| |
Main
Date: 19 Aug 2006 02:11:30
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in the
barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
RJ
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 21:20:31
From: Thomas Lee Elifritz
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in the
> barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
What the fuck is wrong with you people.
We've got four terrestrial planets, one almost by not quite a double.
We've got a vast asteroid belt represented by a single smallish planet -
Ceres - the fifth planet from the sun, and in dire need of a mission.
We've got four gas giant planets, two large ones and two smaller ones.
We've got a whole host of plutons, plutinos and pluterinos, etc. :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TheTransneptunians_73AU.svg
One of them is definitely a double planet, there may be more.
You can count them any way you want, by planets or classes.
In order of discovery and by unique characteristics :
Pluto and Ceres and even Charon are planets.
Will you fucking freaks get over it.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
|
| | |
Date: 19 Aug 2006 03:09:16
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Forgot the medication again, Tommy Lee?
RJ
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org > wrote in message
news:RAuFg.97$cv.83@newsfe07.lga...
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
>
> > Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in
the
> > barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
>
> What the fuck is wrong with you people.
>
> We've got four terrestrial planets, one almost by not quite a double.
>
> We've got a vast asteroid belt represented by a single smallish planet -
> Ceres - the fifth planet from the sun, and in dire need of a mission.
>
> We've got four gas giant planets, two large ones and two smaller ones.
>
> We've got a whole host of plutons, plutinos and pluterinos, etc. :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TheTransneptunians_73AU.svg
>
> One of them is definitely a double planet, there may be more.
>
> You can count them any way you want, by planets or classes.
>
> In order of discovery and by unique characteristics :
>
> Pluto and Ceres and even Charon are planets.
>
> Will you fucking freaks get over it.
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 22:38:29
From: Thomas Lee Elifritz
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> Forgot the medication again, Tommy Lee?
Yes, I know how a solar system with 10 or more planets must seem
completely alien to you rigid thinking anti-progress types.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>>> Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in
> the
>>> barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
>> What the fuck is wrong with you people.
>>
>> We've got four terrestrial planets, one almost by not quite a double.
>>
>> We've got a vast asteroid belt represented by a single smallish planet -
>> Ceres - the fifth planet from the sun, and in dire need of a mission.
>>
>> We've got four gas giant planets, two large ones and two smaller ones.
>>
>> We've got a whole host of plutons, plutinos and pluterinos, etc. :
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TheTransneptunians_73AU.svg
>>
>> One of them is definitely a double planet, there may be more.
>>
>> You can count them any way you want, by planets or classes.
>>
>> In order of discovery and by unique characteristics :
>>
>> Pluto and Ceres and even Charon are planets.
>>
>> Will you fucking freaks get over it.
>>
>> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 23:35:08
From: RT
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
>
> > Forgot the medication again, Tommy Lee?
>
> Yes, I know how a solar system with 10 or more planets must seem
> completely alien to you rigid thinking anti-progress types.
>
Oh I dont know. Im just not ready to call a peanut in the asteroid belt or a
satellite of a planet, a planet! The notion of planet can be simply defined and
already has been. The notion of sub-planets can be added. Or else we need
to reclassify Jupiter and Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as "asteroids which are
in the process of becoming asteroids?" ........ something crazy like that!
Its the craziness that seems to count most in what IAU has done. Sort of like
turning George Bush lose in a cocane shop when nobody is looking ?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2006 05:05:43
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
I thought it was clear that I was referring to the situation at hand, but
apparently it was not. At any rate, we seem to be in agreement.
RJ
"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message
news:ec653p$7bl$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> > As you seem to have noticed, all choices of a "dividing line" are
> > arbitrary, and indeed must be by the very nature of forming a
> > definition.
>
> Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are places in nature where a
> dividing line is natural, and is justified by the way it clarifies the
> work of those who specialize in that area. But I agree that I don't see
> such a natural dividing line here. No matter how we draw a line, there
> will be objects that straddle it--or so it seems at the present.
>
> --
> 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: 19 Aug 2006 12:37:30
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Concerning objections to referring to natural planetary satellites as
planets, and asteroids as planets I offer the following:
Asteroids have been planets for a long time -- minor planets. There
should be no problem classifying asteroids within an appropriate
planetary class.
As for a planet being a satellite of a planet, I see no problem there
either. Does an ornithologist classify a Red-tailed Hawk as a bird if
found in an urban area and a raptor if found in the Badlands?
I once took a course on planetary geology (two professors present at
all sessions: a geologist and an astronomer). In that course the
astronomer referred to the moon, as well as the large satellites of
the gas giants, as "planets." IIRC, he provided a reason similar to
what I gave in the preceding paragraph. When discussing geologic
features on the moon, similar features on the planet Mercury were also
covered. When the classes' attention was focused on Phobos and
Deimos, those *moons* were discussed as examples of specific
*asteroid* types.
A rose is a rose whether its located in a vase on your kitchen table,
in Patrick Moore's flower garden, or in orbit around Ceti-Apha V.
Willie R. Meghar
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2006 12:57:37
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Willie R. Meghar wrote:
> Concerning objections to referring to natural planetary satellites as
> planets, and asteroids as planets I offer the following:
>
> Asteroids have been planets for a long time -- minor planets. There
> should be no problem classifying asteroids within an appropriate
> planetary class.
>
> As for a planet being a satellite of a planet, I see no problem there
> either. Does an ornithologist classify a Red-tailed Hawk as a bird if
> found in an urban area and a raptor if found in the Badlands?
>
> I once took a course on planetary geology (two professors present at
> all sessions: a geologist and an astronomer). In that course the
> astronomer referred to the moon, as well as the large satellites of
> the gas giants, as "planets." IIRC, he provided a reason similar to
> what I gave in the preceding paragraph. When discussing geologic
> features on the moon, similar features on the planet Mercury were also
> covered. When the classes' attention was focused on Phobos and
> Deimos, those *moons* were discussed as examples of specific
> *asteroid* types.
Then is it the less than spherical shape of Deimos and Phobos that
differentiates them (as captured asteroids?) from "real" moons? Or is it
the weight of those moons?
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 19:14:41
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in the
> barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
Simple yet arbitrary. Of course, I also feel that way about the
proposed IAU definition, except that that one is a bit less simple, and
also less arbitrary.
--
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: 19 Aug 2006 03:07:42
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Arbitrary? Not really. There is nothing arbitrary about the mass of Pluto.
Only the choice is arbitrary, and even then, there is method to my madness.
It would serve to define an aesthetically pleasing Solar System (isn't
beauty important to all of us, subjective as it may be), and also be useful
in classifying unseen bodies in other stellar systems as instruments become
more advanced.
RJ
"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message
news:ec5s6h$6a6$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> > Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in
the
> > barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
>
> Simple yet arbitrary. Of course, I also feel that way about the
> proposed IAU definition, except that that one is a bit less simple, and
> also less arbitrary.
>
> --
> 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: 18 Aug 2006 20:35:53
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> Arbitrary? Not really. There is nothing arbitrary about the mass of Pluto.
> Only the choice is arbitrary, and even then, there is method to my madness.
That's what I'm calling arbitrary. Of course I'm not saying that the
mass of Pluto itself is arbitrary; I'm not even sure what that would
mean, exactly. It is what it is.
> It would serve to define an aesthetically pleasing Solar System (isn't
> beauty important to all of us, subjective as it may be), and also be useful
> in classifying unseen bodies in other stellar systems as instruments become
> more advanced.
It's useful inasmuch as it's simple and precise. But it's arbitrary in
the sense that what's beautiful to you may not be beautiful to others
(many clearly prefer the cleanness of eight major planets, with all the
debris relegated to belts), and it's also arbitrary in that there does
not seem to be anything particularly special about Pluto that warrants
making its mass the dividing line.
Mind you, I don't think it's particularly less suited to the job than
the IAU proposal. I think it's essentially impossible at this point in
time to create a definition that isn't either arbitrary or imprecise.
(Sometimes they're both.) My own definition was in response to Dale's
challenge, and an attempt to attain precision with the least amount of
arbitrariness--because I think for a definition whose stated purpose is
to be able to decide, in a timely fashion, whether something is a planet
or not, precision is more important than relevance. But at the end of
the day, I think my definition is fairly arbitrary, too. It's precise,
though--something which the IAU proposal doesn't have yet, as far as I
can tell.
Perhaps one day, when we understand the arrangement of our solar system
and that of others much better than we do now, we'll be able to answer
this question more rationally. But right now, I think we're basically
probing in the dark, both literally and figuratively.
--
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: 19 Aug 2006 04:48:31
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message
news:ec60up$6un$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> > Arbitrary? Not really. There is nothing arbitrary about the mass of
Pluto.
> > Only the choice is arbitrary, and even then, there is method to my
madness.
>
> That's what I'm calling arbitrary. Of course I'm not saying that the
> mass of Pluto itself is arbitrary; I'm not even sure what that would
> mean, exactly. It is what it is.
>
> > It would serve to define an aesthetically pleasing Solar System (isn't
> > beauty important to all of us, subjective as it may be), and also be
useful
> > in classifying unseen bodies in other stellar systems as instruments
become
> > more advanced.
>
> It's useful inasmuch as it's simple and precise. But it's arbitrary in
> the sense that what's beautiful to you may not be beautiful to others
> (many clearly prefer the cleanness of eight major planets, with all the
> debris relegated to belts), and it's also arbitrary in that there does
> not seem to be anything particularly special about Pluto that warrants
> making its mass the dividing line.
As you seem to have noticed, all choices of a "dividing line" are arbitrary,
and indeed must be by the very nature of forming a definition. In my case,
I must admit that not only aesthetics, but history played a role in my
decision. The discovery of Pluto was too important of an event to now cast
the object aside as so much rubble. And yet, the thought of allowing every
non-satellite spherical body to now be called a planet is unsettling as
well. I also wanted a definition that could be used to classify objects in
other stellar systems as our technology progressed. Thus my choice of using
the mass of Pluto as the standard. It seems to fulfill all *my*
requirements. That others may differ goes without saying.
> Mind you, I don't think it's particularly less suited to the job than
> the IAU proposal. I think it's essentially impossible at this point in
> time to create a definition that isn't either arbitrary or imprecise.
> (Sometimes they're both.) My own definition was in response to Dale's
> challenge, and an attempt to attain precision with the least amount of
> arbitrariness--because I think for a definition whose stated purpose is
> to be able to decide, in a timely fashion, whether something is a planet
> or not, precision is more important than relevance. But at the end of
> the day, I think my definition is fairly arbitrary, too. It's precise,
> though--something which the IAU proposal doesn't have yet, as far as I
> can tell.
>
> Perhaps one day, when we understand the arrangement of our solar system
> and that of others much better than we do now, we'll be able to answer
> this question more rationally. But right now, I think we're basically
> probing in the dark, both literally and figuratively.
>
I basically agree with everything, Brian, particularly this last paragraph.
Maybe one day...
RJ
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 21:46:49
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> As you seem to have noticed, all choices of a "dividing line" are
> arbitrary, and indeed must be by the very nature of forming a
> definition.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are places in nature where a
dividing line is natural, and is justified by the way it clarifies the
work of those who specialize in that area. But I agree that I don't see
such a natural dividing line here. No matter how we draw a line, there
will be objects that straddle it--or so it seems at the present.
--
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: 19 Aug 2006 03:40:30
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
>> Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in the
>> barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
>
> Simple yet arbitrary. Of course, I also feel that way about the
> proposed IAU definition, except that that one is a bit less simple, and
> also less arbitrary.
>
OK, I'll throw in my bit of arbitrariness.
I refuse to think of UB313 as a planet until it has an approved
"real" name.
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2006 02:46:55
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Richard Jarnagin wrote:
> Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in the
> barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
Have you perhaps mistaken SAA for the IAU? Or do the denizens of SAA
get a vote?
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | |
Date: 19 Aug 2006 07:38:30
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
No, and no. Just teasing. By all means, denizen... uh, I mean, Davoud,
that was the intent. Keep in mind I wasn't offering a complete definition,
only the lower limit. Also, please read the rest of the thread to see my
reasoning.
RJ
"Davoud" <star@sky.net > wrote in message
news:190820060246557856%star@sky.net...
> Richard Jarnagin wrote:
>
> > Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in
the
> > barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
>
> Have you perhaps mistaken SAA for the IAU? Or do the denizens of SAA
> get a vote?
>
> Davoud
>
> --
> usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | |
Date: 19 Aug 2006 00:21:20
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Davoud wrote:
> > Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in the
> > barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
>
> Have you perhaps mistaken SAA for the IAU? Or do the denizens of SAA
> get a vote?
If SAA ever decided to act as a unified whole (ha!), we could all get a
vote in what we decided "planet" to mean.
However, try talking to a brick wall.
--
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: 19 Aug 2006 18:30:18
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
|
Davoud:
> > ... do the denizens of SAA get a vote?
Brian Tung:
> If SAA ever decided to act as a unified whole (ha!), we could all get a
> vote in what we decided "planet" to mean.
> However, try talking to a brick wall.
This one floored me! Let me see, Daniel Min out front, leading the Mac
Brigade, the Windows Brigade, the Reflector Brigade, the Refractor
Brigade, the CCD Brigade, the Film Brigade, the Bush-Won Brigade, the
Bush-Lost Brigade, the Moon-Hoax Brigade, the Everything is a Planet
faction, the There Are No Planets Faction, and my own brave little
platoon, The-Universe-is-Only-a-Figment-So-Why-Worry-About-It Faction.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
|
