| |
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 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.
Actually, at least in our Solar System, I'm not sure about
thousands if we mean "major planets plus dwarf planets,"
but some scores quite possibly at any rate. Curiously, I got
involved in a thread on this elsewhere where a planetary
astronomer pointed out that at the most generic level,
minor planets are planets, too -- which does get us into
the thousands, of course. I'd call a "minor planet" one
type of Small Solar System Body, to use the official term.
For me, there are various types or "quanta" of planethood; but
I agree that there are eight major planets in our Solar System,
and that in many contexts "planet" means "major planet." My
own approach would be to explain to people who ask "How many
planets are there?" that there are eight planets of the
familiar major type, likely a considerably higher number
of dwarf planets (e.g. Ceres and Pluto, each at one time
considered a major planet), and some ten thousand minor
planets catalogued so far, if I'm correct.
> Incidentally this page gives an interesting history of
> the use of "asteroid" versus "minor planet"
>
> http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/AsteroidHistory/minorplanets.html
Indeed a great page!
>
> 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.
Actually I like a minor-meso-major planet scheme like
Asimov's, but with "mesoplanet" having Ceres and Pluto (or
now 2003 UB313 or "Xena") as included rather than excluded
bounds -- very much like the "dwarf planet" category. I'd
say that the IAU criteria are good ones for the three
categories, whatever we want to call them.
[URL for your fine presentation repeated for convenience]
>>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/planet.html
> 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.
Well, I guess we can each take another look and invite others
to join in, as you have done.
[On how people could see text of Resolution 5B and get
mistaken impression that it had passed.]
> 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.
I'll have to have a look at this too.
>> [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.
Certainly, I'd be delighted to have it added to the page.
On the "is not a satellite," apart from the Pluto-Charon
question, one possible reason for not including it in
the definition of "planet" (i.e. my "major planet") is
that it might be redundant: a dynamically dominant body
which "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"
can hardly be a "satellite" of another body sharing that
neighborhood.
One point I confirmed by quickly checking Resolution 5A
as reproduced on your page: the exclusion of "satellites"
is actually mentioned before getting into the three
categories -- which might have influenced my diagrams:
"The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other
bodies in our Solar System, except satellites,
be defined into three distinct categories in the
following way:..."
>> Again, I'm not sure how clear these diagrams are, or how they might be
>> improved -- but your page is a very handy explanation of the vote.
>
> That was all that was intended. I guess some kind of sci.astro
> FAQ entry for "Is Pluto a planet?" is going to be required and
> perhaps the page could help. Your diagrams go farther and cover
> the whole classification scheme.
Please feel free to use my diagrams wherever they might be helpful.
By the way, I also considered a Venn diagram (maybe designed in
PostScript with regions in different shades of gray), but concluded
that it might be hard to pull off well in practice.
>
> best regards
> George
>
>
Best to you also,
Margo
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:28:30
From: Cardman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
On 05 Sep 2006 21:22:22 GMT, Margo Schulter
<mschulter@web1.calweb.com > wrote:
>In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> --------------------------------
> Possible compromise proposal
> for future consideration
> --------------------------------
>
> ------------------- Solar system bodies ----------------
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 00:47:18
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro Cardman <do-not@spam-me.com > wrote:
> On 05 Sep 2006 21:22:22 GMT, Margo Schulter
> <mschulter@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>
>>In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> Possible compromise proposal
>> for future consideration
>> --------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------- Solar system bodies ----------------
>>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 05:35:02
From: Cardman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
On 11 Sep 2006 00:47:18 GMT, Margo Schulter
<mschulter@web1.calweb.com > wrote:
>In sci.astro Cardman <do-not@spam-me.com> wrote:
>> On 05 Sep 2006 21:22:22 GMT, Margo Schulter
>> <mschulter@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>> I should point out though that the IAU have already rejected Dwarf
>> Planets being classed within a collective planet group, which means
>> that this idea you will find the hardest to gain general support for.
>
>Hi, and I'd tend to suspect also that the issue was likely not just the
>term "Classical" but the "collective planet group" concept. Thus, indeed,
>people who supported 5A (and rejected 5B) might not find "major" vs.
>"classical" as a distinction making a difference in their votes.
The use of the word "Classical" was clearly unhelpful in 5B, but if
the removal of this word would have changed support for 5B remains to
be seen. I would have assumed that these IAU members would have well
considered the implications for rejecting 5B with or without this
word.
My honest view would be that this was a meeting to kick out Pluto and
leave everything else exactly the same.
>More and more, I'd favor "planet" as an even wider umbrella covering
>everything customarily called a "major planet" or "minor planet," and
>subdivide from there, with the IAU concepts readily applied. I'm
>developing some formal definitions and more informal presentations
>on how such a scheme might be applied.
I see the major fault in the IAU definition of "planet" is in their
concept that a Dwarf Planet is not a planet. This is not just due to
the contradiction in terms, but that I am sure that the vast majority
of people would have been happy with Pluto being a Dwarf Planet had it
still been a planet.
The mistake that a lot of astronomers are making is in saying that
Pluto should not be a planet when this 2306km diameter object cannot
compare to the likes of Mars or Earth. The mistake in this logic is
that Mars and Earth hardly compare to Jupiter and Saturn either. So if
you are running a singular planet definition then only Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would be planets, where all the smaller
objects would be given a different suitable name.
And so once you entertain the concept that the "planet" word is
currently defined to include two very different classes of objects can
you see how this could be extended to three classes. And there should
be no comparison between members of these three sub-groups when they
are after all vastly different.
The second excuse I hear is that they would be upset if there was like
47 planets in our solar system. This I find odd when I was under the
assumption that astronomers were scientists. So the number will be the
number there are and not the number that you want there to be.
This usually trails on into what you would teach school children. That
should be obvious enough, when you teach them about the 4 inner
planets, the 4 gas giants, and then the teacher points out how many
more dwarf planets there are with picking out a few choice examples.
My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nachos, and a whole load more!
It is now a sad day to see that our solar system, in the eyes of
school children, has not got 1/9th smaller. I am sure that our solar
system must go nearly half way to the next star and it seems a
worthwhile classroom exorcise for the teacher to point out how BIG
that actually is followed by "and this little section is what we have
explored to date".
The next problem I see with this IAU planet definition is that it is
very warm planet biased, meaning that it only covers the area of our
solar system that was subject to a collapse in the gas cloud. The
evidence for that is obviously in the nice circular motions of the
inner 8 planets. So I am in fact doubtful that Earth has cleared
anything much when this "clearing" seems more a product of our local
star and our closest gas giant neighbour. The trophy in how badly our
planet clears local objects can be clearly seen in that planet-sized
sphere above our heads.
Also I suspect that it is true to say that had even Earth been located
out at about 150 AU, or better yet 120 to 180 AU, then even Earth
would have been unlikely to have cleared the region. The reason for
this is that you no longer have your easy record shaped disk to vacuum
up, when now you work in the 3D. So has anyone actually calculated the
odds of two objects going head to head out in this vastness? And so
this act of clearing could simply be an on-going event due to simply
there not being enough time since our solar system began.
So I am quite looking forwards to them finding something nice and big
out there and seeing them try to label this a "dwarf".
I would in fact say that the whole clearing concept is flawed and
should be removed as such. Or at minimum this is clearly an attribute
of the gas giants, and maybe smaller planets, and this attribute
should be contained to the definition of these two groups.
I can see why they want to strip Pluto of planethood in the belief
that these objects are the left-overs from the creation of the solar
system. I even read a lot of astronomy books saying exactly that, but
time did not stop and there are planets formed out there as well.
So one side of these astronomers needs to accept that the likes of
Pluto and "Xena" are indeed planets, then the other half need to
accept that these are dwarf planets are not as big/important as the
larger planet classes.
I think that is where you will find your agreement.
>Curiously, while "planet" for everything larger than a meteroid and
>smaller than a brown dwarf might be a bit radical, it could also
>in effect "neutralize" or at least play down the differences between
>people who have proposed usages where "planet" is defined so as to
>imply that either "orbit-clearing" or "hydrostatic equilibrium" is
>_the_ proper criterion for "planethood."
Astronomers are mostly split into two groups. Both groups seem rather
biased and hot-headed in defending their position. You can add a third
group into this containing the majority who wisely avoid the entire
debate.
The 300 plus astronomers who next year will hold their own meeting to
redefine "planet", in the way that they are happy with, is a clear
indication that both side desire to remain in complete opposition.
This seems fair proof that the third group was right after all.
>If everything traditionally called a "major planet" or "minor planet"
>qualifies for the generic sense of planet, then the arguments about
>what _kind_ of planet Ceres or Pluto or 2003 UB313 is might become a bit
>calmer and less charged.
True. Neither side will easily give ground though.
Also having real planets out there waiting to be found will create
increased interest in the exploration of this region. The IAU already
know that they have the public interest, so why not milk it for all
its worth?
That public can help get them increased budget to explore this region
after all. And we could do with a few more fly-by probes, or better
yet ones that can survive a high speed impact.
>Thus "major planet" would be equivalent to "planet" in 5A, and "minor
>planet" to what it means now, an object in a belt population ranging
>from a 100m asteroid to a spheroid minor planet like Ceres or Pluto,
>etc.
The IAU desires anything 800km or above to be ranked for
dwarf-planethood. Anything less is simply a solar system object.
>If a minor planet is spheroid (by self-gravitational forces), it
>would also be a "dwarf planet" -- in effect, a definition identical
>to 5A, but under the umbrella of "planet" along with smaller minor
>planets and the major ones too.
The "minor planets" term has been killed off for being obsolete and
has now been replaced with "solar system objects".
>The idea of "planet = major planet or minor planet" occurred to me in
>the course of a discussion with a planetary scientist who brought this
>generic definition to my attention -- easy to document in the OED and
>some astronomical reference books also.
That sounds exactly like the old system, which explains why the minor
planet center keeps track of all these lesser objects. They obviously
have had to do some recent renaming as well.
You are overlooking that being round has importance over non-round
objects in the sense that the two should be independent groups.
>> Also while I am about it I consider all three diagrams flawed when
>> there is no size split in the satellites section, even though the
>> satellite grouping is fine. What I mean is that I always hate it when
>> some astronomer goes that they found another moon around a gas giant
>> and it turns out to be a oddly shaped pebble.
>
>Maybe this usage is so widespread that it would be hard to change,
>especially if we take "moon" as a more informal term -- but there have
>been proposals to say things like "a planetary-scale satellite" to indicate
>that it approximates a spherical shape brought about by hydrostatic
>equilibrium.
Yes, I prefer a three level system, but if the IAU wants to go as low
as 800km, and possibly lower, then I won't argue with them.
>Or, as I'd say, a "spheroid satellite" or "gravitospheroid satellite" if we
>want to make it explicit that the near-roundness is gravitationally
>constrained (I'm not sure what the probability is of finding a
>"near-round" satellite of insufficient mass for self-gravity to be the
>constraining factor).
You should check out 2003 EL61. This is a dwarf planet sized object
that got deformed by its rapid rotation.
>> So maybe that is just my personal gripe. Still, once you have finished
>> playing "What is a planet?" then you can start on "What is a moon?".
>> As if they don't stop their current method then soon enough your next
>> moon of Saturn will be the size of a football.
>
>Yes, this satellite question is mentioned in some of the recent literature
>on defining a planet, but could well deserve a focus in its own right,
>both on its own merits and for a creative change of pace.
I can only hope.
Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 14:18:28
From: Anthony Buckland
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...
> ... 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.
>
Possibly because some would regard only Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune
as
"major". The inner planets might as well be grouped with Ganymede and Titan
as "minor" bodies, along with Pluto, Xena, etc.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 00:56:33
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro Anthony Buckland <bucklandnospam@direct.ca > wrote:
>
> "Margo Schulter" <mschulter@web1.calweb.com> wrote in message
> news:44fdea8e$0$84249$d368eab@news.calweb.com...
>> ... 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.
>>
>
> Possibly because some would regard only Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune
> as
> "major". The inner planets might as well be grouped with Ganymede and Titan
> as "minor" bodies, along with Pluto, Xena, etc.
>
Hello, and I agree that that is a valid and ingenious point, although I tend
to accept the traditional major/minor planet usage, and agree that dynamical
dominance seems a valid criterion to make the distinction.
Anyway, comparing the masses of Earth and Jupiter or Saturn _does_ make your
point rather nicely!
Most appreciatively,
Margo
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 17:08:41
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Billy No Mates wrote:
> "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157149276.477923.17840@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Billy No Mates wrote:
> >> "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?
> >
> > I never like Disney crap. I preferred Warner Brothers.
> >
>
> Give me Tom and Jerry :-) (well the Fred Quimby ones anyway)
Too gay. Always smiling. I'll take the dog in the lumberyard in the
Warner cartoon
whose sudden barking always makes a sleazy looking car freak out.
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 15:21:16
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Billy No Mates wrote:
> "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?
I never like Disney crap. I preferred Warner Brothers.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 00:52:19
From: Billy No Mates
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157149276.477923.17840@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Billy No Mates wrote:
>> "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?
>
> I never like Disney crap. I preferred Warner Brothers.
>
Give me Tom and Jerry :-) (well the Fred Quimby ones anyway)
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 13:36:49
From: Mike Williams
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Wasn't it George Dishman who wrote:
>
><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.
I believe that that amendment (resolution 5B) got outvoted. Only
resolutions 5A and 6A were passed.
There's no mention of resolution 5B in the final IAU announcement
http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 14:47:23
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Mike Williams" <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:qAZpPDAhrX+EFwPy@econym.demon.co.uk...
...
> I believe that that amendment (resolution 5B) got outvoted. Only
> resolutions 5A and 6A were passed.
>
> There's no mention of resolution 5B in the final IAU announcement
> http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html
Thanks Mike, I was looking here:
http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0602/index.html
So now "dwarf planets" are not members of "planets" since
the part (c) of their definitions are mutually exclusive.
They really have screwed this up.
George
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 11:35:07
From: Mike Williams
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Wasn't it Mike Dworetsky who wrote:
>
>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?
Absolutely. That's a seriously valuable historic artefact you've got
there.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 17:04:27
From: Fleetie
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Mike Williams" <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk > wrote in message news:6iXNnIAb5V+EFwvt@econym.demon.co.uk...
> Wasn't it Mike Dworetsky who wrote:
>>
>>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?
>
> Absolutely. That's a seriously valuable historic artefact you've got
> there.
Without a doubt.
Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2006 17:57:25
From: Mike Dworetsky
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Fleetie" <fleetie@fleetie.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:n6-dnYfYwOATNmTZRVnyqQ@bt.com...
> "Mike Williams" <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6iXNnIAb5V+EFwvt@econym.demon.co.uk...
> > Wasn't it Mike Dworetsky who wrote:
> >>
> >>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?
> >
> > Absolutely. That's a seriously valuable historic artefact you've got
> > there.
>
> Without a doubt.
>
> Martin
> --
> M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967
110890
> Manchester, U.K.
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie
>
>
Hmm, I think you both may be pulling my leg, but I need to recoup my travel
expenses somehow and my grant won't cover it by a long ways.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 01:22:23
From: Michael Baldwin, Bruce
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Kookdancing queen, Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the "irrelevaant"
Ignoranus whined and tholed like the antagonistic arsehole that he is:
>
> I have no reason to think
We know, Dickless, what you you have no reason to think is
"irrelevaant".
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 05:16:05
From: Double-A
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Michael Baldwin, Bruce wrote:
> Kookdancing queen, Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the "irrelevaant"
> Ignoranus whined and tholed like the antagonistic arsehole that he is:
> >
> > I have no reason to think
>
> We know, Dickless, what you you have no reason to think is
> "irrelevaant".
Does Dr. Tholen ever answer you anymore, Bruce, or has he abandoned you
too?
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 06:09:10
From: Jeff Root
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
> 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.
I asked that question and two closely-related questions
last November in the Bad Astronomy / Universe Today forum,
but didn't get definitive or authoritative answers.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34542
The questions I asked:
Were the Sun and Moon commonly referred to as "planets" in
ancient times?
When was Earth first called a "planet", or described as a body
comparable to a planet, even if it wasn't thought to wander?
When were the stars first recognized as being like the Sun?
The answers I got were basically just:
The Sun and Moon were considered planets by early Greek
astronomers and are still considered planets in astrology.
Giordano Bruno suggested or asserted that that other stars
were suns with planets, like our own Sun.
I pointed out:
Lucian, a Syrian writing in Greek, in Athens, in the
second century AD, wrote a satire titled 'True History'
which described inhabitants of the Moon and the Sun.
That would seem to imply that he thought of them as
places something like the Earth.
And of course, the fact that the ancients knew that Earth
must be a sphere because of the shape of its shadow on the
Moon in lunar eclipses. But no answer to the question.
Margo Schulter wrote:
> On the "is not a satellite," apart from the Pluto-Charon
> question, one possible reason for not including it in
> the definition of "planet" (i.e. my "major planet") is
> that it might be redundant: a dynamically dominant body
> which "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"
> can hardly be a "satellite" of another body sharing that
> neighborhood.
Obviously. No reason to mention an impossibility.
George Dishman replied to Margo Schulter:
> My point on that is that (d) is redundant because an
> object cannot be a satellite and also meet criterion
> (a) that it be in orbit around the Sun.
All known satellites are in orbit around the Sun. There
is nothing redundant about (d).
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 14:14:41
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In article <1157634550.221164.61410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
Jeff Root <jeff5@freemars.org > wrote:
>
>http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34542
>
>The questions I asked:
>
> Were the Sun and Moon commonly referred to as "planets" in
> ancient times?
>
> When was Earth first called a "planet", or described as a body
> comparable to a planet, even if it wasn't thought to wander?
>
> When were the stars first recognized as being like the Sun?
Probably around Copernicus' time. One prevailing argument against
a heliocentric solar system was that the Earth's orbital motion
around the Sun ought to cause a quite visible yearly parallax
among the stars --- unless of course the stars were extremely
distant and not just a little farther away than Saturn, as was
commonly believed in that time.
When the stars did turn out to be that vastly distant, they
must also be very bright --- like the Sun.
Herschel was one of the first trying to find the actual distance
to some stars, and he thought Sirius was some 3 light years away.
>The answers I got were basically just:
>
>The Sun and Moon were considered planets by early Greek
>astronomers and are still considered planets in astrology.
>
>Giordano Bruno suggested or asserted that that other stars
>were suns with planets, like our own Sun.
>
>I pointed out:
>
> Lucian, a Syrian writing in Greek, in Athens, in the
> second century AD, wrote a satire titled 'True History'
> which described inhabitants of the Moon and the Sun.
> That would seem to imply that he thought of them as
> places something like the Earth.
>
>And of course, the fact that the ancients knew that Earth
>must be a sphere because of the shape of its shadow on the
>Moon in lunar eclipses. But no answer to the question.
Erathosthenes (from ancient Greece) was the first to try
to measure the circumference of the Earth. His walue was
correct to within one percent or so -- much due to luck,
since he used a (by today's standards) very crude method.
>Margo Schulter wrote:
>
>> On the "is not a satellite," apart from the Pluto-Charon
>> question, one possible reason for not including it in
>> the definition of "planet" (i.e. my "major planet") is
>> that it might be redundant: a dynamically dominant body
>> which "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"
>> can hardly be a "satellite" of another body sharing that
>> neighborhood.
>
>Obviously. No reason to mention an impossibility.
>
>George Dishman replied to Margo Schulter:
>
>> My point on that is that (d) is redundant because an
>> object cannot be a satellite and also meet criterion
>> (a) that it be in orbit around the Sun.
>
>All known satellites are in orbit around the Sun. There
>is nothing redundant about (d).
>
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 12:40:10
From: Mike Dworetsky
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saaf.se > wrote in message
news:edp7t5$26bu$1@merope.saaf.se...
> In article <1157634550.221164.61410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Jeff Root <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34542
> >
> >The questions I asked:
> >
> > Were the Sun and Moon commonly referred to as "planets" in
> > ancient times?
> >
> > When was Earth first called a "planet", or described as a body
> > comparable to a planet, even if it wasn't thought to wander?
> >
> > When were the stars first recognized as being like the Sun?
>
> Probably around Copernicus' time. One prevailing argument against
> a heliocentric solar system was that the Earth's orbital motion
> around the Sun ought to cause a quite visible yearly parallax
> among the stars --- unless of course the stars were extremely
> distant and not just a little farther away than Saturn, as was
> commonly believed in that time.
>
> When the stars did turn out to be that vastly distant, they
> must also be very bright --- like the Sun.
>
> Herschel was one of the first trying to find the actual distance
> to some stars, and he thought Sirius was some 3 light years away.
>
Christiaan Huygens did this experimentally about a century before Herschel,
by comparing Sirius's brightness with the Sun (an ingenious experiment,
BTW). The main reason he got a distance that was too small, was his
assumption that Sirius and the Sun had the same absolute brightness.
I can't recall Herschel's method but it may have been similar.
>
> >The answers I got were basically just:
> >
> >The Sun and Moon were considered planets by early Greek
> >astronomers and are still considered planets in astrology.
> >
> >Giordano Bruno suggested or asserted that that other stars
> >were suns with planets, like our own Sun.
> >
> >I pointed out:
> >
> > Lucian, a Syrian writing in Greek, in Athens, in the
> > second century AD, wrote a satire titled 'True History'
> > which described inhabitants of the Moon and the Sun.
> > That would seem to imply that he thought of them as
> > places something like the Earth.
> >
> >And of course, the fact that the ancients knew that Earth
> >must be a sphere because of the shape of its shadow on the
> >Moon in lunar eclipses. But no answer to the question.
>
> Erathosthenes (from ancient Greece) was the first to try
> to measure the circumference of the Earth. His walue was
> correct to within one percent or so -- much due to luck,
> since he used a (by today's standards) very crude method.
>
> >Margo Schulter wrote:
> >
> >> On the "is not a satellite," apart from the Pluto-Charon
> >> question, one possible reason for not including it in
> >> the definition of "planet" (i.e. my "major planet") is
> >> that it might be redundant: a dynamically dominant body
> >> which "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"
> >> can hardly be a "satellite" of another body sharing that
> >> neighborhood.
> >
> >Obviously. No reason to mention an impossibility.
> >
> >George Dishman replied to Margo Schulter:
> >
> >> My point on that is that (d) is redundant because an
> >> object cannot be a satellite and also meet criterion
> >> (a) that it be in orbit around the Sun.
> >
> >All known satellites are in orbit around the Sun. There
> >is nothing redundant about (d).
> >
> > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
> >
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 00:13:44
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro Mike Dworetsky <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com > wrote:
>> Herschel was one of the first trying to find the actual distance
>> to some stars, and he thought Sirius was some 3 light years away.
>>
>
> Christiaan Huygens did this experimentally about a century before Herschel,
> by comparing Sirius's brightness with the Sun (an ingenious experiment,
> BTW). The main reason he got a distance that was too small, was his
> assumption that Sirius and the Sun had the same absolute brightness.
Ah, so this was in the same era as the Olof Roemer experiment to
approximate the speed of light.
BTW, Huygens is also known for his theory in the area of music,
where he advocated the consonant nature of integer ratios using
the prime 7 -- which reminds me of the 7:2 orbital resonances
now being described between certain bodies in our Solar System.
> I can't recall Herschel's method but it may have been similar.
Thanks for a fascinating item to add to my picture of the later
17th century -- it might interesting to compare Huygens and
Herschel in more detail as to their techniques.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 23:53:55
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote:
> In article <1157634550.221164.61410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Jeff Root <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34542
>>
>>The questions I asked:
>>
>> Were the Sun and Moon commonly referred to as "planets" in
>> ancient times?
>>
>> When was Earth first called a "planet", or described as a body
>> comparable to a planet, even if it wasn't thought to wander?
>>
>> When were the stars first recognized as being like the Sun?
>
> Probably around Copernicus' time. One prevailing argument against
> a heliocentric solar system was that the Earth's orbital motion
> around the Sun ought to cause a quite visible yearly parallax
> among the stars --- unless of course the stars were extremely
> distant and not just a little farther away than Saturn, as was
> commonly believed in that time.
"Show us the stellar parallax" was also one of the lines of
rebuttal to Galileo -- since if one followed the view expressed
by St. Roberto Bellarmino (1615) that the traditional geocentric
interpretation of certain Bible passages should be altered only
on the basis of indubitable proof, the "missing" parallax could
still be a reason for doubt. As I recall, the Church gradually
grew more and more reconciled to Galileo's perspective as the
18th century progressed, but didn't make it fully "official"
until the early 19th century, when parallax was confirmed for
one or more of the nearest stars to our Sun.
> When the stars did turn out to be that vastly distant, they
> must also be very bright --- like the Sun.
>
> Herschel was one of the first trying to find the actual distance
> to some stars, and he thought Sirius was some 3 light years away.
Interesting! Maybe that's about the same degree of accuracy as
Roemer's estimate of the speed of light (1676) using the moons of
Jupiter. It was an awesome leap -- I'm trying to find a worthy
adjective -- from the state of things earlier in the century,
when Galileo had tried the experiment of having two people a few
miles away show lamps to each other and try to estimate any delay
in seeing them at that distance.
[...]
> Erathosthenes (from ancient Greece) was the first to try
> to measure the circumference of the Earth. His walue was
> correct to within one percent or so -- much due to luck,
> since he used a (by today's standards) very crude method.
Yes; some of the concepts, if not the quantative methods,
may have influenced medieval thought, or at least been
paralleled in it. Thus Dante spoke of "the round threshing
floor" of Earth in the _Divine Comedy_; and later in the
14th century, Nicolas Oresme spoke of the Earth as shaped
like an "apple." Once I misquoted this as "pear," and got
someone excited about an anticipation of the concept of
oblation -- but that was my error, as I confirmed when I
checked. Oresme also suggested that it would be less
complicated to have the Earth rotating diurnally than to
have the whole stellar universe doing so.
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 13:01:17
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org > wrote in message
news:1157634550.221164.61410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
> George Dishman replied to Margo Schulter:
>
>> My point on that is that (d) is redundant because an
>> object cannot be a satellite and also meet criterion
>> (a) that it be in orbit around the Sun.
>
> All known satellites are in orbit around the Sun. There
> is nothing redundant about (d).
You see no difference in the gravitational binding
of Ceres and Moon, both are orbiting the Sun? The
sentence "The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth-
Moon system orbits the Sun while Ceres orbits the
Sun." appears to recognise a significant difference
regarding the hierarchy of gravitational binding IMO.
George
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 23:39:57
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro Jeff Root <jeff5@freemars.org > wrote:
> http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34542
>
> The questions I asked:
>
> Were the Sun and Moon commonly referred to as "planets" in
> ancient times?
>
> When was Earth first called a "planet", or described as a body
> comparable to a planet, even if it wasn't thought to wander?
>
> When were the stars first recognized as being like the Sun?
>
> The answers I got were basically just:
>
> The Sun and Moon were considered planets by early Greek
> astronomers and are still considered planets in astrology.
True, they are "wanderers," the literal meaning of the term,
in contrast to the "fixed stars."
>
> Giordano Bruno suggested or asserted that that other stars
> were suns with planets, like our own Sun.
>
> I pointed out:
>
> Lucian, a Syrian writing in Greek, in Athens, in the
> second century AD, wrote a satire titled 'True History'
> which described inhabitants of the Moon and the Sun.
> That would seem to imply that he thought of them as
> places something like the Earth.
This gets into a number of interpretations of "the plurality
of worlds." I'm going to look over again some writings of
Nicolas of Cusa (or Cusanus) from the mid-15th century,
which get into things like what we call the Cosmological
Principle that basic physical laws are the same in different
parts of the physical universe, and the idea of a universe
with "its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere."
There's also a book called _De ludo globi_ or, freely translated,
_The Game of Spheres_, which takes a heliocentric view (after
the teachings of the Pythagoreans, for example).
> And of course, the fact that the ancients knew that Earth
> must be a sphere because of the shape of its shadow on the
> Moon in lunar eclipses. But no answer to the question.
There's a book on theories of _The Plurality of Worlds_ which
I looked at around 1986 or 1987, and this might be one good
place to start.
[further points trimmed out, but discussed in following posts]
Most appreciatively,
Margo Schulter
mschulter@calweb.com
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 05:08:19
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
> In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > ... 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.
>
> I'll have to have a look at this too.
http://www.iau.org/fileadmin/content/pdfs/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf
There are two changes I have noticed. In the introduction
the wording ".. other bodies in our Solar System, except
satellites, be defined .." has been reordered as ".. other
bodies, except satellites, in our Solar System be defined
.." which is better grammatically but makes no difference.
Commas have been added in definition (3) changing
".. objects[3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall .."
into "objects[3], except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall .."
which now means all satelites are excluded rather than
just those orbiting the Sun which makes a lot more sense.
Other minor points:
The quotes have been removed from "planets" in footnote 1.
Footnote 2 is still wrong, "either .. and" should of course be
"either .. or".
"Trans-Neptunian" has been capitalised in Resolution 6A.
George
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 00:21:37
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote:
[On newer version of IAU resolutions from 24 August 2006]
> http://www.iau.org/fileadmin/content/pdfs/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf
>
> There are two changes I have noticed. In the introduction
> the wording ".. other bodies in our Solar System, except
> satellites, be defined .." has been reordered as ".. other
> bodies, except satellites, in our Solar System be defined
> .." which is better grammatically but makes no difference.
This is a fine nuance, but maybe the second is more felicitous
because "except satellites" is in closer apposition to "other
bodies."
> Commas have been added in definition (3) changing
> ".. objects[3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall .."
> into "objects[3], except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall .."
> which now means all satelites are excluded rather than
> just those orbiting the Sun which makes a lot more sense.
Yes, agreed.
> Other minor points:
>
> The quotes have been removed from "planets" in footnote 1.
>
> Footnote 2 is still wrong, "either .. and" should of course be
> "either .. or".
Well, I know how I can miss things in proofreading (maybe especially
my own writings) <grin >.
> "Trans-Neptunian" has been capitalised in Resolution 6A.
I'd tend to favor that style, maybe to make the acronym more obvious:
Trans-Neptunian Object (TNO) -- although I'd need to check to see whether
"Object" is also capitalized.
> George
>
Best,
Margo
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 14:21:01
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
studiescircle@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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
I've got this lively Astronomy book from 1959. It lists the 8 planets.
With the way things are going, we'll be discussing the confirmation of
canals on Mars, next.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 06:15:08
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
> In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Margo Schulter wrote:
<more trimmed >
> > OK, here's my alternative. Consider first Ceres, Pallas
> > and the other largest main belt obects. If say the top
> > tem had merged and were collecting the rubble then
> > they would approach being classed as a planet albeit
> > of very low mass. We already have a name for objects
> > which subsequently merge to form planets, that being
> > "planetesimal". As a result of our discussion, I would
> > suggest that Ceres etc. should be classed as remnant
> > planetesimals.
>
> That's certainly one usage of "planetesimal" with
> precedent. Personally the term tends to suggest for me
> more specifically something maybe around 1-10 km that's
> assumed to be one of the bodies serving by accretion to
> form some kind of larger planet -- in my terms, it could
> be a major planet (the "Big 8" in our Solar System); or
> a minor planet (dwarf or smaller). However, I certainly
> agree that there's a usage where any kind of minor planet
> (notably an asteroid) can be called a planetesimal.
Having looked into it a little more, I think I agree with
your criticism. From Wiki, the term "protoplanet"
would be more fitting, though the "proto" prefix is
perhaps not optimum.
> Here we get to the question of set or subset definitions
> versus the names to give. To me, "planetesimal" could be
> both evocative and "cosmogonically correct" for lots of
> the smaller minor planets -- "here we're seeing a living
> fossil, as it were, of those 1-10 km planetesimals that
> were the elementary building blocks of the larger planets,
> major or dwarf, etc." It suggests to me something smaller
> than a "gravito-spheroidal" planet, or "spheroidal" for
> short, which has likely accreted from lots of planetesimals
> in the narrower sense -- whether a dwarf planet, a major
> planet, or even a larger Small Solar System Body (SSSB)
> or "microplanet" as I call it, say Vesta, which isn't
> quite massive enough to be (gravito-)spheroidal.
>
> However, your usage seems to have lots of company, and I
> realize that from a certain dynamical view, anything other
> than a major planet (IAU "planet") could be viewed as
> "uncleared rubble."
"Planetesimal" has the advantage of being clearly a
single word. "Protoplanet" could be written "proto-planet"
implying a subtype the definition of planet again leaving
the ambiguity unresolved. That is unfortunate as the term
is more accurate.
> If I wanted to propose some term other than "dwarf planet"
> or "mesoplanet" for the spheroidal minor planets, maybe
> it would be "planetoid" (carrying some science fiction
> associations, as has been pointed out) or possibly
> "planetino." Then people who wanted could view this
> term as referring to a type of planet, and others could
> argue the analogy that a neutrino is certainly not a type
> of neutron.
On that basis, they could also argue that an asteroid is
a type of star ;-)
> Again, it's a matter of taste -- and it seems that
> "planetesimal," like "planet," can evoke lots of distinct
> semantic preferences.
I doubt there can be any existing term that doesn't
and really this whole exercise is 'damage limitation'.
> > If Ceres and Pallas at some time came close and
> > became a binary, that doesn't change their individual
> > nature so I would further suggest they should then be
> > classed as a binary planetesimal system.
>
> An interesting question, indeed! If the barycenter (my
> provincial spelling, just to let everyone know I'm aware)
> is outside the radius of either body, then a binary
> planetesimal system -- or in my lingo "binary dwarf planet
> or mesoplanetary system" -- would indeed seem correct.
My concerns with the barycentre argument are first
that it sets a size limit that depends on the ratio of
separation to diameter. A simple mass ratio limit,
while arbitrary, could make the distinction more
consistent. Secondly, it requires some knowledge
of the density (to convert mass to radius) which
will be a problem for extra-solar objects where size
will not be directly measurable other than under
fortuitous circumstances (e.g. transit detections).
> If the barycenter is within the radius of one of the bodies,
> then we have the "not a satellite" question -- does this
> apply to satellites of minor as well as major planets?
Ah, well spotted, I had missed that. It's going to
mess up my flowcharts :-( Yes, the test needs to
apply at all levels so you can get a binary asteroid
just as we already have a few asteroids with satellites.
I probably need to include "not a member of a binary"
as well as "not a satellite".
> If I were to propose a distinction, maybe based in part on
> precedent (catalogued minor planets, it seems to me, should
> stay minor planets, although they might also be satellites of
> another minor planet), I might argue that maybe for one
> minor planet to be a satellite of another in a belt environment
> is a bit more subtle of a relationship than the contrast
> between major planet and satellite. However, there's a problem
> there, too: with minor planet (and more specifically mesoplanet
> or dwarf planet) Pluto, Nixie, for example, is in a role much
> like that of a satellite of a major planet.
>
> Do we maybe use a mass ratio test, with Ceres-Pallas a "binary"
> but Pluto-Nixie a planet plus satellite?
For the reasons given above, I prefer the mass ratio
test but whichever we use I have no doubt that Nix
and Hydra should be seen as satellites (or moons?).
The question then is whether there are two satellites
of the Pluto/Charon binary system or are there three
moons of Pluto?
> If the barycenter is between the two bodies, of course, then I'd
> say "binary" is the right answer. This is a subtle line of
> questions.
I think mass ratio versus barycentre is one question
and moon versus satellite is another.
<snip - agreed >
> > Similarly the distinction between a satellite and a
> > moon is unclear but let me suggest as a minimum
> > that a planetesimal in orbit around a planet should be
> > called a moon. The terms satellite and moon relate
> > to orbital configuration rather than mass and shape
> > so it would be both a moon and a planetesimal.
>
> Yes, a "moon" would then be what I recall that Stern/Levison
> (2002) call a "planetary-mass satellite" or the like, or what
> I might call a "spheroidal satellite."
That is consistent since we now have a definition
of "planetary mass" that is based on "nearly round".
It also mirrors my own view that a "moon" should be
a substantially larger object than the generic term
satellite.
> By the way, I'd guess that the major/minor distinction might
> not apply for a satellite, since it's "circumstantial" as
> Basri would put it -- unless someone wants to estimate
> whether the satellite, if a planet in a comparable orbit,
> _would_ have sufficient mass to "clear its neighborhood"
> (if the major planet it is orbiting weren't there!). That
> would get into "what-if" cosmogonic scenarios, I guess.
I think the question is "not applicable", an object too
small to achieve a round shape is almost certainly
incapable of clearing its orbit.
> I'm developing a new typology which does address extrasolar
> objects, as do your new ones, so maybe I'll have more coherent
> views to present soon -- _relatively_ more coherent, anyway
> <grin>.
Excellent, I look forward to seing it.
> > The criteria used by the IAU would still be applicable,
> > hence there would be eight planets in the solar system.
> > The definition could be easily rationalised to allow for
> > extra-solar planets by replacing "the Sun" by "a star",
> > even with the proviso that the current definition is
> > limited to the solar system since AFAIK there is only
> > one star in it ;-)
>
> True, unless we want to get into the "Nemesis" hypothesis of
> the 1980's (as I recall) when the whole mass extinction
> connection with asteroid or comet impacts (especially
> Cretaceous-Tertiary at around 65 Ma or "Mega-anni ago,"
> to use a geological style) led to the hypothesis of an
> "invisible companion" to the Sun which every 26 My ("million
> years" as duration or interval rather than distance from
> present) or so was diverting Oort Cloud objects or the like
> toward the inner Solar System, including Earth.
>
> That theory wasn't found persuasive, I guess -- the "Nemesis"
> part, as opposed to the impact theory of the Cretaceous-Tertiary
> or "K-T" mass extinction, which now seems generally accepted as
> at least one main cause of the extinction (with the discovery of
> an impact crater that fits the geological timing and the scale
> of the hypothesized event).
I believe there was another paper in the last year or so,
it hasn't entirely gone away yet.
> > I will try to find time to draw this up as a flowchart, but
> > I have very limited opportunity over the next week, and
> > perhaps also add a test for fusion to identify stars
> > (including brown dwarf stars), free-floating 'planemos'
> > and binary planemo systems.
>
> Those are neat charts!
I am preparing a page of notes to explain the
flowchart but it's not in a state where I can upload
yet. For reference for anyone following previous
posts, my flowchart is here (but needs some work
to incorporate the changes discussed above):
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/GAD.png
> > I would appreciate your views on the this proposal, in
> > particular the criteria for distinguishing binary from
> > object/satellite and what should qualify a satellite to
> > be raised to the status of a moon.
>
> For a major planet and a satellite, or for two minor planets
> where the barycenter is between the two bodies, we might both
> be comfortable with the usual tests, although tending toward
> different names for some of the categories. With two minor
> planets like Pluto-Nixie, object/satellite seems fine. The
> harder situation might be when we have two minor planets
> not too different in size with the orbit of one within the
> radius of the other. Maybe we say, "Once a minor planet,
> always a minor planet," and put a code like the letter "S"
> for "satellite" after its minor planet number.
>
> Thus it seems that we both find mass ratio relevant if the
> barycenter test doesn't indicate a binary system.
>
> > Note that this would mean that many of the moons of
> > the planets would also be classified as planetesimals
> > so the precedence of being a satellite and other
> > definitions might be contentious.
>
> How about planetisimo-satellite or the like? I would say
> "spheroid satellite," or "gravitospheroid satellite" if
> we want to make it explicit that the "near-roundness"
> must result from self-gravity approximatinng hydrostatic
> equilibrium.
I think we need to keep the names simple and understandable
for the wider public appreciation while the criterion should be
explicit, unabiguous, scientific and measurable. A press
release saying "New gravitospheroidal satellites discovered!"
just doesn't have the impact of "New moon discovered!"
> The more I consider this, the more I lean toward a convention
> where minor planets systems with the barycenter within the radius
> of one of the bodies get classified as "planet/satellite," but
> the satellite still keeps or gets its minor planet number, with
> a code like "S," as I described above.
I would say "protoplanet/moon" if both are "nearly round"
or "protoplanet/satellite" if the smaller is a rocky peanut
or "asteroid/satellite" if both are irregular.
Existing small body numbering should be undisturbed by
any of this, though perhaps a few new numbers could be
allocated for consistency.
George
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 03:42:04
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
<snip text >
> 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.
Margo, having had a longer look myself, I think
your diagrams don't quite reflect the linguistics.
The following shows how I see the intended
outcome of 5B and illustrate how your version
is really the same other than the choice of name.
I have also indicated the priority of the 'satellite'
criterion.
> [composed with monospaced font]
>
> -----------------------
> Resolution 5A (Adopted)
> -----------------------
>
>
> Solar system bodies
>
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:22:56
From: Jeff Root
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
George Dishman replied to Jeff Root
>> George Dishman replied to Margo Schulter:
>
>>> My point on that is that (d) is redundant because an
>>> object cannot be a satellite and also meet criterion
>>> (a) that it be in orbit around the Sun.
>
>> All known satellites are in orbit around the Sun.
>> There is nothing redundant about (d).
>
> You see no difference in the gravitational binding
> of Ceres and Moon, both are orbiting the Sun? The
> sentence "The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth-
> Moon system orbits the Sun while Ceres orbits the
> Sun." appears to recognise a significant difference
> regarding the hierarchy of gravitational binding IMO.
Yes, there is a significant difference, but Ceres, the
Earth, the Moon, and the Earth-Moon system all orbit the
Sun. Saying that a body is in orbit around the Sun does
not determine whether it is a satellite or not. On the
other hand, saying that a body orbits another body which
in turn orbits the Sun means that the first body orbits
the Sun.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:34:03
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org > wrote in message
news:1157952175.963045.164150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman replied to Jeff Root
>
>>> George Dishman replied to Margo Schulter:
>>
>>>> My point on that is that (d) is redundant because an
>>>> object cannot be a satellite and also meet criterion
>>>> (a) that it be in orbit around the Sun.
>>
>>> All known satellites are in orbit around the Sun.
>>> There is nothing redundant about (d).
>>
>> You see no difference in the gravitational binding
>> of Ceres and Moon, both are orbiting the Sun? The
>> sentence "The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth-
>> Moon system orbits the Sun while Ceres orbits the
>> Sun." appears to recognise a significant difference
>> regarding the hierarchy of gravitational binding IMO.
>
> Yes, there is a significant difference, but Ceres, the
> Earth, the Moon, and the Earth-Moon system all orbit the
> Sun.
I think that depends on your understanding of
orbit and perhaps you are raising a significant
point. The IAU needs to define "satellite" to
clear this up.
> Saying that a body is in orbit around the Sun does
> not determine whether it is a satellite or not. On the
> other hand, saying that a body orbits another body which
> in turn orbits the Sun means that the first body orbits
> the Sun.
Well by the same understanding that says the
Moon orbits the Sun (i.e. its path encompasses
the Sun), Ceres orbits the Earth and Pluto
orbits almost everything! I don't think that is
a helpful definition of the term. Try putting
"define: orbit" into Google and let me know what
you think (you can ignore references to chewing
gum!)
best regards
George
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 14:05:43
From: Eric Chomko
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
> In sci.astro Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:
> > In article <1157634550.221164.61410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jeff Root <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34542
> >>
> >>The questions I asked:
> >>
> >> Were the Sun and Moon commonly referred to as "planets" in
> >> ancient times?
> >>
> >> When was Earth first called a "planet", or described as a body
> >> comparable to a planet, even if it wasn't thought to wander?
> >>
> >> When were the stars first recognized as being like the Sun?
> >
> > Probably around Copernicus' time. One prevailing argument against
> > a heliocentric solar system was that the Earth's orbital motion
> > around the Sun ought to cause a quite visible yearly parallax
> > among the stars --- unless of course the stars were extremely
> > distant and not just a little farther away than Saturn, as was
> > commonly believed in that time.
>
> "Show us the stellar parallax" was also one of the lines of
> rebuttal to Galileo -- since if one followed the view expressed
> by St. Roberto Bellarmino (1615) that the traditional geocentric
> interpretation of certain Bible passages should be altered only
> on the basis of indubitable proof, the "missing" parallax could
> still be a reason for doubt. As I recall, the Church gradually
> grew more and more reconciled to Galileo's perspective as the
> 18th century progressed, but didn't make it fully "official"
> until the early 19th century, when parallax was confirmed for
> one or more of the nearest stars to our Sun.
>
> > When the stars did turn out to be that vastly distant, they
> > must also be very bright --- like the Sun.
> >
> > Herschel was one of the first trying to find the actual distance
> > to some stars, and he thought Sirius was some 3 light years away.
>
> Interesting! Maybe that's about the same degree of accuracy as
> Roemer's estimate of the speed of light (1676) using the moons of
> Jupiter. It was an awesome leap -- I'm trying to find a worthy
> adjective -- from the state of things earlier in the century,
> when Galileo had tried the experiment of having two people a few
> miles away show lamps to each other and try to estimate any delay
> in seeing them at that distance.
I found two speeds for Roemer's expeirment depending on the distance of
an AU. Initially the time for light to travel an AU was thought to be
11 minutes, which is 11/8 or 1.375 of its actual time. Which is clearly
beyond 8.6 LYs.
However, by using Roemer's estimate of an AU (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B8mer), the speed is 135,000 km
per second compared to the roughly 300,000 km per second it is. So,
Sirius at 8.6 LY, we get 135/300 = .45 * 8.6 = 3.87 LY, so Roemer and
Herschel (using 3 LY) were not that far off.
Eric
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 12:33:57
From: Jeff Root
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
George Dishman replied to Jeff Root:
>>>> All known satellites are in orbit around the Sun.
>>>> There is nothing redundant about (d).
>>>
>>> You see no difference in the gravitational binding
>>> of Ceres and Moon, both are orbiting the Sun? The
>>> sentence "The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth-
>>> Moon system orbits the Sun while Ceres orbits the
>>> Sun." appears to recognise a significant difference
>>> regarding the hierarchy of gravitational binding IMO.
>>
>> Yes, there is a significant difference, but Ceres, the
>> Earth, the Moon, and the Earth-Moon system all orbit the
>> Sun.
>>
> I think that depends on your understanding of
> orbit and perhaps you are raising a significant
> point. The IAU needs to define "satellite" to
> clear this up.
No it doesn't. We don't need definitions. We can talk
about these things just as well without definitions as
with. Descriptions usually work better than definitions.
>> Saying that a body is in orbit around the Sun does
>> not determine whether it is a satellite or not. On the
>> other hand, saying that a body orbits another body which
>> in turn orbits the Sun means that the first body orbits
>> the Sun.
>
> Well by the same understanding that says the Moon
> orbits the Sun (i.e. its path encompasses the Sun),
> Ceres orbits the Earth and Pluto orbits almost
> everything! I don't think that is a helpful definition
> of the term. Try putting "define: orbit" into Google
> and let me know what you think
I haven't done that yet, but just a couple of hours
before I saw this reply from you yesterday morning, I
wrote something on the same subject in another forum,
trying to explain to someone that "revolving" and
"orbiting" are different things in astronomy:
Orbiting is in general a synonym for "revolving", but in
astronomy it means being in a trajectory which is primarily
determined by a single gravitational source. It is possible
for a body to be in several different orbits simultaneously,
with those orbits determined by different gravity sources.
An Apollo spacecraft orbited the Moon; the spacecraft and the
Moon orbit the Earth; the spacecraft, the Moon, and the Earth
orbit the Sun; the spacecraft, the Moon, the Earth, and the
Sun orbit the center of mass of the Milky Way galaxy.
I didn't put a lot of thought into that paragraph before
posting it on the other forum, because I wasn't attempting
to *define* the term "orbit", but it seems pretty good.
The "primary" of the Apollo spacecraft as it orbited the
Moon was the Moon. The Moon was the body at the center of
mass of the Moon-Apollo system. Likewise, Earth is the
primary of the Earth-Moon system, and the primary of the
Earth-Moon-Apollo system. The Sun is the primary of the
Sun-Earth system, the Sun-Earth-Moon system, and the Sun-
Earth-Moon-Apollo system. And the Milky Way galaxy as a
whole is the primary of the Galaxy-Sun system, the Galaxy-
Sun-Earth system, the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon system, and
the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon-Apollo system.
You can say that Ceres orbits the entire inner Solar
System, which comprises the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth,
Mars, and lots of asteroids. That isn't much different
from saying that it orbits the Sun. The Sun, being the
most massive body in the system, and the body closest to
the center of mass of the system, is the primary body of
the system. The Earth is not the primary body of any
system that Ceres belongs to.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 22:56:19
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
"Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org > wrote in message
news:1158176037.323723.140870@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Dishman replied to Jeff Root:
>
>>>>> All known satellites are in orbit around the Sun.
>>>>> There is nothing redundant about (d).
>>>>
>>>> You see no difference in the gravitational binding
>>>> of Ceres and Moon, both are orbiting the Sun? The
>>>> sentence "The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth-
>>>> Moon system orbits the Sun while Ceres orbits the
>>>> Sun." appears to recognise a significant difference
>>>> regarding the hierarchy of gravitational binding IMO.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is a significant difference, but Ceres, the
>>> Earth, the Moon, and the Earth-Moon system all orbit the
>>> Sun.
>>>
>> I think that depends on your understanding of
>> orbit and perhaps you are raising a significant
>> point. The IAU needs to define "satellite" to
>> clear this up.
>
> No it doesn't. We don't need definitions. We can talk
> about these things just as well without definitions as
> with. Descriptions usually work better than definitions.
OK, let's see how we get on.
>>> Saying that a body is in orbit around the Sun does
>>> not determine whether it is a satellite or not. On the
>>> other hand, saying that a body orbits another body which
>>> in turn orbits the Sun means that the first body orbits
>>> the Sun.
>>
>> Well by the same understanding that says the Moon
>> orbits the Sun (i.e. its path encompasses the Sun),
>> Ceres orbits the Earth and Pluto orbits almost
>> everything! I don't think that is a helpful definition
>> of the term. Try putting "define: orbit" into Google
>> and let me know what you think
>
> I haven't done that yet,
It would help.
> but just a couple of hours
> before I saw this reply from you yesterday morning, I
> wrote something on the same subject in another forum,
> trying to explain to someone that "revolving" and
> "orbiting" are different things in astronomy:
I think "revolving around" and "orbiting".
> Orbiting is in general a synonym for "revolving", but in
> astronomy it means being in a trajectory which is primarily
> determined by a single gravitational source. It is possible
> for a body to be in several different orbits simultaneously,
> with those orbits determined by different gravity sources.
However, those are generally split into the primary
influence you describe below and perturbations of
that orbit. An exception might be the phrase "chaotic
orbit" which is almost self-contradictory but in a
sense that merely emphasises the normal meaning.
> An Apollo spacecraft orbited the Moon;
Yes, the craft was revolving around the Moon.
> the spacecraft and the
> Moon orbit the Earth;
The craft/Moon system as a whole revolved around
the Earth but I think it would be inaccurate or
at least misleading to say the craft was revolving
around the Earth while the LEM was on the surface.
> the spacecraft, the Moon, and the Earth
> orbit the Sun; the spacecraft, the Moon, the Earth, and the
> Sun orbit the center of mass of the Milky Way galaxy.
>
> I didn't put a lot of thought into that paragraph before
> posting it on the other forum, because I wasn't attempting
> to *define* the term "orbit", but it seems pretty good.
I don't think it helps. If I draw the locus of the
Moon over a year, the path encompases the Sun,
however the Moon moves in a nearly Keplerian orbit
around the Earth with Solar gravity producing only
a perturbation of that orbit. On the other hand
Ceres orbits the Sun with the Earth/Moon system
being one perturbing influence.
> The "primary" of the Apollo spacecraft as it orbited the
> Moon was the Moon.
And to me that is precisely what it means to say
that the Moon orbits the Earth, not the Sun.
The only exception I can think of to that rule
would be possibly where a planet orbits a binary
system at much larger radius than the separation
of the binary components.
> The Moon was the body at the center of
> mass of the Moon-Apollo system. Likewise, Earth is the
> primary of the Earth-Moon system, and the primary of the
> Earth-Moon-Apollo system.
But it is not the primary of the Earth-Apollo
system since over a single orbit the Earth is not
enclosed by the path of the craft.
> The Sun is the primary of the
> Sun-Earth system, the Sun-Earth-Moon system, and the Sun-
> Earth-Moon-Apollo system. And the Milky Way galaxy as a
> whole is the primary of the Galaxy-Sun system, the Galaxy-
> Sun-Earth system, the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon system, and
> the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon-Apollo system.
>
> You can say that Ceres orbits the entire inner Solar
> System, which comprises the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth,
> Mars, and lots of asteroids.
You can if you define 'orbit' as meaning that the
path of Ceres encloses that paths of those bodies
but not if you define it as indicating which is
the primary gravitational influence as I do.
> That isn't much different
> from saying that it orbits the Sun. The Sun, being the
> most massive body in the system, and the body closest to
> the center of mass of the system, is the primary body of
> the system. The Earth is not the primary body of any
> system that Ceres belongs to.
No, but Earth is the primary influence on the path
of the Moon, not the Sun, hence "The Moon orbits the
Earth, not the Sun." is an accurate statement by my
definiton of "orbit". The reason I mentioned Google
is that I think my version better mirrors common
usage based on the numerous dictionaries that the
"define: " prefix searches.
If I were to get technical I would suggest something
along the lines of saying that the volume swept by
the satellite is bounded by a surface on which the
satellite would have zero kinetic energy relative
to the primary. Simply put, the Moon cannot get
too far from the Earth even though, if it were to
be displaced nearer to Venus and in solar orbit,
it might have the same total energy, because there
is a peak of gravitational potential separating the
volumes. That's difficult to explain but do you see
what I am trying to convey?
George
|
|
