poster of planets to put up alongside dinosaurs, butterflies, birds, sharks etc.

Or do they do top trumps planets and stars?

Yep, nice Top Trumps set available

Called 'Space Phenomena'. Loads of interesting detail and the backs of the cards make up larger pictures of some of the major planets.

Ooh dd1 would love those!

Oh SG have to go and purchase RIGHT NOW!

We are TT obsessed in our house atm, esp since a colleague pointed out that the disney ones we have are colour coded (I hadn't spotted this) so even ds2 (3) can play!

Yes, but what about these 3 new ones. I'm getting too old to be remembering 3 more planets - I can only handle the 9 I learnt about way back when.

Have to say that if they're only planets by way of strict categorisation then I'll probably ignore them (until I end up helping the Dses with their science homework!)

Clary - my boys drive me mad, always wanting new sets. The junior coloured ones are great for DS2 but DS1 likes the regular packs.

The Space one is really good, but everything else we have seems to be cars or football!

Top Trumps

Sorry, hijack over - carry on with the planet conversation

SG Dr Who ones are the latest in clary towers, interesting (or perhaps not actually) that the Dr himself is not actually the best card as he is neither tall nor very monster-ish....tasty tho but that's not a category, sadly.....

this is weird

I don't understand what that link is trying to say with respect to the stars. For example, Rigel is in the constellation Orion and is about 800 light years from our star system. The nearest star beyond our Sun is about 4.2 light years away (approx 6 million million miles). If the author trying to depict relative size, I would question his accuracy.

I think it is one thing to compare planet size but not stars. What the author should be comparing is their brightness because stars are classified into groups depending upon their brilliance (and the scale is logarithmic so a star of magnitude 1.0 is exactly a hundred times as bright as a star of 6.0). The two brightest stars are Sirius and Canopus yet Sirius is only 26 times brighter than the Sun whereas Canopus, which is far more remote, can match 200,000 Suns. Appearances are deceptive and that is why I'm not sure what the link is trying to depict when it comes to the stars.

Fabulous site SueW