| |
Main
Date: 23 Aug 2006 14:38:37
From: Davoud
Subject: Planet Definition: IAU Attendees Speak Out
|
<http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius/appendix.html >
Free Samples:
"...Our presently favoured theories of the origin of the solar system
developed from an idea published by Immanuel Kant over 200 years ago.
Among professional philosophers Kant is much more famous for his
insistence that we impose our categories on Nature and cannot know the
ding an sich - the thing itself. If the definitions are important to
the specialists, by all means make them, but do not fall into the error
of believing we are talking about reality. I like to think that during
the next few days, somewhere in the Elysian Fields, the spirit of
Immanuel Kant will be enjoying a hearty chuckle at the seriousness with
which we are taking ourselves!" -- Alan H. Batten, Dominion
Astrophysical Obsevatory, Victoria, B.C., Canada
______________
"The desire to put everything in neat little boxes is admirable but can
be overdone, particularly when the boxes become contorted to include
some objects and exclude others. The universe is too complex and too
fascinating to fit everything into nearly described categories. Often,
the most interesting objects are the ones that refuse to be categorized
simply. Anally pursuing such a goal is stamp collecting, not
science..."
"...The correct definition of a planet that I would offer is that it is
a body orbiting a star that is massive enough to clear its dynamical
zone of debris (asteroids and comets) over the history of the solar
system. In orher words, the planet dominates its dynamical zone. Under
this definition, Pluto would fail to quality as a planet, as would
Ceres. Mars still would and in all likelihood Mercury too. This
definition is intrinsic to each planet and to its unique position in
the solar system." -- Paul Weissman, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USA
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 01:47:34
From: Bless You
Subject: Re: Planet Definition: IAU Attendees Speak Out
|
Davoud wrote:
> <http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius/appendix.html>
>
> Free Samples:
>
> "...Our presently favoured theories of the origin of the solar system
> developed from an idea published by Immanuel Kant over 200 years ago.
> Among professional philosophers Kant is much more famous for his
> insistence that we impose our categories on Nature and cannot know the
> ding an sich - the thing itself. If the definitions are important to
> the specialists, by all means make them, but do not fall into the error
> of believing we are talking about reality. I like to think that during
> the next few days, somewhere in the Elysian Fields, the spirit of
> Immanuel Kant will be enjoying a hearty chuckle at the seriousness with
> which we are taking ourselves!" -- Alan H. Batten, Dominion
> Astrophysical Obsevatory, Victoria, B.C., Canada
>
> ______________
>
> "The desire to put everything in neat little boxes is admirable but can
> be overdone, particularly when the boxes become contorted to include
> some objects and exclude others. The universe is too complex and too
> fascinating to fit everything into nearly described categories. Often,
> the most interesting objects are the ones that refuse to be categorized
> simply. Anally pursuing such a goal is stamp collecting, not
> science..."
>
> "...The correct definition of a planet that I would offer is that it is
> a body orbiting a star that is massive enough to clear its dynamical
> zone of debris (asteroids and comets) over the history of the solar
> system. In orher words, the planet dominates its dynamical zone.
whether it clears its own zone or simply occupies such a zone, is the same
to me.
It is distinguished as occupying a clear zone. Because no single object in
a solar
system 'clears its own zone' - that is nonsense! Clearing of zones is a
complex
phenominon which involves not just bodies larger in zones but also the
activity
of the star itself during early formation, etc etc etc.
Here once again is an IAU member who picks a red herring out of the blue to
"justify" what he is doing or already wants to do .... when there is
nothing that
even needs doing. STOP WITH URBAN RENEWAL!
> Under
> this definition, Pluto would fail to quality as a planet, as would
> Ceres. Mars still would and in all likelihood Mercury too. This
> definition is intrinsic to each planet and to its unique position in
> the solar system." -- Paul Weissman, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USA
>
> Davoud
>
> --
> usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:07:12
From: Shawn Curry
Subject: Re: Planet Definition: IAU Attendees Speak Out
|
Bless You wrote:
>
> Davoud wrote:
>
>
>><http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius/appendix.html>
>>
>>Free Samples:
>>
>>"...Our presently favoured theories of the origin of the solar system
>>developed from an idea published by Immanuel Kant over 200 years ago.
>>Among professional philosophers Kant is much more famous for his
>>insistence that we impose our categories on Nature and cannot know the
>>ding an sich - the thing itself. If the definitions are important to
>>the specialists, by all means make them, but do not fall into the error
>>of believing we are talking about reality. I like to think that during
>>the next few days, somewhere in the Elysian Fields, the spirit of
>>Immanuel Kant will be enjoying a hearty chuckle at the seriousness with
>>which we are taking ourselves!" -- Alan H. Batten, Dominion
>>Astrophysical Obsevatory, Victoria, B.C., Canada
>>
>>______________
>>
>>"The desire to put everything in neat little boxes is admirable but can
>>be overdone, particularly when the boxes become contorted to include
>>some objects and exclude others. The universe is too complex and too
>>fascinating to fit everything into nearly described categories. Often,
>>the most interesting objects are the ones that refuse to be categorized
>>simply. Anally pursuing such a goal is stamp collecting, not
>>science..."
>>
>>"...The correct definition of a planet that I would offer is that it is
>>a body orbiting a star that is massive enough to clear its dynamical
>>zone of debris (asteroids and comets) over the history of the solar
>>system. In orher words, the planet dominates its dynamical zone.
>
>
> whether it clears its own zone or simply occupies such a zone, is the same
> to me.
> It is distinguished as occupying a clear zone. Because no single object in
> a solar
> system 'clears its own zone' - that is nonsense! Clearing of zones is a
> complex
> phenominon which involves not just bodies larger in zones but also the
> activity
> of the star itself during early formation, etc etc etc.
"Gravitationally dominant body" or something similar would be more
appropriate. Think of Trojan asteroids or the resonance of Neptune's
and Pluto's orbits. If clearing the zone of their orbit was a
requirement for planethood, both Jupiter and Neptune would fall into the
"other" category.
Shawn
|
|
