| |
Main
Date: 22 Aug 2006 04:09:05
From: robin_astro
Subject: IAU conference on planetary definition live streaming now! 12:00 UT
|
http://www.astronomy2006.com/media-stream-live.php
Robin
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 22:52:00
From: Carsten A. Arnholm
Subject: Re: IAU conference on planetary definition live streaming now! 12:00 UT
|
robin_astro wrote:
> http://www.astronomy2006.com/media-stream-live.php
>
> Robin
Hi Robin,
I missed important parts of the live streaming, but found that it is
available in the conference video archives
http://www.astronomy2006.com/media-stream-archive.php
See "Discussion on the Definition of a Planet"
Rather interesting, apparently the show of hands at the end was "very clear"
in one way or another...
--
Carsten A. Arnholm
http://arnholm.org/
N59.776 E10.457
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:10:40
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: IAU conference on planetary definition live streaming now! 12:00 UT
|
robin_astro wrote:
> http://www.astronomy2006.com/media-stream-live.php
>
> Robin
It is almost two years ago since I proposed the link between the
motion of the surface fractured crust and the planetary deviation from
a perfect sphere using a common rotational dynamics,specifically
latitude dependent differential rotation in the molten/flexible
interior of the Earth.
Current ideas do not link plate motion with the planetary shape
deviation,assigning stationary Earth/convection cells for the former
and a vague mechanism for the latter based from the dead center of the
Earth.
A rotating celestial body that is not solid will display differential
rotation bands perpendicular to the rotational axis or rather the
rotating mass will rotate at different speeds straddling the Equatorial
diameter and moving to the poles.The Sun's plasma is an example of this
-
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
Defining or not defining a planet should be the least concern,applying
the rotational dynamics of the flexible/molten interior should pave the
way for a more productive meshing between astronomy and geology and
this should be the real issue as a facet of a bigger issue.
Wondering whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not or whether
the definition of a planet is suitable may be fine for these
conferences and these people do believe that they are making history
however,in taking account of where they are coming from and where they
are going,it matters very little.The life sciences and geology now hold
the interest of people and defining things will not make astronomy any
more or less interesting,these people only affirm what I already know
about self-important pretension.
|
|
