| |
Main
Date: 29 Aug 2006 01:48:26
From:
Subject: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
The researchers said Pluto failed to dominate its orbit around the Sun
in the same way as the other planets
For detail
http://www.studyandjobs.com/Pluto.htm
or
http://www.studyandjobs.com/basicscience_study.htm
Regards,
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:15:57
From: Double-A
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Starman wrote:
> Wrong !
> Pluto is a Dwarf planet, thats still a planet in the dictionary
>
> <studiescircle@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1156841306.505652.24620@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Pluto is out from planet dictionary
> > The researchers said Pluto failed to dominate its orbit around the Sun
> > in the same way as the other planets
> >
> > For detail
> > http://www.studyandjobs.com/Pluto.htm
> >
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://www.studyandjobs.com/basicscience_study.htm
> >
> > Regards,
> >
>
> ----------------------
Not much is being said about that fact that Ceres has also been
reclassified as a dwarf planet. This is a promotion for it since
before this it was called an asteroid. So I guess my campaign to
recognize Ceres as a planet was successful after all!
Double-A
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:36:32
From: Anthony Buckland
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Double-A" <double-aa@hush.ai > wrote in message
news:1156889757.132714.293100@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> ... Not much is being said about that fact that Ceres has also been
> reclassified as a dwarf planet. This is a promotion for it since
> before this it was called an asteroid. So I guess my campaign to
> recognize Ceres as a planet was successful after all!
>
> Double-A
>
To further confuse the issue, since Charon is in orbit,
not about Pluto, but, like Pluto, in orbit about a
point between the two, Charon should be a dwarf
planet and the Pluto-Charon system should be the
only known binary planetary system.
-----------------------
Xena was a modern mythological figure; recognize
Xena!
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 22:30:53
From: Starman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Wrong !
Pluto is a Dwarf planet, thats still a planet in the dictionary
<studiescircle@yahoo.com > skrev i en meddelelse
news:1156841306.505652.24620@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Pluto is out from planet dictionary
> The researchers said Pluto failed to dominate its orbit around the Sun
> in the same way as the other planets
>
> For detail
> http://www.studyandjobs.com/Pluto.htm
>
>
> or
>
> http://www.studyandjobs.com/basicscience_study.htm
>
> Regards,
>
----------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 9811 spam-mails
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent en gratis SPAMfighter her.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 07:36:08
From: Cardman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:30:53 +0200, "Starman" <starman@universe.dk >
wrote:
>Wrong !
>Pluto is a Dwarf planet, thats still a planet in the dictionary
The IAU was quite clear on this point.
Pluto can no longer be classed as a planet. And in the words of the
IAU host it is now only called a "dwarf planet" in order to keep the
public happy.
Seems like the members of the IAU consider the smaller big round
objects along with the other solar system trash.
So in the words of the IAU a dwarf planet is not a planet. =8- >
You can begin to see that this concept will not carry well. There is
likely to be endless public confusion until every non-expert considers
a dwarf planet to be a planet.
That would make this IAU definition kind of irrelevant...
Cardman.
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.co.uk
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:41:36
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Spurs Dave wrote:
>
> Tears in my eyes - Dave
Yeah...dang shame the bad ol' IAU sent that tow-truck out and had Pluto
removed from the Solar System.
;-)
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 22:34:24
From: Starman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
It's still in the solar system, it's just been categorized as a dwarf planet
in our solar system!
"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > skrev i en meddelelse
news:1156880496.088308.273850@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Spurs Dave wrote:
>
>>
>> Tears in my eyes - Dave
>
> Yeah...dang shame the bad ol' IAU sent that tow-truck out and had Pluto
> removed from the Solar System.
>
> ;-)
>
----------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 9811 spam-mails
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent en gratis SPAMfighter her.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 16:45:23
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Starman" <starman@universe.dk > wrote in message
news:44f4a4a2$0$3560$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> It's still in the solar system, it's just been categorized as a dwarf
> planet in our solar system!
Pluto is still a planet?
Then start calling a planet again, then, for the love of all that is good!
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 01:40:56
From: Starman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Then start to read: Pluto is a dwarf P L A N E T
what part of the word "planet" don't you understand?
If we should follow your logic, our sun would not be a star because it's a
yellow dwarf star
a human dwarf would not be a human, because he is a dwarf
see where this leads to?
you are as "smart" as some tv neworks that said "Pluto kicked out of our
solar system"
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > skrev i en meddelelse
news:12f9dbe4g66qp07@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Starman" <starman@universe.dk> wrote in message
> news:44f4a4a2$0$3560$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>> It's still in the solar system, it's just been categorized as a dwarf
>> planet in our solar system!
>
> Pluto is still a planet?
> Then start calling a planet again, then, for the love of all that is good!
>
----------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 9812 spam-mails
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent en gratis SPAMfighter her.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 20:55:30
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
"Starman" <starman@universe.dk > wrote in message
news:44f4d059$0$3511$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> Then start to read: Pluto is a dwarf P L A N E T
> what part of the word "planet" don't you understand?
>
> If we should follow your logic, our sun would not be a star because it's a
> yellow dwarf star
> a human dwarf would not be a human, because he is a dwarf
>
> see where this leads to?
>
> you are as "smart" as some tv neworks that said "Pluto kicked out of our
> solar system"
>
>
> "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:12f9dbe4g66qp07@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Starman" <starman@universe.dk> wrote in message
>> news:44f4a4a2$0$3560$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>>> It's still in the solar system, it's just been categorized as a dwarf
>>> planet in our solar system!
>>
>> Pluto is still a planet?
>> Then start calling a planet again, then, for the love of all that is
>> good!
>>
>
> ----------------------
> Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
> Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 9812 spam-mails
> Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
> Hent en gratis SPAMfighter her.
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:56:30
From: Spurs Dave
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
studiescircle@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yeh and Tony Blair's a socialist.
I may never see the little planet but I'll always think of it as one
even if my kid's grow up never knowing.
Tears in my eyes - Dave
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 15:52:25
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Starman wrote:
> It's still in the solar system, it's just been categorized as a dwarf planet
> in our solar system!
>
You thought I was serious about the tow-truck?!
I don't know what to say.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
The Annual SCT User Imaging Contest is Underway!
<http://www.rothritter.com/contest/2006/ >
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 04:52:29
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Not carry well with whom?
The public has already moved on. They are now more concerned about the
latest doings on the U.S. television show _Survivor_ than they are
about Pluto.
;-)
Cardman wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:30:53 +0200, "Starman" <starman@universe.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >Wrong !
> >Pluto is a Dwarf planet, thats still a planet in the dictionary
>
> The IAU was quite clear on this point.
>
> Pluto can no longer be classed as a planet. And in the words of the
> IAU host it is now only called a "dwarf planet" in order to keep the
> public happy.
>
> Seems like the members of the IAU consider the smaller big round
> objects along with the other solar system trash.
>
> So in the words of the IAU a dwarf planet is not a planet. =8->
>
> You can begin to see that this concept will not carry well. There is
> likely to be endless public confusion until every non-expert considers
> a dwarf planet to be a planet.
>
> That would make this IAU definition kind of irrelevant...
>
> Cardman.
> http://www.cardman.com
> http://www.cardman.org
> http://www.cardman.co.uk
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 15:04:23
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
studiescircle@yahoo.com wrote:
> Pluto is out from planet dictionary
Good.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 00:03:50
From: Billy No Mates
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157061863.803169.213250@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> studiescircle@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Pluto is out from planet dictionary
>
> Good.
>
What about Goofy?
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 18:08:30
From: honestjohn
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Billy No Mates" <Billy@Billyhasnomates.com > wrote in message
news:bL2dndXPM5JH92rZRVnyhQ@bt.com...
>
> "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157061863.803169.213250@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > studiescircle@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Pluto is out from planet dictionary
> >
> > Good.
> >
>
> What about Goofy?
>
And Deputy Dawg?
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 04:11:04
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Starman wrote:
> Then start to read: Pluto is a dwarf P L A N E T
> what part of the word "planet" don't you understand?
>
> If we should follow your logic, our sun would not be a star because it's a
> yellow dwarf star
> a human dwarf would not be a human, because he is a dwarf
>
> see where this leads to?
It isn't *his* decision that dwarf planets are not planets. That
decision was made by the IAU. The term dwarf planet is clearly assigned
to objects whose significance is essentially equivalent to that of
asteroids - also known as minor planets, by the way - and not that of
the major members of the solar system, the planets, which are named
according to a specific convention.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 02:47:32
From: Starman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
I don't understand what all the fuzz is about
I don't care if i have to call Pluto a mini planet, minor planet,tiny
planet,small planet, dwarf planet
as long as the word "planet" still can be used about Pluto
I could understand all the fuzz if they had made a decision to cancel the
word "planet" about Pluto and
we should call it a KBO, asteroid etc. but as long as i only have to add
"dwarf" in front of "planet"
I really don't see why people go bananas
No matter what, they can not change my definition of Pluto, it's still a
Planet in my mind
so be it that i must say "dwarf planet" it is a dwarf compared to other
"real" planets in our solar system!
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > skrev i en meddelelse
news:1157109064.801088.140790@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Starman wrote:
>> Then start to read: Pluto is a dwarf P L A N E T
>> what part of the word "planet" don't you understand?
>>
>> If we should follow your logic, our sun would not be a star because it's
>> a
>> yellow dwarf star
>> a human dwarf would not be a human, because he is a dwarf
>>
>> see where this leads to?
>
> It isn't *his* decision that dwarf planets are not planets. That
> decision was made by the IAU. The term dwarf planet is clearly assigned
> to objects whose significance is essentially equivalent to that of
> asteroids - also known as minor planets, by the way - and not that of
> the major members of the solar system, the planets, which are named
> according to a specific convention.
>
> John Savard
>
----------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 9868 spam-mails
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent en gratis SPAMfighter her.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 12:27:09
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message
news:1157109064.801088.140790@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Starman wrote:
>> Then start to read: Pluto is a dwarf P L A N E T
>> what part of the word "planet" don't you understand?
>>
>> If we should follow your logic, our sun would not be a star because it's
>> a
>> yellow dwarf star
>> a human dwarf would not be a human, because he is a dwarf
>>
>> see where this leads to?
>
> It isn't *his* decision that dwarf planets are not planets. That
> decision was made by the IAU. The term dwarf planet is clearly assigned
> to objects whose significance is essentially equivalent to that of
> asteroids - also known as minor planets, by the way - and not that of
> the major members of the solar system, the planets,
Nope, that is now "the classical planets".
> which are named
> according to a specific convention.
The IAU has provided a new definition for "planet" which
identifies a category of objects. That group is further
sub-divided into "classical" and "dwarf" which has nothing
to do with "significance", it only refers to whether the
object shares it's orbit with other material. If the
definition were extended to cover extra-solar objects,
an object ten times the mass of Jupiter would be a "dwarf"
planet if it existed in a still forming system where it
had not yet "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit".
Bizarre, but that's what the definition says.
George
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 03:21:21
From: Joe Jakarta
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
studiescircle@yahoo.com wrote:
> Pluto is out from planet dictionary
Fuck em.
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 02:20:43
From: Double-A
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
> Double-A writes:
>
> >> Mike Williams wrote:
>
> >>> 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>
> >> Which 2500 are you referring to? Only about 300 voted for the
> >> IAU resolution. That many have signed a petition that calls
> >> the IAU resolution flawed.
>
> > And were you among the 300 who voted, Dr. Tholen?
>
> Yes.
Thank you for your candor.
Double-A
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 10:18:54
From: Art Deco
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Double-A <double-aa@hush.ai > wrote:
>tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
>> Double-A writes:
>>
>> >> Mike Williams wrote:
>>
>> >>> 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>>
>> >> Which 2500 are you referring to? Only about 300 voted for the
>> >> IAU resolution. That many have signed a petition that calls
>> >> the IAU resolution flawed.
>>
>> > And were you among the 300 who voted, Dr. Tholen?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
>Thank you for your candor.
Thank you for your slurp.
>
>Double-A
>
--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 01:50:16
From: Double-A
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> Mike Williams writes:
>
> > 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>
> Which 2500 are you referring to? Only about 300 voted for the
> IAU resolution. That many have signed a petition that calls
> the IAU resolution flawed.
And were you among the 300 who voted, Dr. Tholen?
Double-A
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 09:06:12
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Double-A writes:
>> Mike Williams wrote:
>>> 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>> Which 2500 are you referring to? Only about 300 voted for the
>> IAU resolution. That many have signed a petition that calls
>> the IAU resolution flawed.
> And were you among the 300 who voted, Dr. Tholen?
Yes.
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 01:43:32
From: Double-A
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <1157090783.800480.265390@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> Double-A <double-aa@hush.ai> wrote:
> >
> >Mike Williams wrote:
> >> Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
> >> >If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
> >> >Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
> >>
> >> I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
> >> planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
> >> planets" are not planets now.
> >>
> >> Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mike Williams
> >> Gentleman of Leisure
> >
> >
> >More like the 300 that actually voted.
> >
> >Double-A
>
> Those 2200 who didn't care to vote probably won't care now either....
Perhaps the 2200 just don't want their names on the record on one side
or the other of a very controversial issue!
Double-A
> It's a bit like a US presidential election: the majority of the voters
> don't bother to vote. One of the candidates wins the election - does that
> make the non-voters change their minds? In almost all cases: no.
>
> --
> ------
> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 10:12:44
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In article <1157100212.650902.259370@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
Double-A <double-aa@hush.ai > wrote:
>
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> In article <1157090783.800480.265390@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
>> Double-A <double-aa@hush.ai> wrote:
>> >
>> >Mike Williams wrote:
>> >> Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
>> >> >If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
>> >> >Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
>> >>
>> >> I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
>> >> planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
>> >> planets" are not planets now.
>> >>
>> >> Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Mike Williams
>> >> Gentleman of Leisure
>> >
>> >
>> >More like the 300 that actually voted.
>> >
>> >Double-A
>>
>> Those 2200 who didn't care to vote probably won't care now either....
>
>
>Perhaps the 2200 just don't want their names on the record on one side
>or the other of a very controversial issue!
>
>Double-A
Nah -- I think it's far more likely that they - rightly - think the
precise definition of "planet" is unimportant from a scientific point
of view. It's more of a public-relations issue.
>
>> It's a bit like a US presidential election: the majority of the voters
>> don't bother to vote. One of the candidates wins the election - does that
>> make the non-voters change their minds? In almost all cases: no.
>>
>> --
>-----------
>> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
>> e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
>> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
>
--
------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 11:18:14
From: Mike Dworetsky
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Double-A" <double-aa@hush.ai > wrote in message
news:1157100212.650902.259370@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > In article <1157090783.800480.265390@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> > Double-A <double-aa@hush.ai> wrote:
> > >
> > >Mike Williams wrote:
> > >> Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
> > >> >If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
> > >> >Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
> > >>
> > >> I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
> > >> planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then.
"Dwarf
> > >> planets" are not planets now.
> > >>
> > >> Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Mike Williams
> > >> Gentleman of Leisure
> > >
> > >
> > >More like the 300 that actually voted.
> > >
> > >Double-A
> >
> > Those 2200 who didn't care to vote probably won't care now either....
>
>
> Perhaps the 2200 just don't want their names on the record on one side
> or the other of a very controversial issue!
>
> Double-A
I was there, voting. There was only a record of the count, not of the names
of the voters. Do you think I could get something for my historic yellow
voting card, signed and dated, if I put it on e-Bay? Could I get double the
amount if I record on it which way I voted?
The General Assembly had about 2,450 registered participants. Some of these
only attended the first week. Despite the controversy, as usual the
majority of those at the Assembly did not bother to go to the closing
session. The rules say that only the votes of those present and voting
count (and abstentions count--it has to be a majority of the vote, so a lot
of abstentions can result in a resolution not being carried in a close
vote).
There was a lot of reasoned debate on both sides of the question during the
session (pesky thing really dragged on). I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 11:08:12
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Mike Dworetsky writes:
> I have no reason to think that, if
> all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
> any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
> wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
> present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
> sampling of the overall views of members.
Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 18:03:13
From: Mike Dworetsky
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
<tholen@antispam.ham > wrote in message
news:wCdKg.6550$Cs3.6441@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Mike Dworetsky writes:
>
> > I have no reason to think that, if
> > all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have
been
> > any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
> > wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish
those
> > present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
> > sampling of the overall views of members.
>
> Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
> one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
> "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
> their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
> then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
>
I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
of different accents.
The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:00:07
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Mike Dworetsky writes:
>>> I have no reason to think that, if
>>> all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
>>> any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
>>> wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
>>> present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
>>> sampling of the overall views of members.
>> Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
>> one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
>> "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
>> their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
>> then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
> I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
> on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
> of different accents.
And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
petition?
> The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
> trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
> discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.
The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
more than a third of the total.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 21:36:30
From: Mike Dworetsky
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
<tholen@antispam.ham > wrote in message
news:bplKg.20950$YC3.10930@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Mike Dworetsky writes:
>
> >>> I have no reason to think that, if
> >>> all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have
been
> >>> any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the
financial
> >>> wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish
those
> >>> present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
> >>> sampling of the overall views of members.
>
> >> Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
> >> one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
> >> "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
> >> their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
> >> then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
>
> > I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national
lines
> > on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and
lots
> > of different accents.
>
> And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
> petition?
>
I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names, but I didn't get the
impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a
fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd
say that, whichever way the vote went.
> > The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
> > trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
> > discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a
factor.
>
> The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
> ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
> didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
> 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
> more than a third of the total.
>
This discussion is going way off topic. Somehow I don't think the make up
of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 21:24:19
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Mike Dworetsky writes:
>>>>> I have no reason to think that, if
>>>>> all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
>>>>> any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
>>>>> wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
>>>>> present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
>>>>> sampling of the overall views of members.
>>>> Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
>>>> one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
>>>> "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
>>>> their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
>>>> then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
>>> I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
>>> on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
>>> of different accents.
>> And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
>> petition?
> I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,
On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.
> but I didn't get the
> impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
> somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a
> fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd
> say that, whichever way the vote went.
Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one
particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there,
such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the
U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
process without them, right?
>>> The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
>>> trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
>>> discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.
>> The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
>> ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
>> didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
>> 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
>> more than a third of the total.
> This discussion is going way off topic.
Not at all.
> Somehow I don't think the make up
> of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.
On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 11:35:12
From: Mike Dworetsky
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
<tholen@antispam.ham > wrote in message
news:7EmKg.9372$S_5.2754@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Mike Dworetsky writes:
>
> >>>>> I have no reason to think that, if
> >>>>> all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would
have been
> >>>>> any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the
financial
> >>>>> wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to
distinguish those
> >>>>> present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
> >>>>> sampling of the overall views of members.
>
> >>>> Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
> >>>> one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
> >>>> "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
> >>>> their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that
possibility,
> >>>> then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
>
> >>> I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national
lines
> >>> on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and
lots
> >>> of different accents.
>
> >> And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
> >> petition?
>
> > I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,
>
> On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
> download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
> definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
> to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
> 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
> the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.
>
But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it
lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting.
Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition
supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A? If not, then your
petition is inherently biased.
> > but I didn't get the
> > impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
> > somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we
had a
> > fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were.
I'd
> > say that, whichever way the vote went.
>
> Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
> voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one
> particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there,
> such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the
> U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
> process without them, right?
>
Irrelevant. The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution. I
consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system. It
would be far fairer to do away with that. All Americans who go to the polls
and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in
the "Old South" do not take place) can do so. Absentee ballots are only a
small proportion of the total vote. And the ballots they receive are
identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths.
Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that
resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in
exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the
final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions
Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote. Under
such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold. I suspect that
many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original
wording, not the final wording.
> >>> The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
> >>> trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
> >>> discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a
factor.
>
> >> The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of
course,
> >> ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places
that
> >> didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of
a
> >> 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was
easily
> >> more than a third of the total.
>
> > This discussion is going way off topic.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > Somehow I don't think the make up
> > of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.
>
> On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
> to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.
>
It was a fair sampling, certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures
only from opponents of the resolution. End of argument.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 11:37:18
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Mike Dworetsky writes:
>>>>>>> I have no reason to think that, if
>>>>>>> all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
>>>>>>> any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
>>>>>>> wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
>>>>>>> present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
>>>>>>> sampling of the overall views of members.
>>>>>> Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
>>>>>> one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
>>>>>> "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
>>>>>> their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
>>>>>> then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
>>>>> I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
>>>>> on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
>>>>> of different accents.
>>>> And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
>>>> petition?
>>> I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,
>> On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
>> download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
>> definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
>> to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
>> 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
>> the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.
> But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it
> lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
had taken names.
> Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition
> supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A?
Be my guest.
> If not, then your petition is inherently biased.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I
only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for,
and had taken names.
>>> but I didn't get the
>>> impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
>>> somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a
>>> fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd
>>> say that, whichever way the vote went.
>> Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
>> voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one
>> particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there,
>> such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the
>> U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
>> process without them, right?
> Irrelevant.
On the contrary, it's quite relevant.
> The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution.
The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the
General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict
voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient
opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored
the vote on scientific matters to the individual members.
> I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system.
And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you.
> It would be far fairer to do away with that.
That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives
inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man,
one vote"?
> All Americans who go to the polls
> and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in
> the "Old South" do not take place) can do so.
Quite different from the IAU.
> Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote.
Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote
is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat.
> And the ballots they receive are
> identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths.
Also irrelevant.
> Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that
> resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in
> exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the
> final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions
> Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote.
And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun
(a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider
all of the consequences of an action.
> Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold.
Then change the circumstances.
> I suspect that
> many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original
> wording, not the final wording.
Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed?
>>>>> The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
>>>>> trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
>>>>> discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.
>>>> The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
>>>> ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
>>>> didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
>>>> 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
>>>> more than a third of the total.
>>> This discussion is going way off topic.
>> Not at all.
>>> Somehow I don't think the make up
>>> of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.
>> On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
>> to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.
> It was a fair sampling,
How do you know?
> certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures
> only from opponents of the resolution.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
that it had taken names.
> End of argument.
According to whom?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 22:40:00
From: Mike Dworetsky
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
<tholen@antispam.ham > wrote in message
news:O7zKg.9294$Cs3.3191@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Mike Dworetsky writes:
>
> >>>>>>> I have no reason to think that, if
> >>>>>>> all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would
have been
> >>>>>>> any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the
financial
> >>>>>>> wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to
distinguish those
> >>>>>>> present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a
fair
> >>>>>>> sampling of the overall views of members.
>
> >>>>>> Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more
than
> >>>>>> one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
> >>>>>> "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
> >>>>>> their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that
possibility,
> >>>>>> then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
>
> >>>>> I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along
national lines
> >>>>> on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides,
and lots
> >>>>> of different accents.
>
> >>>> And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
> >>>> petition?
>
> >>> I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,
>
> >> On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
> >> download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
> >> definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
> >> to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
> >> 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
> >> the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.
>
> > But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll;
it
> > lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and
voting.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
> noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
> had taken names.
>
> > Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a
petition
> > supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A?
>
> Be my guest.
>
> > If not, then your petition is inherently biased.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I
> only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for,
> and had taken names.
>
> >>> but I didn't get the
> >>> impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
> >>> somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we
had a
> >>> fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were.
I'd
> >>> say that, whichever way the vote went.
>
> >> Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
> >> voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on
one
> >> particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be
there,
> >> such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe
the
> >> U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
> >> process without them, right?
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant.
>
> > The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution.
>
> The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the
> General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict
> voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient
> opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored
> the vote on scientific matters to the individual members.
>
> > I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system.
>
> And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you.
>
> > It would be far fairer to do away with that.
>
> That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives
> inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man,
> one vote"?
>
> > All Americans who go to the polls
> > and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as
in
> > the "Old South" do not take place) can do so.
>
> Quite different from the IAU.
>
> > Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote.
>
> Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote
> is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat.
>
> > And the ballots they receive are
> > identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths.
>
> Also irrelevant.
>
> > Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that
> > resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended
in
> > exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before
the
> > final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the
Resolutions
> > Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote.
>
> And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun
> (a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider
> all of the consequences of an action.
>
> > Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold.
>
> Then change the circumstances.
>
> > I suspect that
> > many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original
> > wording, not the final wording.
>
> Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed?
>
> >>>>> The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
> >>>>> trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
> >>>>> discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a
factor.
>
> >>>> The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of
course,
> >>>> ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places
that
> >>>> didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost
of a
> >>>> 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was
easily
> >>>> more than a third of the total.
>
> >>> This discussion is going way off topic.
>
> >> Not at all.
>
> >>> Somehow I don't think the make up
> >>> of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.
>
> >> On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
> >> to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.
>
> > It was a fair sampling,
>
> How do you know?
>
> > certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures
> > only from opponents of the resolution.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
> noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
> that it had taken names.
>
> > End of argument.
>
> According to whom?
>
Me. I don't really feel like going around and around and around with this
any more. I've stated my position several times and if you don't like it,
carry on with your petition or whatever and good luck to you. Argue with
someone else. I've got work to do.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 21:58:15
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Mike Dworetsky writes:
>>>>>>>>> I have no reason to think that, if
>>>>>>>>> all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
>>>>>>>>> any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
>>>>>>>>> wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
>>>>>>>>> present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
>>>>>>>>> sampling of the overall views of members.
>>>>>>>> Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
>>>>>>>> one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
>>>>>>>> "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
>>>>>>>> their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
>>>>>>>> then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.
>>>>>>> I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
>>>>>>> on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
>>>>>>> of different accents.
>>>>>> And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
>>>>>> petition?
>>>>> I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,
>>>> On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
>>>> download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
>>>> definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
>>>> to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
>>>> 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
>>>> the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.
>>> But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it
>>> lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting.
>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
>> noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
>> had taken names.
>>> Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition
>>> supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A?
>> Be my guest.
>>> If not, then your petition is inherently biased.
>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I
>> only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for,
>> and had taken names.
>>>>> but I didn't get the
>>>>> impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
>>>>> somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a
>>>>> fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd
>>>>> say that, whichever way the vote went.
>>>> Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
>>>> voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one
>>>> particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there,
>>>> such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the
>>>> U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
>>>> process without them, right?
>>> Irrelevant.
>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant.
>>> The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution.
>> The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the
>> General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict
>> voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient
>> opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored
>> the vote on scientific matters to the individual members.
>>> I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system.
>> And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you.
>>> It would be far fairer to do away with that.
>> That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives
>> inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man,
>> one vote"?
>>> All Americans who go to the polls
>>> and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in
>>> the "Old South" do not take place) can do so.
>> Quite different from the IAU.
>>> Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote.
>> Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote
>> is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat.
>>> And the ballots they receive are
>>> identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths.
>> Also irrelevant.
>>> Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that
>>> resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in
>>> exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the
>>> final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions
>>> Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote.
>> And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun
>> (a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider
>> all of the consequences of an action.
>>> Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold.
>> Then change the circumstances.
>>> I suspect that
>>> many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original
>>> wording, not the final wording.
>> Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed?
>>>>>>> The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
>>>>>>> trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
>>>>>>> discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.
>>>>>> The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
>>>>>> ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
>>>>>> didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
>>>>>> 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
>>>>>> more than a third of the total.
>>>>> This discussion is going way off topic.
>>>> Not at all.
>>>>> Somehow I don't think the make up
>>>>> of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.
>>>> On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
>>>> to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.
>>> It was a fair sampling,
>> How do you know?
>>> certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures
>>> only from opponents of the resolution.
>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
>> noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
>> that it had taken names.
>>> End of argument.
>> According to whom?
> Me.
Who assigned you the arbitor of when an argument is over?
> I don't really feel like going around and around and around with this
> any more.
Just because you don't feel like continuing doesn't mean the argument is
over.
> I've stated my position several times and if you don't like it,
> carry on with your petition or whatever and good luck to you.
You're erroneously presupposing that it's my petition.
> Argue with someone else.
Been there, done that.
> I've got work to do.
As if I don't. It is the Labor Day weekend, however. Don't you have
a holiday?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 19:34:30
From: Art Deco
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Classic "oar pin" Tholenator(tm) <"tholen@antispam.ham" > tholed:
[snippage]
>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
>>> noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
>>> that it had taken names.
>
>>>> End of argument.
>
>>> According to whom?
>
>> Me.
>
>Who assigned you the arbitor of when an argument is over?
>
>> I don't really feel like going around and around and around with this
>> any more.
>
>Just because you don't feel like continuing doesn't mean the argument is
>over.
>
>> I've stated my position several times and if you don't like it,
>> carry on with your petition or whatever and good luck to you.
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that it's my petition.
>
>> Argue with someone else.
>
>Been there, done that.
>
>> I've got work to do.
>
>As if I don't. It is the Labor Day weekend, however. Don't you have
>a holiday?
You forgot to lame "Note: no response" a half-dozen times, Tholenator.
--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 06:10:07
From: Joseph Lazio
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
>>>>> "MD" == Mike Dworetsky <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> writes:
MD > I was there, voting. There was only a record of the count, not of
MD > the names of the voters. Do you think I could get something for
MD > my historic yellow voting card, signed and dated, if I put it on
MD > e-Bay? Could I get double the amount if I record on it which way
MD > I voted?
I talked to another IAU Member who had the foresight to get his yellow
voting card signed by Jocelyn Bell-Burnell (the chair of the
session). After he told me that, I was kicking myself for not doing
it, too.
OTOH, maybe it would make more sense to have Virginia Trimble (the
person in charge of the voting) sign the card. :)
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 23:06:23
From: Double-A
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Mike Williams wrote:
> Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
> >If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
> >Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
>
> I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
> planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
> planets" are not planets now.
>
> Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>
> --
> Mike Williams
> Gentleman of Leisure
More like the 300 that actually voted.
Double-A
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 07:12:56
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In article <1157090783.800480.265390@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >,
Double-A <double-aa@hush.ai > wrote:
>
>Mike Williams wrote:
>> Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
>> >If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
>> >Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
>>
>> I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
>> planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
>> planets" are not planets now.
>>
>> Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Williams
>> Gentleman of Leisure
>
>
>More like the 300 that actually voted.
>
>Double-A
Those 2200 who didn't care to vote probably won't care now either....
It's a bit like a US presidential election: the majority of the voters
don't bother to vote. One of the candidates wins the election - does that
make the non-voters change their minds? In almost all cases: no.
--
-----------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 02:17:52
From: nightbat
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
nightbat wrote
Double-A wrote:
> Mike Williams wrote:
>
>>Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
>>
>>>If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
>>>Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
>>
>>I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
>>planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
>>planets" are not planets now.
>>
>>Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>>
>>--
>>Mike Williams
>>Gentleman of Leisure
> Commander Double-A
> More like the 300 that actually voted.
>
> Double-A
>
nightbat
Correct Commander and the rest were coffee boy bad brew served
and put to sleep we just know it, oh heavens! If they can get rid of our
Pluto all planets are in danger of being made obsolete, Seans were are
you! Is there safety in numbers don't bet on it.
See:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060831_planet_definition.html
ponder on,
the nightbat
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 06:30:01
From: Mike Williams
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
>If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
>Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
planets" are not planets now.
Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
|
| | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 08:43:53
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Mike Williams writes:
> 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
Which 2500 are you referring to? Only about 300 voted for the
IAU resolution. That many have signed a petition that calls
the IAU resolution flawed.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 00:54:18
From: Mark Earnest
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Mike Williams" <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:WrUWVIAZV89EFwiz@econym.demon.co.uk...
> Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
>>If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
>>Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
>
> I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
> planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
> planets" are not planets now.
>
> Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
Forget them. They have no right to control what we think.
We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System,
and imagined ice crystal creatures radioing each other by telepathy from
there, discussing the mysteries of the universe at large.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 13:43:01
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In article <12fi749ekpa9a39@corp.supernews.com >,
Mark Earnest <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote:
> "Mike Williams" <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WrUWVIAZV89EFwiz@econym.demon.co.uk...
>> Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
>>>If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
>>>Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
>>
>> I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
>> planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
>> planets" are not planets now.
>>
>> Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>
> Forget them. They have no right to control what we think.
> We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System,
> and imagined ice crystal creatures radioing each other by telepathy from
> there, discussing the mysteries of the universe at large.
Calm down - astronomers can indeed not control what people think.
The popularity of astrology is proof enough for that....
--
------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 11:19:31
From: Mike Dworetsky
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:12fi749ekpa9a39@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mike Williams" <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WrUWVIAZV89EFwiz@econym.demon.co.uk...
> > Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
> >>If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
> >>Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
> >
> > I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
> > planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
> > planets" are not planets now.
> >
> > Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>
> Forget them. They have no right to control what we think.
> We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System,
> and imagined ice crystal creatures radioing each other by telepathy from
> there, discussing the mysteries of the universe at large.
>
>
>
They can still do so even if Pluto is now recognised as a "dwarf planet".
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 16:13:23
From: Lora Crighton
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Mark Earnest wrote:
> "Mike Williams" <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WrUWVIAZV89EFwiz@econym.demon.co.uk...
>> Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
>>> If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
>>> Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
>> I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
>> planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
>> planets" are not planets now.
>>
>> Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.
>
> Forget them. They have no right to control what we think.
> We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System,
If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really make a
different - it's still just as fascinating.
--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 06:50:37
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro Lora Crighton <singer@yorku.ca > wrote:
> If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really make a
> different - it's still just as fascinating.
Hello, Lora, and this important point lends a bit of perspective, along with a
realization that the "Is a dwarf planet best viewed as a subtype of planet?"
question is partly one of taste or style. People can agree on the facts regarding
the outdated nature of the "nine major planets" model, but differ on which usage
consistent with a updated model is most apt or felicitous.
Before explaining my own position, I would like to support Mike Dworetsky's
point that people can differ in our preferred usages while respecting the IAU
and those favoring the adopted Resolution 5A as the best solution. The IAU has
made many contributions to promoting international peace and understanding,
and I hope that efforts to improve or expand planetary taxonomy will go
forward in this spirit of mutual respect and civility.
Personally I like the approach that defines "planet" in the broad sense to mean
either a "major planet" which does establish dynamical dominance by "clearing
the neighborhood of its orbit"; or a "dwarf planet" or "belt planet" (latter term
borrowed from Gibor Basri) which likewise is massive enough to constrain itself
by self-gravity to a nearly spherical shape -- but is merely one main attraction
among a large population of bodies sharing its orbital neighborhood and not under
its gravitational dominance.
This view, at least as much as the currently adopted IAU view of treating
"planet" as meaning only orbit-clearing or major planets, involves updating
our perspective on the Solar System.
It says, basically, that Giuseppe Piazzi in 1801 and Clyde Tombaugh in 1930
both discovered bodies (Ceres in the asteroid belt and Pluto in the Kuiper
Belt) which were correctly considered new planets -- but not yet recognized
as indeed representing a new kind of planet, a "dwarf" or "belt" planet --
with likely a score or more of such planets still to be found!
By the way, while "dwarf planet" (by analogy with dwarf star) is fine, the
term "belt planet" has the advantage of focusing specifically on orbital
"ecology" rather than size. If, say, a dwarf or belt planet were found in
the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud which happened to be more massive than our
smallest orbit-clearing or major planet Mercury, the special aptness of
the latter term would be clearer.
Given that informed and reasonable people can and do differ in their
preferences as to whether "planet" should be taken to include both
"major planet" and "dwarf planet" or "belt planet," the best way to
achieve some consensus may be for the IAU at its next General Assembly
in 2009 to grant official recognition to both usages.
Taking a leaf from the biological sciences, as I've written in another
thread, astronomy should recognize the definition of a planet either
"strictly speaking" (_sensu stricto_) to mean a major planet only, or
"broadly speaking" (_sensu lato_) to mean either a major planet or
dwarf planet.
Especially in matters of usage or taste, sometimes "agreeing to differ"
can be the wisest policy. Both usages are logical and consistent with
the new scientific perspective on our Solar System -- and recognizing
both might make for a richer and more diverse planet Earth.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 20:58:04
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Margo Schulter" <mschulter@web1.calweb.com > wrote in message
news:44fbccbd$0$84236$d368eab@news.calweb.com...
> In sci.astro Lora Crighton <singer@yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>> If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really
>> make a
>> different - it's still just as fascinating.
I think Lora's view is by far the most sensible. We
aren't going to tell New Horizons to come back!
> Hello, Lora, and this important point lends a bit of perspective, along
> with a
> realization that the "Is a dwarf planet best viewed as a subtype of
> planet?"
> question is partly one of taste or style.
Actually it is a question of language and I think this
is precisely what the pro-planet lobby were trying to
achieve is proposal 5B, to reinstate Pluto by the back
door by creating a subtype by the addition of the word
"classical" to the definition of "planet". We should
note that this was specifically rejected by the vote so,
as you correctly note below, the current IAU definition
does not includes sub-types of "planet" but provides two
mutually exclusive groups called "planets" and "dwarf
planets".
> People can agree on the facts regarding
> the outdated nature of the "nine major planets" model, but differ on which
> usage
> consistent with a updated model is most apt or felicitous.
>
> Before explaining my own position, I would like to support Mike
> Dworetsky's
> point that people can differ in our preferred usages while respecting the
> IAU
> and those favoring the adopted Resolution 5A as the best solution. ..
Certainly people will continue to describe Pluto in
the way they want, and to a high degree the definition
of language springs from common usage. In that sense
the definition decreed by the IAU may in the end turn
out to be academic. It will be interesting to see how
quickly any major dictionaries revise their entries.
> Personally I like the approach that defines "planet" in the broad sense to
> mean
> either a "major planet" which does establish dynamical dominance by
> "clearing
> the neighborhood of its orbit"; or a "dwarf planet" or "belt planet"
> (latter term
> borrowed from Gibor Basri) which likewise is massive enough to constrain
> itself
> by self-gravity to a nearly spherical shape -- but is merely one main
> attraction
> among a large population of bodies sharing its orbital neighborhood and
> not under
> its gravitational dominance.
That is the option presented in Resolution 5B with your
choice of "major" replacing the proposed "classical".
That proposal was not carried hence as you make clear
next, the IAU definition now recognises on those you
describe as "orbit-clearing" as true planets.
I suspect this question may crop up regularly in the
future so I have written a brief page to avoid having
to repeat my views. It is a bit rough at the moment and
not checked so may have some errors. Comments welcome.
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/planet.html
George
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 21:22:22
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>
>> In sci.astro Lora Crighton <singer@yorku.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really
>>> make a
>>> different - it's still just as fascinating.
>
> I think Lora's view is by far the most sensible. We
> aren't going to tell New Horizons to come back!
Agreed, Lora and George!
> Actually it is a question of language and I think this
> is precisely what the pro-planet lobby were trying to
> achieve is proposal 5B, to reinstate Pluto by the back
> door by creating a subtype by the addition of the word
> "classical" to the definition of "planet". We should
> note that this was specifically rejected by the vote so,
> as you correctly note below, the current IAU definition
> does not includes sub-types of "planet" but provides two
> mutually exclusive groups called "planets" and "dwarf
> planets".
We see this very much the same way, and your outstanding
Web page mentioned below very nicely sums up the logic.
A curious question: Why did the supporters of 5B choose
"classical planet" rather than "major planet"? The latter
term seems to me much more familiar, comprehensible, and
pertinent to the issue of dynamical dominance.
> Certainly people will continue to describe Pluto in
> the way they want, and to a high degree the definition
> of language springs from common usage. In that sense
> the definition decreed by the IAU may in the end turn
> out to be academic. It will be interesting to see how
> quickly any major dictionaries revise their entries.
Yes, and I would give the IAU credit for nicely identifying
most of the main relevant distinctions if one is seeking
reasonably consistent definitions.
> That is the option presented in Resolution 5B with your
> choice of "major" replacing the proposed "classical".
> That proposal was not carried hence as you make clear
> next, the IAU definition now recognises on those you
> describe as "orbit-clearing" as true planets.
Exactly: "planet" in 5A equals "major planet" in a usage
like that of 5B.
Another way of putting this is that in 5A, "planet" might
be said to have a specific meaning: a traditionnal "major
planet" that has cleared its orbit. In 5B or my variant,
"planet" has a generic meaning embracing two species,
"major planet" (orbit-clearing) and "dwarf planet" (not
orbit-clearing).
> I suspect this question may crop up regularly in the
> future so I have written a brief page to avoid having
> to repeat my views. It is a bit rough at the moment and
> not checked so may have some errors. Comments welcome.
>
> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/planet.html
Thank you for an excellent presentation! You combine the
actual resolutions with a step-by-step commentary making
the texts and the logic of their interpretation very
conveniently accessible.
Of course, I could proofread more closely -- but it's a
fine explanation, and may incidentally help to correct
the understanding which some people might still have
that 5B passed. What I'd guess is that people saw an
IAU Web page of _pending_ resolutions posted prior
to the vote, including 5B, and get the impression
that "classical planet" was actually adopted. Your
page makes it clear that 5B was, of course, defeated,
and draws from that the logical conclusions.
The one thing that might be added -- especially if
you or others can improve on my first quick attempt --
is a set of diagrams to show visually the levels of
definition we're discussing. Here's that crude first
try; note, by the way, that after the diagrams of
5A and 5B, there's a diagram for the kind of compromise
I've proposed, where the term "planet" actually appears
twice, once in a generic meaning (like the defeated 5B)
and once in a specific meaning (like the adopted 5A),
allowing a choice between the two usages.
[composed with monospaced font]
-----------------------
Resolution 5A (Adopted)
-----------------------
------------------ Solar system bodies -----------------
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 00:34:56
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Margo Schulter" <mschulter@web1.calweb.com > wrote in message
news:44fdea8e$0$84249$d368eab@news.calweb.com...
> In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<much trimmed as we seem to be in agreement >
> We see this very much the same way, and your outstanding
> Web page mentioned below very nicely sums up the logic.
Thanks.
> A curious question: Why did the supporters of 5B choose
> "classical planet" rather than "major planet"? The latter
> term seems to me much more familiar, comprehensible, and
> pertinent to the issue of dynamical dominance.
Beats me. It made "classical" the antonym of "dwarf",
great for Trivial Pursuit but rather odd by any other
standard.
<snip >
> Another way of putting this is that in 5A, "planet" might
> be said to have a specific meaning: a traditionnal "major
> planet" that has cleared its orbit. In 5B or my variant,
> "planet" has a generic meaning embracing two species,
> "major planet" (orbit-clearing) and "dwarf planet" (not
> orbit-clearing).
Indeed, though I think that opens up the original problem
of producing thousands of planets most of which are too
small to deserve that name given the traditional meaning
of the word.
Incidentally this page gives an interesting history of
the use of "asteroid" versus "minor planet"
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/AsteroidHistory/minorplanets.html
I think the public view might be that Ceres and the larger
bodies might be justifiably called "minor planets" while
the word "asteroid" is more apt for assorted small rubble.
>> I suspect this question may crop up regularly in the
>> future so I have written a brief page to avoid having
>> to repeat my views. It is a bit rough at the moment and
>> not checked so may have some errors. Comments welcome.
>>
>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/planet.html
>
> Thank you for an excellent presentation! You combine the
> actual resolutions with a step-by-step commentary making
> the texts and the logic of their interpretation very
> conveniently accessible.
Thanks.
> Of course, I could proofread more closely
I am hoping to be more accurate in some of the grammatical
terms I am using but that's less important than getting the
understanding across.
> -- but it's a
> fine explanation, and may incidentally help to correct
> the understanding which some people might still have
> that 5B passed. What I'd guess is that people saw an
> IAU Web page of _pending_ resolutions posted prior
> to the vote, including 5B, and get the impression
> that "classical planet" was actually adopted. Your
> page makes it clear that 5B was, of course, defeated,
> and draws from that the logical conclusions.
Actually I was one of those people until someone
mentioned the result. The IAU web site doesn't actually
highlight the vote results on their home page ... hold
the phone, yes it does now. There is now a link which
wasn't there when I went out a few hours ago. I haven't
had a chance to check in detail but the formal page
looks the same as 5A at first glance.
> The one thing that might be added -- especially if
> you or others can improve on my first quick attempt --
> is a set of diagrams to show visually the levels of
> definition we're discussing. Here's that crude first
> try; note, by the way, that after the diagrams of
> 5A and 5B, there's a diagram for the kind of compromise
> I've proposed, where the term "planet" actually appears
> twice, once in a generic meaning (like the defeated 5B)
> and once in a specific meaning (like the adopted 5A),
> allowing a choice between the two usages.
>
> [composed with monospaced font]
Excellent stuff Margo. I think this might best be laid out
as a flowchart. I had thought of producing a Venn diagram
but that approach isn't so effective. I had some trouble
with satellite as well because "is not a satellite" is not
a requirement for a planet. Perhaps that was left over from
when they were considering Pluto and Charon to be a double
system. Anyway it moves the test to another point in your
chart though I'm not sure where yet. Also the start point
should be "celestial body" rather than "Solar system bodies".
I'll have to look at this in more detail but if you don't
mind I'll add something like it to the web page.
> -----------------------
> Resolution 5A (Adopted)
> -----------------------
>
> ------------------ Solar system bodies -----------------
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 11:06:11
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>
> "Margo Schulter" <mschulter@web1.calweb.com> wrote in message
> news:44fdea8e$0$84249$d368eab@news.calweb.com...
>> In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <much trimmed as we seem to be in agreement>
Please let me say "indeed."
<more trimming.
>> A curious question: Why did the supporters of 5B choose
>> "classical planet" rather than "major planet"? The latter
>> term seems to me much more familiar, comprehensible, and
>> pertinent to the issue of dynamical dominance.
>
> Beats me. It made "classical" the antonym of "dwarf",
> great for Trivial Pursuit but rather odd by any other
> standard.
Yes.
If I were asked to define "classical planets," I might say
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn -- assuming
that we mean the ones known before the discovery of Uranus,
and still considered planets (since originally the Sun and
Moon were also "wandering stars," and therefore planets).
It might be interesting to ask at what point Earth was first
called a planet -- this could get into an interesting search
of people like Nicholas of Cusa in the mid-15th century. Maybe
a quest for another thread.
Anyway, getting back to the IAU. From a diplomatic viewpoint,
if I were trying to get supporters of 5A to consider a
not-too-unfriendly amendment, I'd definitely choose "_major_
planet" for something like 5B. Clearly one of their points,
maybe the main one, is that Pluto definitely belongs in a
category other than that of the eight major planets -- and
likewise with 2003 UB313, as well as Ceres.
Since I agree completely with the adopters of 5A that Pluto
isn't a major planet but a dwarf planet, with dynamical
dominance as the difference, I'd try to join with them in
crafting language that affirms this point. The "classical"
thing might obscure rather than clarify this dichotomy.
>> Another way of putti |
|
