| |
Main
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:33:00
From: JackPeters
Subject: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
I was under the impression that Pluto has a tenuous atmosphere. At
least, I remember back in the 90s when it was inside the orbit of
Neptune, there were Hubble photos of apparent cloud patterns. I
believe the explanation was it was an atmosphere primarily of
sublimation and not in equilibrium as Pluto does not have enough
gravity to sustain it.
It just seems logical to me that a "planet" should have an atmosphere.
1) Round by self-gravity
2) In orbit around the sun
3) Maintains an atmosphere
That would give us nine planets. Perhaps a few more KBOs would
qualify eventually?
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:04:18
From:
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
Kevin Heider wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:50:15 +0100, "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk>
> wrote:
snip
Do we want to include those 44 Plutos + 1
> asteroid (Ceres) in the same league as the 8 Major Planets?
>
snip
Frankly, I don't care. I don't really care what they call them. They
are there regardless of what we think of them or name them. The whole
idea of "planet" is a cultural concept. What there are are thousands
of bodies of various sizes and compositions in orbit around the sun,
and they are all worthy of study.
This whole fiasco is a tempest in a teapot.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 23:52:36
From: ED T
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
rwalker@despammed.com wrote:
> Frankly, I don't care. I don't really care what they call them. They
> are there regardless of what we think of them or name them. The whole
> idea of "planet" is a cultural concept. What there are are thousands
> of bodies of various sizes and compositions in orbit around the sun,
> and they are all worthy of study.
>
> This whole fiasco is a tempest in a teapot.
Yes, but that's the primary activity of "pure" science: to discern
differences and then categorize and name things.
Ed T
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 17:02:28
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
ED T wrote:
> Yes, but that's the primary activity of "pure" science: to discern
> differences and then categorize and name things.
No--that is not the primary activity of science. (I don't know what
the term "pure" means in this context--do you mean exclusive of, say,
engineering?) The purpose of science is to find patterns in natural
phenomena, and to relate them to other natural phenomena.
We often call this latter activity "explaining," but in this context it
means something just a little different from what it means in casual
use. In particular, it excludes explanations of the "Just So" variety.
Such a "Just So" statement might be made, but it is not a categorical
statement of truth, rather an admission that we really don't understand
why things seem to act the way they do.
This whole business of categorizing and naming things is only an
ancillary purpose of science, being useful only to the extent that it
facilitates talking about the objects of study.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 01:16:14
From: ED T
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> ED T wrote:
>> Yes, but that's the primary activity of "pure" science: to discern
>> differences and then categorize and name things.
>
> No--that is not the primary activity of science. (I don't know what
> the term "pure" means in this context--do you mean exclusive of, say,
> engineering?) The purpose of science is to find patterns in natural
> phenomena, and to relate them to other natural phenomena.
>
> We often call this latter activity "explaining," but in this context it
> means something just a little different from what it means in casual
> use. In particular, it excludes explanations of the "Just So" variety.
> Such a "Just So" statement might be made, but it is not a categorical
> statement of truth, rather an admission that we really don't understand
> why things seem to act the way they do.
>
> This whole business of categorizing and naming things is only an
> ancillary purpose of science, being useful only to the extent that it
> facilitates talking about the objects of study.
>
> No--that is not the primary activity of science. (I don't know what
> the term "pure" means in this context--do you mean exclusive of, say,
> engineering?)
Yes, I was trying to exclude "applied" science, "technology", etc.
> This whole business of categorizing and naming things is only an
> ancillary purpose of science, being useful only to the extent that it
> facilitates talking about the objects of study.
I wouldn't reduce science to "cataloging" but in practice there is a
great deal of it required to move to the next step. While it is not the
primary purpose of science, I'm not sure it isn't the primary activity.
Ed T.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:08:05
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
ED T wrote:
> I wouldn't reduce science to "cataloging" but in practice there is a
> great deal of it required to move to the next step. While it is not the
> primary purpose of science, I'm not sure it isn't the primary activity.
For a wide variety of fields, I am sure it isn't.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 02:40:28
From: ED T
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> ED T wrote:
>> I wouldn't reduce science to "cataloging" but in practice there is a
>> great deal of it required to move to the next step. While it is not the
>> primary purpose of science, I'm not sure it isn't the primary activity.
>
> For a wide variety of fields, I am sure it isn't.
>
My perspective is likely skewed by my studies in biology and my
avocation of astronomy, where the basic task of enumerating the subject
matter is ongoing. WRT to math much of that work has been done,
although I am sure some surprising subject matter remains there as well.
Ed T.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 03:12:00
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 02:40:28 GMT, ED T <reply@thegroup.thx > wrote:
>My perspective is likely skewed by my studies in biology...
Enumeration used to be a major component of biology. Except for a few
sub-specialties, however, it hasn't been for 20 years or more.
>... and my
>avocation of astronomy, where the basic task of enumerating the subject
>matter is ongoing.
Enumeration is a minuscule component of astronomy (unless you are
talking about the IAU, which is itself a minuscule component of
astronomy).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 09:43:01
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
In article <eco32k$qmo$1@praesepe.isi.edu >, Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu> wrote:
> ED T wrote:
>> Yes, but that's the primary activity of "pure" science: to discern
>> differences and then categorize and name things.
>
> No--that is not the primary activity of science. (I don't know what
> the term "pure" means in this context--do you mean exclusive of, say,
> engineering?)
No - science (pure as well as applied science) is finding out patterns
in natural phenomena - engineering is using these known patterns for
some useful purpose.
> The purpose of science is to find patterns in natural phenomena, and
> to relate them to other natural phenomena.
Yep!
Pure science: finding these patterns just for getting to know them - no
matter if knowledge of these patterns serves any useful purpose or not.
Applied science: Explicitly focusing on finding patterns which are
useful for some purpose.
Applied science is typically funded by private companies which hope
to be able to commercially exploit the findings in some product.
Pure science is typically funded publicly.
> We often call this latter activity "explaining," but in this context it
> means something just a little different from what it means in casual
> use. In particular, it excludes explanations of the "Just So" variety.
> Such a "Just So" statement might be made, but it is not a categorical
> statement of truth, rather an admission that we really don't understand
> why things seem to act the way they do.
>
> This whole business of categorizing and naming things is only an
> ancillary purpose of science, being useful only to the extent that it
> facilitates talking about the objects of study.
In some sciences the categorizing and naming is quite fundamental. What
would e.g. botany and zoology be, if we hadn't categorized and named
the plants and the animals?
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 13:43:31
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In some sciences the categorizing and naming is quite fundamental. What
> would e.g. botany and zoology be, if we hadn't categorized and named
> the plants and the animals?
Some folks (e.g., Linnaeus) did go to a lot of trouble to set up a
classification and naming scheme, but once established, not a lot of
time is spent actually putting a new organism into that classification
that isn't also spent just studying the organism as a matter of course.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:14:14
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
In article <ecqbpj$565$1@praesepe.isi.edu >, Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> In some sciences the categorizing and naming is quite fundamental. What
>> would e.g. botany and zoology be, if we hadn't categorized and named
>> the plants and the animals?
>
> Some folks (e.g., Linnaeus) did go to a lot of trouble to set up a
> classification and naming scheme, but once established, not a lot of
> time is spent actually putting a new organism into that classification
> that isn't also spent just studying the organism as a matter of course.
Of course organisms aren't merely classified, but also studied. However
the classification part is a non-negligible part of the total effort,
at least in biology.
Also, sometimes classifications of biological species change.
Remember the good ol' brontosaurus? That was one of my favourite
dinosarus as a kid. But now it's gone - it's been replaced by the
apatosaurus. And the dinosaurs aren't even cold-blooded reptiles
anymore - they're warm-blooded animals and descendants from the birds.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 11:11:51
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Of course organisms aren't merely classified, but also studied. However
> the classification part is a non-negligible part of the total effort,
> at least in biology.
I wouldn't say it's negligible, but neither would I say that it was the
principal activity, as Ed did.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:13:59
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
In article <ecsn97$2ok$1@praesepe.isi.edu >, Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu> wrote:
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> Of course organisms aren't merely classified, but also studied. However
>> the classification part is a non-negligible part of the total effort,
>> at least in biology.
>
>I wouldn't say it's negligible, but neither would I say that it was the
>principal activity, as Ed did.
So let's agree on that it's an important activity then...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 11:13:11
From: Stephen Paul
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
rwalker@despammed.com wrote:
> Kevin Heider wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:50:15 +0100, "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk>
>> wrote:
> snip
>
> Do we want to include those 44 Plutos + 1
>> asteroid (Ceres) in the same league as the 8 Major Planets?
>>
> snip
>
> Frankly, I don't care. I don't really care what they call them. They
> are there regardless of what we think of them or name them. The whole
> idea of "planet" is a cultural concept. What there are are thousands
> of bodies of various sizes and compositions in orbit around the sun,
> and they are all worthy of study.
>
> This whole fiasco is a tempest in a teapot.
>
The only bodies that orbit the Sun that are of any real interest to John
Q. Public are those that can be pointed out to the naked eye. I tell
folks all the time where to look to see Venus, Mars, Saturn, and Jupiter
(when they are clearly visible in the early morning or early evening). I
generally don't bother with Mercury as it is a fleeting object compared
to the others.
Uranus and Neptune are visible only as colored dots in an amateur class
telescopes that I've used up to 12.5", and Pluto is a difficult enough
object to find for the amateur astronomer, never mind Jonny Q..
To the amateur astronomer with a telescope, the "real interest" list can
be narrowed down to Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Be honest, when observing
"planets" with a scope, which planets hold your attention for more than
just a few minutes?
Fortunately, any embarrassment over the IAU's definition and/or its
application will go pretty much ignored by the masses. So don't sweat
it. The average Joe has much more pressing concerns.
-sp
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 13:47:04
From: Don't Be Evil
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
JackPeters wrote:
> I was under the impression that Pluto has a tenuous atmosphere. At
> least, I remember back in the 90s when it was inside the orbit of
> Neptune, there were Hubble photos of apparent cloud patterns. I
> believe the explanation was it was an atmosphere primarily of
> sublimation and not in equilibrium as Pluto does not have enough
> gravity to sustain it.
>
> It just seems logical to me that a "planet" should have an atmosphere.
>
> 1) Round by self-gravity
> 2) In orbit around the sun
> 3) Maintains an atmosphere
>
> That would give us nine planets. Perhaps a few more KBOs would
> qualify eventually?
Unless I'm mistaken, Hubble (or anything else) has never been able to
image Pluto well enough to see cloud patterns. You're probably
referring to occultations of stars where one is able to briefly view a
star through Pluto's atmosphere.
There's lots to learn about Pluto and Charon. 2015 seems a long way
off. I think the IAU made the right decision and that doesn't make
Pluto any less interesting.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 20:29:25
From: JackPeters
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
On 25 Aug 2006 13:47:04 -0700, "Don't Be Evil" <g626700-gg@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>
>JackPeters wrote:
>> I was under the impression that Pluto has a tenuous atmosphere. At
>> least, I remember back in the 90s when it was inside the orbit of
>> Neptune, there were Hubble photos of apparent cloud patterns. I
>> believe the explanation was it was an atmosphere primarily of
>> sublimation and not in equilibrium as Pluto does not have enough
>> gravity to sustain it.
>>
>> It just seems logical to me that a "planet" should have an atmosphere.
>>
>> 1) Round by self-gravity
>> 2) In orbit around the sun
>> 3) Maintains an atmosphere
>>
>> That would give us nine planets. Perhaps a few more KBOs would
>> qualify eventually?
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, Hubble (or anything else) has never been able to
>image Pluto well enough to see cloud patterns. You're probably
>referring to occultations of stars where one is able to briefly view a
>star through Pluto's atmosphere.
Yes, it probably was the occulation reports that I was remembering.
There were several occultations that set an upper limit on the
atmosphere of both Pluto and Charon in 90s and 00s. Also, Pluto and
Charon eclipsed each other for a while in the 80s.
The Hubble Faint Object Camera did image Pluto back in 1994. A polar
cap, bright and dark rotating features were imaged. Good summary of
the findings here:
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/edugroup/pluto-fast-facts.html
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 13:09:36
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
Mercury does have a slight Atmosphere composed of helium.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:31:55
From: OG
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
"Ed" <ed1ward2@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1156536573.782322.32040@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mercury does have a slight Atmosphere composed of helium.
>
The 'atmosphere' of Mercury is almost entirely a short term effect from
outgassing from surface rocks. I had a quick browse online and read
somewhere that it is so tenuous that the constituents of the atmosphere are
more likely to collide with the surface than other atoms, i.e. most
atomic/molecular paths are ballistic rather than 'random walk'.
A general description of atmospheres would include a requirement that one be
significantly held by the parent planet - but this is not the case for
Mercury. Were it not for outgassing there would not be an atmosphere.
Owen
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 19:50:15
From: OG
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
"JackPeters" <JackPeters@donotmail.com > wrote in message
news:qigue25an7fl7oiha2n9usqiiu6kdr0sda@4ax.com...
>I was under the impression that Pluto has a tenuous atmosphere. At
> least, I remember back in the 90s when it was inside the orbit of
> Neptune, there were Hubble photos of apparent cloud patterns. I
> believe the explanation was it was an atmosphere primarily of
> sublimation and not in equilibrium as Pluto does not have enough
> gravity to sustain it.
>
> It just seems logical to me that a "planet" should have an atmosphere.
>
> 1) Round by self-gravity
> 2) In orbit around the sun
> 3) Maintains an atmosphere
>
> That would give us nine planets. Perhaps a few more KBOs would
> qualify eventually?
But that would probably exclude Mercury
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31275 as none of
its atmospheric components are 'trapped' as such by its gravity.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 13:53:12
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:50:15 +0100, "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk >
wrote:
>
>"JackPeters" <JackPeters@donotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qigue25an7fl7oiha2n9usqiiu6kdr0sda@4ax.com...
>> It just seems logical to me that a "planet" should have an atmosphere.
>>
>> 1) Round by self-gravity
>> 2) In orbit around the sun
>> 3) Maintains an atmosphere
>>
>> That would give us nine planets. Perhaps a few more KBOs would
>> qualify eventually?
Since the demands of #3 are greater than #1, #1 could be dropped.
a few more KBOs? That is the problem they have already discovered
over 1000 KBOs and 783 of those have known orbits in the Kuiper Belt.
If every Pluto sized object was included as a planet WE WOULD HAVE 53
PLANETS AND CLIMBING. Do we want to include those 44 Plutos + 1
asteroid (Ceres) in the same league as the 8 Major Planets?
>But that would probably exclude Mercury
>http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31275 as none of
>its atmospheric components are 'trapped' as such by its gravity.
Mercury is big enough to have an atmosphere but impacting high-energy
photons and ions from the Sun stripped it away.
I guess is some ways the solar system is kind of like house values:
location, location, location. And I don't want 44+ Plutos to de-value
the other 8 (Major Planets). Dwarf Planets is a good title for them.
Pluto isn't even the largest Dwarf: Xena is.
-- Kevin Heider
West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 01:30:00
From:
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> ED T wrote:
> > I wouldn't reduce science to "cataloging" but in practice there is a
> > great deal of it required to move to the next step. While it is not the
> > primary purpose of science, I'm not sure it isn't the primary activity.
>
> For a wide variety of fields, I am sure it isn't.
I absolutely agree with you.
http://www.nycc.edu/AcademicPrograms_factemplate.htm?dirfind=RWalker
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:53:09
From:
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
Stephen Paul wrote:
snip
>
> To the amateur astronomer with a telescope, the "real interest" list can
> be narrowed down to Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Be honest, when observing
> "planets" with a scope, which planets hold your attention for more than
> just a few minutes?
>
> Fortunately, any embarrassment over the IAU's definition and/or its
> application will go pretty much ignored by the masses. So don't sweat
> it. The average Joe has much more pressing concerns.
>
> -sp
I agree with you completely if you are only concerned about what can be
seen in an amateur telescope. But from a pure science perspective,
Pluto is as interesting and as worthy of study as Jupiter, regardless
of what we call them.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 05:22:51
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: Doesn't Pluto have an atmosphere?
|
rwalker@despammed.com wrote:
> But from a pure science perspective,
> Pluto is as interesting and as worthy of study as Jupiter, regardless
> of what we call them.
>
And that is really the important point.
|
|
