| |
Main
Date: 24 Aug 2006 16:03:11
From:
Subject: Overall disappointing...
|
Today in science class my teacher said that Pluto was no longer
considered a planet. Being practically the only one educated in the
recent IAU things going on, and ,in fact, looking forward to Ceres and
Charon becoming a planet within the next week, initially didn't believe
it. I thought that their scale was overall practical and that a
biplanetary system was quite intrigueing. lol... At the first of the
class everyone looked at me all wierd for not believing the report and
thinking that the teacher had read it all wrong. But, at the end,
everything was all explained to me and finally made me look sane to a
certain extent :-P:
The teacher read the report from fox news online or something and
stated that "This was interestingly preceded by an attempt to add two
other celestial bodies to our list of planets." I now feel like I am
the only one disappointed... I mean I grew up with Pluto and though it
is considered a "mini-planet" (or whatever stupid name they devised)
now, it will be wierd to see neptune at the end of the list, Though I
wouldn't have minded at all to remember Charon and Ceres....
Totally disappointing :'( can anyone give me some consolation and
inform me why exactly the tables were turned so quickly?
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 19:55:02
From: Don't Be Evil
Subject: Re: Overall disappointing...
|
wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com wrote:
> Today in science class my teacher said that Pluto was no longer
> considered a planet. Being practically the only one educated in the
> recent IAU things going on, and ,in fact, looking forward to Ceres and
> Charon becoming a planet within the next week, initially didn't believe
> it. I thought that their scale was overall practical and that a
> biplanetary system was quite intrigueing. lol... At the first of the
> class everyone looked at me all wierd for not believing the report and
> thinking that the teacher had read it all wrong. But, at the end,
> everything was all explained to me and finally made me look sane to a
> certain extent :-P:
> The teacher read the report from fox news online or something and
> stated that "This was interestingly preceded by an attempt to add two
> other celestial bodies to our list of planets." I now feel like I am
> the only one disappointed... I mean I grew up with Pluto and though it
> is considered a "mini-planet" (or whatever stupid name they devised)
> now, it will be wierd to see neptune at the end of the list, Though I
> wouldn't have minded at all to remember Charon and Ceres....
> Totally disappointing :'( can anyone give me some consolation and
> inform me why exactly the tables were turned so quickly?
The reason was that science and logic trumped sentiment and tradition.
When I was a kid (60's and 70's), Pluto was the last frontier in the
solar system. It was thought to be much larger, and alone. Now we
know it's one of hundreds of Kuiper Belt objects and not even the
biggest.
I'd suggest that today's dreamers turn their imaginations to Sedna.
Waaaay out there, not well understood, and (so far as we know right
now) all alone.
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/sedna/
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 23:37:50
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Overall disappointing...
|
wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com wrote:
> Today in science class my teacher said that Pluto was no longer
> considered a planet. Being practically the only one educated in the
> recent IAU things going on, and ,in fact, looking forward to Ceres and
> Charon becoming a planet within the next week, initially didn't believe
> it. I thought that their scale was overall practical and that a
> biplanetary system was quite intrigueing. lol... At the first of the
> class everyone looked at me all wierd for not believing the report and
> thinking that the teacher had read it all wrong. But, at the end,
> everything was all explained to me and finally made me look sane to a
> certain extent :-P:
> The teacher read the report from fox news online or something and
> stated that "This was interestingly preceded by an attempt to add two
> other celestial bodies to our list of planets." I now feel like I am
> the only one disappointed... I mean I grew up with Pluto and though it
> is considered a "mini-planet" (or whatever stupid name they devised)
> now, it will be wierd to see neptune at the end of the list, Though I
> wouldn't have minded at all to remember Charon and Ceres....
> Totally disappointing :'( can anyone give me some consolation and
> inform me why exactly the tables were turned so quickly?
>
When you look at the solar system has a whole... it was a very good
decision.
A debris disk... the inner solar system swept clear by four rocky
smaller planets (solar wind may have played a role), 4 gas giants
sweeping up the gas and debris from 5-30 AU. Debris that couldn't
form into a solid body due to Jupiter's gravitation and small icy
bodies further out (Kuiper belt and Oort cloud) made up of trillions
of small icy dusty leftover fragments.
Personally, for me, the decision abut Pluto and other bodies make
good sense.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 23:30:44
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Overall disappointing...
|
wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com wrote:
> Today in science class my teacher said that Pluto was no longer
> considered a planet. Being practically the only one educated in the
> recent IAU things going on, and ,in fact, looking forward to Ceres and
> Charon becoming a planet within the next week, initially didn't believe
> it. I thought that their scale was overall practical and that a
> biplanetary system was quite intrigueing. lol... At the first of the
> class everyone looked at me all wierd for not believing the report and
> thinking that the teacher had read it all wrong. But, at the end,
> everything was all explained to me and finally made me look sane to a
> certain extent :-P:
> The teacher read the report from fox news online or something and
> stated that "This was interestingly preceded by an attempt to add two
> other celestial bodies to our list of planets." I now feel like I am
> the only one disappointed... I mean I grew up with Pluto and though it
> is considered a "mini-planet" (or whatever stupid name they devised)
> now, it will be wierd to see neptune at the end of the list, Though I
> wouldn't have minded at all to remember Charon and Ceres....
> Totally disappointing :'( can anyone give me some consolation and
> inform me why exactly the tables were turned so quickly?
>
When you look at the solar system has a hole... it was a very good
decision.
A debris disk... the inner solar system swept clear by four rocky
smaller planets (solar wind may have played a role), 4 gas giants
sweeping up the gas and debris from 5-30 AU. Debris that couldn't
form into a solid body due to Jupiter's gravitation and small icy
bodies further out (Kuiper belt and Oort cloud) made up of trillions
of small icy dusty leftover fragments.
Personally, for me, the decision abut Pluto and other bodies make
good sense.
further out
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 19:23:28
From: starburst
Subject: Re: Overall disappointing...
|
wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com wrote:
> Today in science class my teacher said that Pluto was no longer
> considered a planet.
Troll.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 23:08:10
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Overall disappointing...
|
On 24 Aug 2006 16:03:11 -0700, wiiwiillwiin@gmail.com wrote:
The discovery of Pluto led to many questions about the planet. One of
the most puzzling was the fact that Lowell had predicted that Planet X
would have a mass 6.6 times that of Earth. The tiny dot that was
actually discovered could not possibly be that big, unless it was
extraordinarily dark. Estimates of its diameter, for example, ranged
from 6,000 to 14,000 kilometers. After the discovery of Charon in
1978, which permitted determination of the mass through a few simple
calculations, the mass of the Pluto system was determined to be about
500 times smaller than that of the Earth.
Labeling Pluto as a Planet was a huge long-term mistake and I am glad
that it is now corrected. We don't want a Solar System were 783 Pluto
like objects are considered on the same scale as the Classic 8
Planets.
Part of Sciene is accepting change. The new definition is not perfect
but it is a step in the modern direction.
-- Kevin Heider
West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:58:18
From: N. Foldager
Subject: Re: Overall disappointing...
|
Kevin Heider:
>The discovery of Pluto led to many questions about the planet. One of
>the most puzzling was the fact that Lowell had predicted that Planet X
>would have a mass 6.6 times that of Earth. The tiny dot that was
>actually discovered could not possibly be that big, unless it was
>extraordinarily dark. Estimates of its diameter, for example, ranged
>from 6,000 to 14,000 kilometers. After the discovery of Charon in
>1978, which permitted determination of the mass through a few simple
>calculations, the mass of the Pluto system was determined to be about
>500 times smaller than that of the Earth.
>
>Labeling Pluto as a Planet was a huge long-term mistake and I am glad
>that it is now corrected. We don't want a Solar System were 783 Pluto
>like objects are considered on the same scale as the Classic 8
>Planets.
>
>Part of Sciene is accepting change. The new definition is not perfect
>but it is a step in the modern direction.
The resulting cathegories are OK for the moment.
But this criterion "has / has not cleared the neighbourhood around
its orbit" is much two vague and difficult to determine.
Would Pluto have been able to clear around its orbit, had Neptun not
been dominating in that region?
The "cleaning properties" of a celestial body is coupled to its mass.
Why not just use a simple mass criterion?
What if we some day find a double body, where each single member would
not be able to clear around their orbit, but they are together? Are
they planets or dwarf planets?
And how big is the "neighbourhood" of a planet? Small objects also
clear to some degree; at least through collisions.
This "clearing criterion" is a mistake.
Niels Foldager
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 22:37:08
From: N. Foldager
Subject: Re: Overall disappointing...
|
>But this criterion "has / has not cleared the neighbourhood around
>its orbit" is much two vague and difficult to determine.
too vague
Niels Foldager
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 13:24:33
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Overall disappointing...
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:58:18 +0200, N. Foldager
<nfoldager-takethisaway@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Kevin Heider:
>
>>The discovery of Pluto led to many questions about the planet. One of
>>the most puzzling was the fact that Lowell had predicted that Planet X
>>would have a mass 6.6 times that of Earth. The tiny dot that was
>>actually discovered could not possibly be that big, unless it was
>>extraordinarily dark. Estimates of its diameter, for example, ranged
>>from 6,000 to 14,000 kilometers. After the discovery of Charon in
>>1978, which permitted determination of the mass through a few simple
>>calculations, the mass of the Pluto system was determined to be about
>>500 times smaller than that of the Earth.
>>
>>Labeling Pluto as a Planet was a huge long-term mistake and I am glad
>>that it is now corrected. We don't want a Solar System were 783 Pluto
>>like objects are considered on the same scale as the Classic 8
>>Planets.
>>
>>Part of Sciene is accepting change. The new definition is not perfect
>>but it is a step in the modern direction.
>
>The resulting cathegories are OK for the moment.
>But this criterion "has / has not cleared the neighbourhood around
>its orbit" is much two vague and difficult to determine.
Be careful what you ask for. :-) Yes, perhaps the IAU over
simplified the explanation.
But here is a professional 22 page version of the concept:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608359
-- Kevin Heider
West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider
|
|
