| |
Main
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:30:16
From: JackPeters
Subject: IAU's new planet definition
|
1) Round
2) Orbits sun
3) Clears everything out of its path
Oh great! My mother-in-law is now a planet.
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 11:55:48
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
JackPeters wrote:
> 1) Round
> 2) Orbits sun
> 3) Clears everything out of its path
>
> Oh great! My mother-in-law is now a planet.
I'd bet she even has an atmosphere...
Austin
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 06:19:56
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
"AustinMN" <tacooper260@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156532148.207592.126370@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> JackPeters wrote:
> > 1) Round
> > 2) Orbits sun
> > 3) Clears everything out of its path
> >
> > Oh great! My mother-in-law is now a planet.
>
> I'd bet she even has an atmosphere...
>
> Austin
>
Are you trying to say she has gas?
RJ
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:56:23
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> "AustinMN" <tacooper260@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156532148.207592.126370@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> JackPeters wrote:
>>> 1) Round
>>> 2) Orbits sun
>>> 3) Clears everything out of its path
>>>
>>> Oh great! My mother-in-law is now a planet.
>> I'd bet she even has an atmosphere...
>>
>> Austin
>>
>
> Are you trying to say she has gas?
>
Maybe he means an 'Aura' ;)
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:04:18
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
"Phil Wheeler" <wt6uh-ng7@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:bwhIg.18562$YC3.13209@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> > Are you trying to say she has gas?
> >
>
> Maybe he means an 'Aura' ;)
I'm sure you are correct, Phil. I was only teasing.
RJ
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:34:53
From: Johnny Borborigmi
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
On 2006-08-25 14:30:16 -0400, JackPeters <JackPeters@donotmail.com > said:
> 1) Round
> 2) Orbits sun
> 3) Clears everything out of its path
>
> Oh great! My mother-in-law is now a planet.
LOL!!!
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 02:32:52
From: Wally Wonderful
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
JackPeters wrote:
> 1) Round
> 2) Orbits sun
> 3) Clears everything out of its path
>
> Oh great! My mother-in-law is now a planet.
You forgot the 4th most important ingredient:
(4) Must be approved by the IAU ....
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:59:40
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
Phil Wheeler wrote:
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> > "AustinMN" <tacooper260@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1156532148.207592.126370@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> JackPeters wrote:
> >>> 1) Round
> >>> 2) Orbits sun
> >>> 3) Clears everything out of its path
> >>>
> >>> Oh great! My mother-in-law is now a planet.
> >> I'd bet she even has an atmosphere...
> >>
> >> Austin
> >>
> >
> > Are you trying to say she has gas?
> >
>
> Maybe he means an 'Aura' ;)
Perhaps Aura, but certanly not Aurora; such planets seldom have a
sufficiently magnetic personality.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:16:51
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
JackPeters wrote:
> 1) Round
> 2) Orbits sun
> 3) Clears everything out of its path
Guess that leaves out Neptune, since it didn't clear Pluto and Charon
out of its path;-) 99 planets around our sun; 99 planets around;
take one down and name it just ice; 98 planets around our sun...
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 17:00:47
From: Bill Tschumy
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:16:51 -0500, Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote
(in article <v5mdnaMAnIrrGm7ZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@rcn.net >):
> JackPeters wrote:
>> 1) Round
>> 2) Orbits sun
>> 3) Clears everything out of its path
>
> Guess that leaves out Neptune, since it didn't clear Pluto and Charon
> out of its path;-) 99 planets around our sun; 99 planets around;
> take one down and name it just ice; 98 planets around our sun...
Yeah, what's up with that? If Pluto isn't a planet because it didn't clear
Neptune, then why isn't that same criteria applied to Neptune clearing Pluto?
This is a serious question and I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify
how the definition is applied.
--
Bill Tschumy
Think Astronomy -- Austin, TX
http://www.thinkastronomy.com
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 16:15:12
From: Stuart Levy
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
On 2006-09-03, Bill Tschumy <bill@thinkastronomyDELETE.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:16:51 -0500, Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote
> (in article <v5mdnaMAnIrrGm7ZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@rcn.net>):
>
>> JackPeters wrote:
>>> 1) Round
>>> 2) Orbits sun
>>> 3) Clears everything out of its path
>>
>> Guess that leaves out Neptune, since it didn't clear Pluto and Charon
>> out of its path;-) 99 planets around our sun; 99 planets around;
>> take one down and name it just ice; 98 planets around our sun...
>
> Yeah, what's up with that? If Pluto isn't a planet because it didn't clear
> Neptune, then why isn't that same criteria applied to Neptune clearing Pluto?
> This is a serious question and I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify
> how the definition is applied.
I haven't seen what the specific IAU proposal that passed was,
but would expect it to be judged by the *mass* of other objects
sharing the planet's orbital zone.
Here's an interesting article by Stephen Soter of the American Museum
of Natural History in New York (submitted to Astrophysical Journal in mid-Aug):
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608359
He defines a parameter mu, the ratio of the mass of an object to
that of the sum of all the other objects in its orbital zone (defined
in the paper), and tabulates it for all the planets.
Neptune outweighs its zone mates (which don't include Pluto by
Soter's definition, since it is in a resonant orbit with Pluto,
preventing any collision) by 24000. Mars (with lowest mu among
the eight big planets) by 5000. All the others, including Pluto,
have ratios much less than 1, so there's a natural cut to be made
which puts the other traditional planets in a different class
than Pluto.
It's quite a nice paper, says much more than this thumbnail,
well worth reading.
Stuart Levy
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 19:03:30
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
Stuart Levy wrote:
> Here's an interesting article by Stephen Soter of the American Museum
> of Natural History in New York (submitted to Astrophysical Journal in mid-Aug):
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608359
Yes, that's the basis of the IAU definition, at least in principle.
Unfortunately some people here like to take their anger out on straw men...
Clear skies,
Greg
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 16:27:35
From: Bill Tschumy
Subject: Re: IAU's new planet definition
|
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:15:12 -0500, Stuart Levy wrote
(in article <44fc9760@news.mcleodusa.net >):
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608359
Thanks for the reference. Looks like interesting reading.
--
Bill Tschumy
Think Astronomy -- Austin, TX
http://www.thinkastronomy.com
|
|
