| |
Main
Date: 26 Aug 2006 09:02:28
From: ET
Subject: Alan Stern has definitely flipped
|
He's flipped at least on his opinion of orbital dominance.
He apparently is very bitter with the IAU ruling, but check out this
hypocrisy...
In the Space.com article noted elsewhere on this forum, Stern complains
about the "clearing the neighboorhood" criteria with the following
comments:
"I'm embarrassed for astronomy"
"It's a farce. It won't stand"
"This definition stinks, for technical reasons,"
and this zinger...
"It's patently clear that Earth's zone is not cleared, Jupiter has
50,000 trojan asteroids,"
which orbit in lockstep with the planet.
So clearly Stern has an issue with the various small bodies that are
locked into submissive
orbits around the 8 major planets (as moons, trojans, or resonant
bodies)
However, in a 2002 paper (referenced in a subsequent paper linked from
this forum)
entitled "Regarding the criteria for planethood and proposed planetary
classification
schemes", Stern and a colleague studied the "dynamical dominance" of
bodies in the solar system and found a "gap of five orders of magnitude
between the smallest terrestrial planets
and the largest asteroids and KBOs".
Think about that. FIVE ORDERS of magnitude. That is freaking huge.
And yet now Stern wants to assert that the glorified rocks in the
various Lagrange zones of
the 8 planets somehow disqualifies them from planethood, despite the
fact that he is
perfectly aware of the huge, qualitative difference involved.
Some of Alan Stern's contradictions:
#############################################################
1st contradiction:
(originally Alan Stern writes that there is clear distinction
between "uberplanets" and "unterplanets", now 6 years later
he says there is no clear dividing line between them)
Stern, S.A., & Levison, H.F. 2002.
Regarding the criteria for planethood and
proposed planetary classification schemes.
Status: To appear in IAU Proceedings 2000.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/planet_def.html
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/PDF/planet_def.pdf
"From a dynamical standpoint, our solar system
clearly contains 8 uberplanets and a far larger number
of unterplanets, the largest of which are Pluto and Ceres."
--------------------------------------------------------
Friday, 25 August 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm
Dr Alan Stern told BBC News:
"Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line
between dwarf planets and planets.
#############################################################
2nd contradiction:
(originally Stern claims that "uberplanets" (planets) have cleared its
orbits,
but now he claims that the same planets did not clear its orbits)
Stern, S.A., & Levison, H.F. 2002.
Regarding the criteria for planethood and
proposed planetary classification schemes.
Status: To appear in IAU Proceedings 2000.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/planet_def.html
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/PDF/planet_def.pdf
"Hence, we define and uberplanet as a planetary body
in orbit about a star that is dynamically important enough
to have cleared its neighboring planetesimals in a Hubble time.
And we define an unterplanet as one that has not been able to do so."
--------------------------------------------------------
25 August 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm
"Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune
have also not fully cleared their orbital zones."
24 August 2006
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060824_planet_definition.html
"It's patently clear that Earth's zone is not cleared," Stern told
SPACE.com.
"Jupiter has 50,000 trojan asteroids," which orbit in lockstep with the
planet.
#############################################################
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:31:47
From:
Subject: Re: Alan Stern has definitely flipped
|
ET wrote:
> However, in a 2002 paper (referenced in a subsequent paper linked from
> this forum)
> entitled "Regarding the criteria for planethood and proposed planetary
> classification
> schemes", Stern and a colleague studied the "dynamical dominance" of
> bodies in the solar system and found a "gap of five orders of magnitude
> between the smallest terrestrial planets
> and the largest asteroids and KBOs".
>
> Think about that. FIVE ORDERS of magnitude. That is freaking huge.
That's a five order of magnitude difference *in the Stern-Levinson
parameter*, M^2/P. The IAU could have used the Stern-Levinson
parameter, or simply drawn some line in terms of mass or radius, but
the fact is, they didn't.
> And yet now Stern wants to assert that the glorified rocks in the
> various Lagrange zones of
> the 8 planets somehow disqualifies them from planethood, despite the
> fact that he is
> perfectly aware of the huge, qualitative difference involved.
Stern is pointing out, correctly, that the "definition" is
near-gibberish which does not define what the terms it employs mean.
And the trojan asteroids are not all "glorified rocks"; Hektor, for
example, is about 370x195 km in size. Some rock.
> Some of Alan Stern's contradictions:
>
> #############################################################
>
> 1st contradiction:
>
> (originally Alan Stern writes that there is clear distinction
> between "uberplanets" and "unterplanets", now 6 years later
> he says there is no clear dividing line between them)
There *is* a clear gap in terms of the Stern-Levinson parameter, which,
however, the IAU does not use.
> "Hence, we define and uberplanet as a planetary body
> in orbit about a star that is dynamically important enough
> to have cleared its neighboring planetesimals in a Hubble time.
> And we define an unterplanet as one that has not been able to do so."
That does look like a flip, but "planetesimals" is an important word
here. They go on to cook up Lambda = M^2/P, the parameter I've been
talking about, and relate it theoretically to this definition.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:17:28
From:
Subject: Re: Alan Stern has definitely flipped
|
ET wrote:
> He's flipped at least on his opinion of orbital dominance.
> He apparently is very bitter with the IAU ruling, but check out this
> hypocrisy...
>
> In the Space.com article noted elsewhere on this forum, Stern complains
> about the "clearing the neighboorhood" criteria with the following
> comments:
>
> "I'm embarrassed for astronomy"
> "It's a farce. It won't stand"
> "This definition stinks, for technical reasons,"
>
> and this zinger...
>
> "It's patently clear that Earth's zone is not cleared, Jupiter has
> 50,000 trojan asteroids,"
> which orbit in lockstep with the planet.
>
> So clearly Stern has an issue with the various small bodies that are
> locked into submissive
> orbits around the 8 major planets (as moons, trojans, or resonant
> bodies)
>
> However, in a 2002 paper (referenced in a subsequent paper linked from
> this forum)
> entitled "Regarding the criteria for planethood and proposed planetary
> classification
> schemes", Stern and a colleague studied the "dynamical dominance" of
> bodies in the solar system and found a "gap of five orders of magnitude
> between the smallest terrestrial planets
> and the largest asteroids and KBOs".
>
> Think about that. FIVE ORDERS of magnitude. That is freaking huge.
>
> And yet now Stern wants to assert that the glorified rocks in the
> various Lagrange zones of
> the 8 planets somehow disqualifies them from planethood, despite the
> fact that he is
> perfectly aware of the huge, qualitative difference involved.
>
>
> Some of Alan Stern's contradictions:
>
> #############################################################
>
> 1st contradiction:
>
> (originally Alan Stern writes that there is clear distinction
> between "uberplanets" and "unterplanets", now 6 years later
> he says there is no clear dividing line between them)
>
>
> Stern, S.A., & Levison, H.F. 2002.
> Regarding the criteria for planethood and
> proposed planetary classification schemes.
> Status: To appear in IAU Proceedings 2000.
> http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/planet_def.html
> http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/PDF/planet_def.pdf
>
> "From a dynamical standpoint, our solar system
> clearly contains 8 uberplanets and a far larger number
> of unterplanets, the largest of which are Pluto and Ceres."
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Friday, 25 August 2006
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm
>
> Dr Alan Stern told BBC News:
> "Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line
> between dwarf planets and planets.
>
>
> #############################################################
>
> 2nd contradiction:
>
> (originally Stern claims that "uberplanets" (planets) have cleared its
> orbits,
> but now he claims that the same planets did not clear its orbits)
>
> Stern, S.A., & Levison, H.F. 2002.
> Regarding the criteria for planethood and
> proposed planetary classification schemes.
> Status: To appear in IAU Proceedings 2000.
> http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/planet_def.html
> http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~hal/PDF/planet_def.pdf
>
> "Hence, we define and uberplanet as a planetary body
> in orbit about a star that is dynamically important enough
> to have cleared its neighboring planetesimals in a Hubble time.
> And we define an unterplanet as one that has not been able to do so."
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> 25 August 2006
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283956.stm
> "Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune
> have also not fully cleared their orbital zones."
>
> 24 August 2006
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060824_planet_definition.html
> "It's patently clear that Earth's zone is not cleared," Stern told
> SPACE.com.
> "Jupiter has 50,000 trojan asteroids," which orbit in lockstep with the
> planet.
>
> #############################################################
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:05:57
From: ET
Subject: Re: Alan Stern has definitely flipped
|
genewardsmith@gmail.com wrote:
> ET wrote:
>
> > However, in a 2002 paper (referenced in a subsequent paper linked from
> > this forum)
> > entitled "Regarding the criteria for planethood and proposed planetary
> > classification
> > schemes", Stern and a colleague studied the "dynamical dominance" of
> > bodies in the solar system and found a "gap of five orders of magnitude
> > between the smallest terrestrial planets
> > and the largest asteroids and KBOs".
> >
> > Think about that. FIVE ORDERS of magnitude. That is freaking huge.
>
> That's a five order of magnitude difference *in the Stern-Levinson
> parameter*, M^2/P. The IAU could have used the Stern-Levinson
> parameter, or simply drawn some line in terms of mass or radius, but
> the fact is, they didn't.
Perheps because Stern insisted on including every more or less round
ice-rock
in the solar system in the list of planets?
> > And yet now Stern wants to assert that the glorified rocks in the
> > various Lagrange zones of
> > the 8 planets somehow disqualifies them from planethood, despite the
> > fact that he is
> > perfectly aware of the huge, qualitative difference involved.
>
> Stern is pointing out, correctly, that the "definition" is
> near-gibberish which does not define what the terms it employs mean.
> And the trojan asteroids are not all "glorified rocks"; Hektor, for
> example, is about 370x195 km in size. Some rock.
>
> > Some of Alan Stern's contradictions:
> >
> > #############################################################
> >
> > 1st contradiction:
> >
> > (originally Alan Stern writes that there is clear distinction
> > between "uberplanets" and "unterplanets", now 6 years later
> > he says there is no clear dividing line between them)
>
> There *is* a clear gap in terms of the Stern-Levinson parameter, which,
> however, the IAU does not use.
After all, don't you think that IAU included 2 of Stern's critiria for
planets?
First is that planet has to be round, second that it has cleared its
neighborhood.
The problem was that Stern then wanted to include even satellites like
Titan,
Io, Europa, Triton, Mimas and whole bunch of them, into the list of
planets.
> > "Hence, we define and uberplanet as a planetary body
> > in orbit about a star that is dynamically important enough
> > to have cleared its neighboring planetesimals in a Hubble time.
> > And we define an unterplanet as one that has not been able to do so."
>
> That does look like a flip, but "planetesimals" is an important word
> here. They go on to cook up Lambda = M^2/P, the parameter I've been
> talking about, and relate it theoretically to this definition.
|
|
