"We have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night"
Background Illustrations: http://edison.rutgers.edu/
Stellar Nursery
an argument could be made that earth has failed to clear it's orbit, so why are we so gung-ho on such an arbitrary set of rules?

That’s a very good argument you have, other clever minds like you have thought the same. I once saw someone argue that Jupiter, the largest planet, technically hasn’t cleared it’s orbit because of the Trojan asteroids. Earth hasn’t cleared it’s orbit because of 3753 Cruithne. But they made an exception for objects that a planet can never collide with due to orbital resonance.

However, if you are arguing that there are small bodies that Earth can collide with out there, then you are correct. There is, but you have to understand that Earth’s mass is far greater than all of the near-Earth objects combined. Pluto, however, is not greater than the mass of all its near-orbit objects.

Your argument is strong, but sadly a lot of factors play in that doesn’t make it a easy matter. For now, under current rules, Pluto is not a planet.

super-who-locked-in:

askerenjaegerisfuckingawesome:

tennants-hair:

VIVA LA PLUTO MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

DO YOU SEE THIS? DO YOU? ALL OF YOU WHO HAD WRITTEN OFF PLUTO, WHO HAD CROSSED IT OFF YOUR PLANET LIST? REMEMBER HOW IT WAS ‘TOO SMALL” TO BE A PLANET? HOW NASA, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION REMOVED ITS PLANETARY STATUS AND  CHANGED ITS NAME TO 134340? HOW EVERYONE THEN CONSIDERED THERE TO BE EIGHT PLANETS, NOT NINE?

BUT SOME OF US REMAINED LOYAL TO PLUTO. IT WAS NEVER FORGOTTEN. AND NOW HERE WE ARE, AND JUSTICE IS UPON US AFTER 8 YEARS.

BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? PLUTO HAS AT LEAST FIVE MOONS, A PRETTY BIG NUMBER FOR A ”DWARF-PLANET”, HUH? ESPECIALLY WHEN EARTH, QUITE BIGGER THAN PLUTO AND AN OFFICIAL PLANET ONLY HAS ONE. AND GUESS WHAT ELSE? ERIS, THE PLANET WHICH EVERYONE THOUGHT TO BE BIGGER THAN PLUTO, MAY NOT BE BIGGER AFTER ALL. AND THE BEST PART IS THAT PLUTO HAS AN ATMOSHPERE. THAT’S RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, A SUPPOSEDLY NON-PLANET HAS AN ATMOSPHERE. AGAIN, ISN’T THAT IMPRESSIVE?

SO LOOK AT THIS. NEW FINDINGS, AND A NEW AGE FOR PLUTO. AN AGE OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION. AND ALLOW ME TO CLOSE THIS -somewhat aggressive-PRESENTATION OF OPINION WITH THE MOTTO OF THE PLUTO APOLOGISTS: VIVA LA PLUTO!

Get “Viva la Pluto” to be a trending tag

MOVE OVER LUIGI ITS PLUTOS TIME TO SHINE

The three qualifications for a planet:

  • Must orbit the sun
  • Must be massive enough to be a sphere by it’s own gravity
  • Must clear the neighborhood around it’s orbit

Pluto hasn’t not cleared the neighborhood around it’s orbit. Sure, it has moons. And maybe it might be the largest, we have yet to find out. But as long as Pluto hasn’t cleared it’s path, it can not be considered a planet.

We should just dropped the third rule, right? Bring Pluto back into the club? Well if we do that we won’t just get Pluto as a planet, we’ll get Ceres, Makemake, Eris, and more. Sadly, Pluto seems to be the only one with a lot of encouragement.

For Pluto to be a planet without adding all the other dwarf planets, we will need new rules, and until those rules are written, Pluto’s classification is a dwarf planet no matter how many moons it has or how big it is.

What is the difference between a supernova and a hypernova?

That’s a really good question, and the simple answer is that a hypernova produces way more energy than a standard supernova. Supernovae are known as being bright explosions from massive stars, and their remnant is usually a neutron star.

Hypernovae, however, more commonly produce black holes due to being from stars more massive than those that cause supernovae. Often time, they appear brighter too, which is why an alternate name for hypernovae is “superluminous supernovae”. Hypernovae are sometimes also the cause of gamma-ray bursts, a dangerous release of energy so high that it will fry anything in its path.

Thanks for asking! :)

Reblogged from hima94  165,814 notes
foxpeach:

i-love-astronomy-a-bit-much:

consumesouls:

i-love-astronomy-a-bit-much:

awkwarddly:

'as much as the moon needs the sun to exist, they cant be together.'

*trys really hard not to say anything contradicting*

"the moon needs the sun to exist" the fuck are you talking about

The sun will one day destroy the moon when it explodes. If anything the moon needs the sun NOT to exist.

maybe they meant that the moon only shines because it reflects the suns light

I don’t think the person who wrote this one their arm was thinking that.
Technically everything in the solar system reflects the sun light. And why would the sun and moon want to be together? The sun’s gravity will destroy the moon if they got too close.

foxpeach:

i-love-astronomy-a-bit-much:

consumesouls:

i-love-astronomy-a-bit-much:

awkwarddly:

'as much as the moon needs the sun to exist, they cant be together.'

*trys really hard not to say anything contradicting*

"the moon needs the sun to exist" the fuck are you talking about

The sun will one day destroy the moon when it explodes. If anything the moon needs the sun NOT to exist.

maybe they meant that the moon only shines because it reflects the suns light

I don’t think the person who wrote this one their arm was thinking that.

Technically everything in the solar system reflects the sun light. And why would the sun and moon want to be together? The sun’s gravity will destroy the moon if they got too close.