| |
Main
Date: 18 Sep 2006 18:51:26
From: Rich
Subject: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Saw on the news a group of them demostrated to get Pluto re-instated as
a real planet instead of a dwarf. Someone should tell these people
that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
scientist.
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 20:42:52
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Thomas Mickleman wrote:
> Someone should tell these people
> > that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
> > scientist.
> >
>
> Tell us all about what it's like to be a scientist...kook.
Hobble back to the home, grandpa.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 20:42:21
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Alan French wrote:
> "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158630686.229297.35870@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Saw on the news a group of them demostrated to get Pluto re-instated as
> > a real planet instead of a dwarf. Someone should tell these people
> > that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
> > scientist.
>
> I don't think it is that simple. One of the IAU proposals would have made
> Pluto, Charon, and Ceres "planets." Would that have made the scientists
> deciding on the definition a bunch of "kooks?"
>
> I prefer the decision they made over the original one, but I would have been
> quite happy if they'd said, "We made a mistake with Pluto, but we'll leave
> it alone, and will be more careful in the future."
>
> Clear skies, Alan
Sure. It's not a black hole either, but we can pretend.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 12:40:57
From: Alan French
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158637340.980270.169420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alan French wrote:
> > "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1158630686.229297.35870@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Saw on the news a group of them demostrated to get Pluto re-instated
as
> > > a real planet instead of a dwarf. Someone should tell these people
> > > that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
> > > scientist.
> >
> > I don't think it is that simple. One of the IAU proposals would have
made
> > Pluto, Charon, and Ceres "planets." Would that have made the scientists
> > deciding on the definition a bunch of "kooks?"
> >
> > I prefer the decision they made over the original one, but I would have
been
> > quite happy if they'd said, "We made a mistake with Pluto, but we'll
leave
> > it alone, and will be more careful in the future."
> >
> > Clear skies, Alan
>
> Sure. It's not a black hole either, but we can pretend.
I guess you missed the point. The folks in charge of such things could have
come up with a definition that made Pluto a planet. Indeed, they were
headed that way. Invoking a black hole is stretching things to the extreme.
We know that's not a planet, and could never be defined as such.
Clear skies, Alan
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 02:40:04
From: Thomas Mickleman
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Someone should tell these people
> that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
> scientist.
>
Tell us all about what it's like to be a scientist...kook.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2006 21:24:55
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:04 GMT, Thomas Mickleman wrote:
> Someone should tell these people
>> that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
>> scientist.
>>
>
> Tell us all about what it's like to be a scientist...kook.
Tell us what about what it's like to be a troll. . .jerk
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 04:35:50
From: Thomas Mickleman
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@pcgamegolfers.com > wrote in message
news:599hy3qtdrr.1wd8qy93n2iin.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:40:04 GMT, Thomas Mickleman wrote:
>
>> Someone should tell these people
>>> that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
>>> scientist.
>>>
>>
>> Tell us all about what it's like to be a scientist...kook.
>
> Tell us what about what it's like to be a troll. . .jerk
So who asked ya?
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 02:10:41
From: Alan French
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158630686.229297.35870@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Saw on the news a group of them demostrated to get Pluto re-instated as
> a real planet instead of a dwarf. Someone should tell these people
> that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
> scientist.
I don't think it is that simple. One of the IAU proposals would have made
Pluto, Charon, and Ceres "planets." Would that have made the scientists
deciding on the definition a bunch of "kooks?"
I prefer the decision they made over the original one, but I would have been
quite happy if they'd said, "We made a mistake with Pluto, but we'll leave
it alone, and will be more careful in the future."
Clear skies, Alan
|
| | |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 19:57:59
From: Dan Krueger
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
> I don't think it is that simple. One of the IAU proposals would have made
> Pluto, Charon, and Ceres "planets." Would that have made the scientists
> deciding on the definition a bunch of "kooks?"
> I prefer the decision they made over the original one, but I would have been
> quite happy if they'd said, "We made a mistake with Pluto, but we'll leave
> it alone, and will be more careful in the future."
Did al-Mahdi know something serious was amiss in the radical
Islamist community he was closely monitoring?
Apparently so. He would later recount to Vanity Fair David Rose
in a January 2002 expose that had the FBI come to Khartoum in
February 1998 to analyze the data on terrorists that had lived
in or passed through Sudan. The offer went without a reply even
as Hamilton repeatedly queried Berger, Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, and others about what was wrong with the
offer and why it was placed at the entrance pupil, the exit
pupil shrinks below 0.3mm, your eye can no longer see that. The
idea that what we see around bagdad now is low cost simple to
build . which by themselves is kind of old hat.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 18:42:45
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Dan Krueger wrote:
>> I don't think it is that simple. One of the IAU proposals would have made
>> Pluto, Charon, and Ceres "planets." Would that have made the scientists
>> deciding on the definition a bunch of "kooks?"
>> I prefer the decision they made over the original one, but I would have been
>> quite happy if they'd said, "We made a mistake with Pluto, but we'll leave
>> it alone, and will be more careful in the future."
>
> Did al-Mahdi know something serious was amiss in the radical
> Islamist community he was closely monitoring?
>
> Apparently so. He would later recount to Vanity Fair David Rose
> in a January 2002 expose that had the FBI come to Khartoum in
> February 1998 to analyze the data on terrorists that had lived
> in or passed through Sudan. The offer went without a reply even
> as Hamilton repeatedly queried Berger, Secretary of State
> Madeleine Albright, and others about what was wrong with the
> offer and why it was placed at the entrance pupil, the exit
> pupil shrinks below 0.3mm, your eye can no longer see that. The
> idea that what we see around bagdad now is low cost simple to
> build . which by themselves is kind of old hat.
I propose we name this the Oriel virus. :-)
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 09:00:39
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
In article <1158630686.229297.35870@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
Rich <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote:
>Saw on the news a group of them demostrated to get Pluto re-instated as
>a real planet instead of a dwarf. Someone should tell these people
>that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
>scientist.
Re-classifying planets is not science. Astronomy is not
stamp-collecting.
-- Richard
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 16:15:38
From: Joe Bergeron
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
In article <eeobjn$25eh$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk >, Richard Tobin
<richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk > wrote:
> Re-classifying planets is not science. Astronomy is not
> stamp-collecting.
Taxonomy is a big part of science. This is taxonomy.
--
Joe Bergeron
http://www.joebergeron.com
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 16:43:24
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
In article <200920061215416784%jabergeron@earthlink.nettled >,
Joe Bergeron <jabergeron@earthlink.nettled > wrote:
>> Re-classifying planets is not science. Astronomy is not
>> stamp-collecting.
>Taxonomy is a big part of science. This is taxonomy.
In the early stages of a subject, taxonomy is often important. For
example, sorting out the stars from the planets was very important in
getting a clue as to how the universe is set up. But a taxonomy is
only as scientifically important if things fall into the different
categories for an interesting reason. If you have to fiddle with the
rules, it's a sign that you're not actually making an important
distinction.
-- Richard
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 16:33:44
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:15:38 GMT, Joe Bergeron
<jabergeron@earthlink.nettled > wrote:
>Taxonomy is a big part of science. This is taxonomy.
That last statement is arguable in this case. Perhaps it is a good
example of _bad_ taxonomy.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2006 12:16:01
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <1158630686.229297.35870@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Rich <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Saw on the news a group of them demostrated to get Pluto re-instated as
> >a real planet instead of a dwarf. Someone should tell these people
> >that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
> >scientist.
>
> Re-classifying planets is not science. Astronomy is not
> stamp-collecting.
>
> -- Richard
It is not simply a matter of rewriting textbooks to take into account
8 planets,it is that the discovery of Pluto was heralded as a success
for empirical celestial mechanics -
"The first planet to be discovered was Uranus by William and Caroline
Herschel on 13 March 1781. It was discovered by the fact that it showed
a disk when viewed through even a fairly low powered telescope. The
only other planets which have been discovered are Neptune and Pluto.
These were predicted using ingenious mathematical arguments based on
Newton's laws of gravitation and then observed near their predicted
locations. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Neptune_and_Pluto.html
So Tobin,it is people like yourself going around with
pseudo-authorative statements while nobody enjoys the spectacle of
watching you shoot yourselves in the foot .Mediocrity does not have any
heights or depths and when a situation like this occurs it is difficult
to see how it turns out especially when the mediocrity of celestial
sphere astrologers is governed by half wits like dynamicists.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 19:51:01
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <200920061215416784%jabergeron@earthlink.nettled>,
> Joe Bergeron <jabergeron@earthlink.nettled> wrote:
>
> >> Re-classifying planets is not science. Astronomy is not
> >> stamp-collecting.
>
> >Taxonomy is a big part of science. This is taxonomy.
>
> In the early stages of a subject, taxonomy is often important. For
> example, sorting out the stars from the planets was very important in
> getting a clue as to how the universe is set up. But a taxonomy is
> only as scientifically important if things fall into the different
> categories for an interesting reason. If you have to fiddle with the
> rules, it's a sign that you're not actually making an important
> distinction.
>
> -- Richard
But bad taxonomy and lack of good data is why Pluto was classed as a
planet to begin
with. It's species is now known to be different enough to exclude it
from that category.
I just read a book on the taxonomical mistakes made of a fossil find
called the Burgess Shale. Bad observation was the cause there and
unwarranted assumptions. Sounds like Pluto too.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 16:51:21
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <200920061215416784%jabergeron@earthlink.nettled>,
> Joe Bergeron <jabergeron@earthlink.nettled> wrote:
> >Taxonomy is a big part of science. This is taxonomy.
> In the early stages of a subject, taxonomy is often important. For
> example, sorting out the stars from the planets was very important in
> getting a clue as to how the universe is set up. But a taxonomy is
> only as scientifically important if things fall into the different
> categories for an interesting reason. If you have to fiddle with the
> rules, it's a sign that you're not actually making an important
> distinction.
Classifying Pluto as a body similar to other Kuiper Belt objects is not
bad taxonomy.
But taxonomy is irrelevant to whether or not Pluto is a "planet"; as
others have noted, giving little weight to the distinction between the
terrestrial planets and the gas giants, and a large weight to the
distinction between both of them and the Kuiper Belt Objects is
strange.
And astronomy is indeed not in its "early stages"; taxonomy was
important in zoology and botany before we could sequence DNA, but the
study of celestial bodies faces no analogous obstacle.
The designation of Pluto as a planet or not instead relates to a social
function of the IAU. Planets, comets, and asteroids are named in an
orderly process, to prevent there from being one set of names in one
group of countries, and a different set of names used in countries
which differ politically, culturally, or religiously. This avoids
confusion.
With many KBOs comparable in size to Pluto, treating Pluto as a major
member of our solar system, and the others as much less important *is*
misleading.
Setting a threshhold for planethood below the size of Pluto, thus
allowing for several new planets in our solar system, makes our time
seem a more exciting one for astronomy... but blatant plays for grant
money could hamper the esteem in which astronomers are held. So perhaps
they have made the right decision after all, although I would urge
caution before so drastic a step.
Perhaps, fifty years from now, we might have gotten *used* to the idea,
if the IAU, then, finally withdrew planetary status from Pluto... or
recognized some new planets in addition to Pluto, once the extent of
the Kuiper Belt was better understood.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 16:40:41
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
oriel36 wrote:
> It is not simply a matter of rewriting textbooks to take into account
> 8 planets,it is that the discovery of Pluto was heralded as a success
> for empirical celestial mechanics -
> "The first planet to be discovered was Uranus by William and Caroline
> Herschel on 13 March 1781. It was discovered by the fact that it showed
> a disk when viewed through even a fairly low powered telescope. The
> only other planets which have been discovered are Neptune and Pluto.
> These were predicted using ingenious mathematical arguments based on
> Newton's laws of gravitation and then observed near their predicted
> locations. "
And, of course, the fact that Pluto did not have enough gravity to
cause the supposed effects which caused telescopes to be aimed in its
direction had been acknowledged and admitted *long* before any
consideration was given to withdrawing its status as a planet, even
though its discovery (unlike that of Neptune, which *did* result from
celestial mechanics correctly applied) was fortuitous.
So I don't see why this really applies to the debate on what we should
call Pluto.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 13:31:24
From: Robert Sheaffer
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> To be anal retentive about it, Pluto still *is* a planet--just like
> Jupiter, 1 Ceres, 433 Eros, and all the rest of them. What Pluto is no
> longer is a *major* planet. (Jupiter is a major planet, Pluto and 1
> Ceres are reclassified as dwarf planets, and 433 Eros is a minor
> planet, if i understand the new system correctly.)
You mean "(134340) Pluto", as in "(1) Ceres" or "(433) Eros". Pluto has
just received its asteroid number, which (with the benefit of hindsight)
should have been assigned back in 1930.
By the way, I saw Ceres last night, it's well placed in the evening sky.
Very easy to find, if you have a goto.
Robert
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 13:29:52
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
tony_flanders@yahoo.com wrote:
> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
> > To be anal retentive about it, Pluto still *is* a planet--just like
> > Jupiter, 1 Ceres, 433 Eros, and all the rest of them. What Pluto is no
> > longer is a *major* planet. (Jupiter is a major planet, Pluto and 1
> > Ceres are reclassified as dwarf planets, and 433 Eros is a minor
> > planet, if i understand the new system correctly.)
>
> You do not understand the new system correctly. According to the IAU
> resolution, Jupiter is a "planet", Pluto and Ceres are "dwarf planets"
> but
> are explicitly excluded from being "planets," and 433 Eros is a "small
> solar system body." Minor planets have been abolished, and major
> planets have never officially existed -- useful as that term would be.
>
> - Tony Flanders
Maybe they could come up with some specifics like;
-Has to be round, not a conglomeration of bits of rock than never
"formed."
-Has to have an orbit indicating it originated in the original
accretion disk of the system.
-Has to have a "layered" composition as does every other planet.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 11:22:19
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> To be anal retentive about it, Pluto still *is* a planet--just like
> Jupiter, 1 Ceres, 433 Eros, and all the rest of them. What Pluto is no
> longer is a *major* planet. (Jupiter is a major planet, Pluto and 1
> Ceres are reclassified as dwarf planets, and 433 Eros is a minor
> planet, if i understand the new system correctly.)
You do not understand the new system correctly. According to the IAU
resolution, Jupiter is a "planet", Pluto and Ceres are "dwarf planets"
but
are explicitly excluded from being "planets," and 433 Eros is a "small
solar system body." Minor planets have been abolished, and major
planets have never officially existed -- useful as that term would be.
- Tony Flanders
|
| | |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 13:41:30
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
tony_flanders@yahoo.com wrote:
> Minor planets have been abolished
I think (getting past the sentimental Pluto thing) this is actually the
real mess. As far as I can tell reading the text of the resolution,
minor planets weren't specifically abolished; it's more that no mention
of them was made, so there is merely the implication that the term minor
planet is no longer to be used. A loophole? I've been watching the
Minor Planet Center (a part of the IAU) and I have seen no evidence that
they are going to rename themselves or start calling minor planets
asteroids... so what's up with that?
But more to the point, if we lose the term minor planet it causes a bit
of a problem. Most people don't consider Trans Neptunian Objects to be
Asteroids. And nobody wants to lump comets in with... um... minor
planets, in practice. So if we stop using "minor planet" it seems to me
that we are left with small bodies being grouped as comets, asteroids,
and TNO's. Ok, I'm really cheating here: are the icy Centaurs
Asteroids? It's not a big deal, but it was nicer (for things like
dialogs ;-)) when we could call these things minor planets. Personally
I think we should be making some sort of distinction based on primary
composition (icy or rocky) unless we are willing to pretend that there
is no important difference between a comet and an asteroid...
Sigh.
If anyone has the inside scoop on what the Minor Planet Center plans to
do about all this in the future, I'd love to hear about it.
Clear skies,
Greg
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2006 10:15:54
From: Cousin Ricky
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Alan French wrote:
>
> I guess you missed the point. The folks in charge of such things could have
> come up with a definition that made Pluto a planet. Indeed, they were
> headed that way. Invoking a black hole is stretching things to the extreme.
> We know that's not a planet, and could never be defined as such.
To be anal retentive about it, Pluto still *is* a planet--just like
Jupiter, 1 Ceres, 433 Eros, and all the rest of them. What Pluto is no
longer is a *major* planet. (Jupiter is a major planet, Pluto and 1
Ceres are reclassified as dwarf planets, and 433 Eros is a minor
planet, if i understand the new system correctly.)
Aside from that, the kooks do need to get back on the bus and go home.
This reclassification is for our benefit as Earthlings trying to make
sense of the cosmos, and has _absolutely_no_effect_whatsoever_ on Pluto
or anything else up in the sky; nor does it diminish Clyde Tombaugh's
memory in any way. As if that needed to be said.
Clear skies!
--
------------------- Richard Callwood III --------------------
~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~
~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~
--------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ ---------------
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 00:51:21
From: Matu
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Barrada Nicto, Gich.
Rich wrote:
> Saw on the news a group of them demostrated to get Pluto re-instated as
> a real planet instead of a dwarf. Someone should tell these people
> that being a nostalgia nut does not mix particularly well with being a
> scientist.
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2006 10:18:51
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > It is not simply a matter of rewriting textbooks to take into account
> > 8 planets,it is that the discovery of Pluto was heralded as a success
> > for empirical celestial mechanics -
>
> > "The first planet to be discovered was Uranus by William and Caroline
> > Herschel on 13 March 1781. It was discovered by the fact that it showed
> > a disk when viewed through even a fairly low powered telescope. The
> > only other planets which have been discovered are Neptune and Pluto.
> > These were predicted using ingenious mathematical arguments based on
> > Newton's laws of gravitation and then observed near their predicted
> > locations. "
>
> And, of course, the fact that Pluto did not have enough gravity to
> cause the supposed effects which caused telescopes to be aimed in its
> direction had been acknowledged and admitted *long* before any
> consideration was given to withdrawing its status as a planet, even
> though its discovery (unlike that of Neptune, which *did* result from
> celestial mechanics correctly applied) was fortuitous.
>
> So I don't see why this really applies to the debate on what we should
> call Pluto.
>
> John Savard
You can say whatever you wish and cook up whatever dynamicist
explanation you need to support the withdrawl of Pluto as a planet but
equally you have to acknowledge the equally good dynamicist explantion
which supported the discovery and naming of Pluto as a planet.
I look at the half-hearted attempts by astrophorographers to live with
the demotion of Pluto with great interest,not because of the merits of
celestial mechanics which is and always was a really dumb way to
explain planetary motion,bjut to see if they had enough intelligence to
watch you lot shoot yourselves hastily in the foot.
Obviously they do not have enough intelligence and there is nothing
that can be done about that.Dynamicists did not gain a victory,they
just highlighted how stupid they really are.
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2006 12:18:28
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
Rich wrote:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <200920061215416784%jabergeron@earthlink.nettled>,
> > Joe Bergeron <jabergeron@earthlink.nettled> wrote:
> >
> > >> Re-classifying planets is not science. Astronomy is not
> > >> stamp-collecting.
> >
> > >Taxonomy is a big part of science. This is taxonomy.
> >
> > In the early stages of a subject, taxonomy is often important. For
> > example, sorting out the stars from the planets was very important in
> > getting a clue as to how the universe is set up. But a taxonomy is
> > only as scientifically important if things fall into the different
> > categories for an interesting reason. If you have to fiddle with the
> > rules, it's a sign that you're not actually making an important
> > distinction.
> >
> > -- Richard
>
> But bad taxonomy and lack of good data is why Pluto was classed as a
> planet to begin
> with. It's species is now known to be different enough to exclude it
> from that category.
> I just read a book on the taxonomical mistakes made of a fossil find
> called the Burgess Shale. Bad observation was the cause there and
> unwarranted assumptions. Sounds like Pluto too.
There is an excellent thread on sci.astro.research revealing that not
only did the dynamicists shoot themselves in the foot once ,they used a
semi-automatic.
You see it has all to do with 'clearing the neighborhood' -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood
As Pluto intrudes on the orbit of Neptune and Neptune has not cleared
its neigborhood of the now asteroid pluto then this disqualifies
Neptune as a planet,at least as the celestial sphere geometers have it.
No wonder the postings have dried up when the meaningless and sometimes
hilarious reasoning of celestial sphere geometers becomes public.I bet
nobody here has the intellectual and intuitive intelligence to
recognise what is so obvious to the poster in sci.astro.research but I
cannot imagine how it is possible to get any worse.
|
| |
Date: 27 Sep 2006 03:06:36
From: Wally
Subject: Re: Pluto kooks on the warpath
|
oriel36 wrote:
> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> > oriel36 wrote:
> > > It is not simply a matter of rewriting textbooks to take into account
> > > 8 planets,it is that the discovery of Pluto was heralded as a success
> > > for empirical celestial mechanics -
> >
> > > "The first planet to be discovered was Uranus by William and Caroline
> > > Herschel on 13 March 1781. It was discovered by the fact that it showed
> > > a disk when viewed through even a fairly low powered telescope. The
> > > only other planets which have been discovered are Neptune and Pluto.
> > > These were predicted using ingenious mathematical arguments based on
> > > Newton's laws of gravitation and then observed near their predicted
> > > locations. "
> >
> > And, of course, the fact that Pluto did not have enough gravity to
> > cause the supposed effects which caused telescopes to be aimed in its
> > direction had been acknowledged and admitted *long* before any
> > consideration was given to withdrawing its status as a planet, even
> > though its discovery (unlike that of Neptune, which *did* result from
> > celestial mechanics correctly applied) was fortuitous.
> >
> > So I don't see why this really applies to the debate on what we should
> > call Pluto.
> >
> > John Savard
>
> You can say whatever you wish and cook up whatever dynamicist
> explanation you need to support the withdrawl of Pluto as a planet but
> equally you have to acknowledge the equally good dynamicist explantion
> which supported the discovery and naming of Pluto as a planet.
>
> I look at the half-hearted attempts by astrophorographers to live with
> the demotion of Pluto with great interest,not because of the merits of
> celestial mechanics which is and always was a really dumb way to
> explain planetary motion,bjut to see if they had enough intelligence to
> watch you lot shoot yourselves hastily in the foot.
>
> Obviously they do not have enough intelligence and there is nothing
> that can be done about that.Dynamicists did not gain a victory,they
> just highlighted how stupid they really are.
I tend to agree with your thesis however you might as wellface the fact
you cannot argue with zealots. With 6-7 billion morons on Earth right now
there is goign tobe a very high percentage of the mentally impaired whose
righteous indigination with overpopulation insists they must have their way -
how else to show they are "right". That saide, the case of Pluto will take care
of itself. Surprise surpsise. It's a little like the Hershey candybar. It
proves
itself! Pluto will continue to be a major object of interest and a PLANET
no matter what the baboons do with arms swinging!
|
|
