Pluto loses status as a planet

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Pluto loses status as a planet

Pluto loses status as a planet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm

Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.

Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a
planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 09:57:18
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Maybe it's high time to stop funding IAU members entirely. Let's fund
all non-IAU members!:)

Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:02:37
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> Maybe it's high time to stop funding IAU members entirely. Let's fund
> all non-IAU members!:)

Define IAU member. :)

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:25:52
From: Scoop
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Quoth Brian Tung:
: Ed wrote:
: > Maybe it's high time to stop funding IAU members entirely. Let's fund
: > all non-IAU members!:)

: Define IAU member. :)

1) It must have gravitas to gather unto itself a consortium.

2) It must rotate about the Earth's core.

3) It must reign supreme in its own discipline, having "cleared the
neighborhood" of other competing astronomers.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 09:23:00
From: PD
Subject: Re: NASA to Announces Dark Matter Discovery

Traveler wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 06:49:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Traveler wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:29:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
> >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:1155751832.337573.312830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> Igor wrote:
> >> >>> Robert Clark wrote:
> >> >>> > John Baez wrote:
> >> >>> > > In article <ebq1f4$2ap$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> >> >...
> >> >>> > > http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1023641
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > So, dark matter is looking real, and the question is: what is it?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The aether.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's really too bad that no one explained to you that the aether
> >> >>> concept has been dead for over a hundred years. You might want to look
> >> >>> it up.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you read about the theories of modern physics, you find that EVERY
> >> >> one of them have a tenet that the true absolute vacuum still contains
> >> >> energy.
> >> >
> >> >But very few of them have a rigid crystalline substance
> >> >filling the whole of space through which matter passes
> >> >unimpeded and whose vibrations we perceive as light.
> >>
> >> The very fact that bodies move is proof that we are moving in an
> >> immense and highly energetic 4-D lattice of particles. Causality
> >> demands it. Why? Because every change (quantum jump) requires a cause
> >> and this cause is an interaction. Aristotle redux.
> >
> >But there is no evidence that motion is quantized.
>
> There is no evidence that a photon actually travels the path between
> an emitter and a detector either. We can only infer that it does.
>
> > Once you have
> >figured out how to experimentally test your notion that it is, let us
> >know.
>
> If you call yourself a physicist and you still cannot figure out that
> nature is necessarily discrete, you are stupid as fuck. As I wrote
> elsewhere, you should be tarred and feathered and your alma mater
> deserves to be burned down to the ground. ahahaha... FYI, the universe
> is discrete because a continuous (infinitely divisible) universe leads
> to an infinite regress. As simple as that. That ass kissers like you
> in the physics community cannot see it is a testament to your
> stupidity or worse, your dishonesty.

You confuse evidence with logic. You see a continuum as logically
impossible. On the other hand, we have NO evidence that motion is
discrete. Since you think that an infinite regress is an abhorrent
condition, then you need a theory that models discrete motion via an
interaction that does *not* transfer momentum. Simple as that. You
haven't provided that.

>
> >Furthermore, every interaction that we know of so far involves a
> >*transfer* of momentum. If a particle moves with constant momentum from
> >place to place to place, there is no experimental evidence of momentum
> >transfer of any kind in that process. So now we need evidence of an
> >interaction that generates a displacement (the quantum displacement we
> >don't have evidence for) without generating a transfer of momentum.
> >When you build a quantitatively predictive model that accounts for such
> >an interaction, let us know.
>
> Yeah right. ahahaha... Look moron, momentum is a property (or set of
> properties) or state (or states) of a particle. It is a *passive*
> property. It does not cause a positional jump any more than the mass
> of a particle causes it to move. Momentum is merely an indicator or an
> instruction for how a particle should move. A jump is an effect that
> requires a cause and movement is not its own cause. The cause is
> obvious to everyone who does not have shit for brains. It is an
> interaction with another particle.

You missed my point. If there is a interaction that *causes* a particle
to jump from one location to another, then we need a model for that
interaction. Every existing model of interactions involves the
*transfer* of momentum in the process of that interaction. There is not
a single exception to this rule so far. You are now proposing that
there is an interaction that *causes* a particle to jump from one
location to another, but does so *without* a transfer of momentum. We
know there is no transfer of momentum, because the momentum of the
particle does not change between successive jumps.

>
> >So far, you're just babbling "it's obvious" about things that are not
> >at all obvious.
>
> So far, you're just kissing ass. ahahaha...

With whom? I'm talking about *your* idea. I'm not referring to anyone
else's idea.

>
> >> The failure of the physics community to grasp something as fundamental
> >> (not to mention, simple) as the causality of movement will go down as
> >> one of the biggest blunders in the history of science, on a par with
> >> the flat earth hypothesis. Yeah, it's truly pathetic. ahahaha...
> >>
> >
> >Not much time left, Traveler, to answer these questions a bit better
> >before you die. Better get to work.
>
> I've been working and I've made steady progress. That's how I know
> you're all full of shit. ahahaha... I was naively hoping for a little
> help from the physics experts.

Why? Have you made a proposal to physicists? Have you contracted with
any physicists? Have you offered a consultation fee? It is *your* idea
after all that you want help with.

PD

> As it turns out, the experts are of no
> help. They are, in fact, a hindrance, having shit for brains and being
> all part of the same ass kissing cult. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
> ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:43:32
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <VAiHg.106293$FQ1.46132@attbi_s71 >,
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote:
>Pluto loses status as a planet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
>
>Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
>its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
>International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>
>Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a
>planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.

Good!

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 24 Aug 2006 16:51:16
From: Dave Jessie
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Paul Schlyter wrote in message:

> Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>Pluto loses status as a planet
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
>>
>>Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
>>its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
>>International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>>
>>Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a
>>planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.
>
> Good!

Paul,

Your response is rather wordy, but I have to agree with you completely! ;^)

Clear Dark Steady Skies,
Dave Jessie
PS I'm another one who for years has been teaching that Pluto isn't, and
never was, a planet due simply to its peculiar orbit as compared to the
eight classical planets.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:11:04
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Yay! I can now say i've seen ALL the planets in our solar system!! I've =
not yet seen Pluto but it doesn't count anymore.

;-)

.Florian

Date: 24 Aug 2006 23:42:01
From: ED T
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Florian wrote:
> Yay! I can now say i've seen ALL the planets in our solar system!! I've not yet seen Pluto but it doesn't count anymore.
>
> ;-)
>
> .Florian
>
>

Yes, this decision is vastly better than "let them _all_ be planets".

Ed T.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 20:52:07
From: Carsten A. Arnholm
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Florian wrote:
> Yay! I can now say i've seen ALL the planets in our solar system!!
> I've not yet seen Pluto but it doesn't count anymore.

But you can still see the *planet* Pluto, but only in photographs like mine
:-)
http://arnholm.org/astro/pluto/

It is now not possible to make new images of the *planet* Pluto, so in a way
I feel my image has been promoted :-))

Clear skies
Carsten A. Arnholm
http://arnholm.org/
N59.776 E10.457

Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:33:49
From: Rob Johnson
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <ckjHg.4531$S_5.342@tornado.socal.rr.com >,
"Florian" <star6@TheDesertSon.com > wrote:
>Yay! I can now say i've seen ALL the planets in our solar system!! I've
>not yet seen Pluto but it doesn't count anymore.
>
>;-)

My uncle and I were going to look for Pluto last Sunday, but I was
too busy taking photos to unmount my refractor in time so that we
could use my C14. I missed my chance to see the ninth planet while
it still existed!

;-(

Rob Johnson <rob@trash.whim.org >
take out the trash before replying
to view any ASCII art, display article in a monospaced font

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:05:30
From: Carsten A. Arnholm
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Date: 24 Aug 2006 08:21:09
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:05:30 +0200, "Carsten A. Arnholm"
<arnholm@offline.no > wrote:

>8 planets plus Trans Nepunian Objects is fine with me. I think it will be
>accepted by most people, now or after a while.

Pluto was demoted to a Dwarf Planet. Ceres and Xena were
promoted to Dwarf Planets with many more "Dwarf Planets" soon to come!

This is an excellent outcome from the IAU gathering. History has
properly corrected itself.

I am very glad that Charon did not become a planet or dwarf planet.

We currently have 8 Major Planets and 3 Dwarf Planets (Ceres, Pluto,
Xena).

-- Kevin Heider

West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Date: 24 Aug 2006 16:17:03
From: Paul Neave
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Kevin Heider wrote:
> I am very glad that Charon did not become a planet or dwarf planet.

I missed this... why isn't Charon now considered a dwarf planet?

One of the earlier proposals was that Pluto-Charon is a twin or binary
planet because the barycentre (centre of gravity) is above Pluto's
surface. This meant Charon isn't a moon of Pluto but both orbit around
each other, and so both are called planets. How does this new
definition clarify that Charon is not a dwarf planet?

Thanks!

Date: 24 Aug 2006 16:16:57
From: SkySea
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

The earlier proposal was rejected. Therefore the argument that
involved a barycenter should be scratched from consideration. If a
barycenter should be included in a future definition, then perhaps
Charon might be considered as something else. But for now, there's no
talk of barycenter being involved.

>Paul Neave <paul.neave@nospampleasegmail.com> wrote:
>I missed this... why isn't Charon now considered a dwarf planet?
>
>One of the earlier proposals was that Pluto-Charon is a twin or binary
>planet because the barycentre (centre of gravity) is above Pluto's
>surface. This meant Charon isn't a moon of Pluto but both orbit around
>each other, and so both are called planets. How does this new
>definition clarify that Charon is not a dwarf planet?
>
>Thanks!

>>Kevin Heider wrote:
>> I am very glad that Charon did not become a planet or dwarf planet.

=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
http://flavorj.com/~skysea

Date: 24 Aug 2006 07:39:58
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> its status as a planet.

O.K. . .and the Pacific Ocean will from now on be referred to as "The
Pacific Great Big Lake."

--
Martin R. Howell

"The Astro Post"
www.theastropost.com

Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:34:35
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com >
wrote:

>Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
>its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
>International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.

No they haven't. They have only adopted a nomenclature that could have a
minor effect on scientific discussion and publications. The common
definition of "planet" hasn't changed- that is beyond the authority of
the IAU (or any other organization).

Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:27:16
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
>> its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
>> International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>
> No they haven't. They have only adopted a nomenclature that could have a
> minor effect on scientific discussion and publications. The common
> definition of "planet" hasn't changed- that is beyond the authority of
> the IAU (or any other organization).
>
> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

I agree with you Chris what's called a "planet" is largely a matter of
public usage. However, in the classroom, I have not conveyed Pluto as
a planet, but as a Kuiper belt object, for many years.

Each semester, I ask my students to plot on star charts, apparent planet
locations on the date that the homework is due. I've never included
Pluto in that exercise.

-Sam

Date: 25 Aug 2006 11:36:40
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in
news:n0ere293ut128r1r0em75ugedeqodrtf2d@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
>>its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
>>International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>
> No they haven't. They have only adopted a nomenclature that could have a
> minor effect on scientific discussion and publications. The common
> definition of "planet" hasn't changed- that is beyond the authority of
> the IAU (or any other organization).
>
> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.

Public usage changes too. Ceres was a planet for fifty years. The Sun and
Moon were planets in ancient times. If the scientific community drop Pluto
as a planet then eventually it will get dropped from books as being
described as a planet. In a few generations, only those interested in
astronomy will even know that it was once classifed as a planet.

Klazmon.

>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:09:06
From: IAU Realty
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw! The South will rise agin! Pluto ferevor!

Chris L Peterson wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> >its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
> >International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>
> No they haven't. They have only adopted a nomenclature that could have a
> minor effect on scientific discussion and publications. The common
> definition of "planet" hasn't changed- that is beyond the authority of
> the IAU (or any other organization).
>
> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:33:36
From: Paul Neave
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Sam Wormley wrote:
> Pluto loses status as a planet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
>

More info:
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/060824_planet_definition.html

* Planets: The eight worlds from Mercury to Neptune.
* Dwarf Planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared
the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."
* Small Solar System Bodies: All other objects orbiting the Sun.

It's kinda sad but correct in some way. The other option of having
'plutons' and multiple categories was somewhat confusing.

Paul.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:19:19
From: N. Foldager
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

>* Dwarf Planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared
>the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."

Can someone explain to me, why is Pluto not a planet? Which bodies
around its orbit are not cleared?

Why did IAU not define a satellite?
Is Pluto-Charon a double dwarf-planet or a dwarf-planet with a moon?

Niels Foldager

Date: 24 Aug 2006 16:44:23
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

N. Foldager wrote:
>> * Dwarf Planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared
>> the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."
>
> Can someone explain to me, why is Pluto not a planet? Which bodies
> around its orbit are not cleared?
>
> Why did IAU not define a satellite?
> Is Pluto-Charon a double dwarf-planet or a dwarf-planet with a moon?
>
> Niels Foldager

The new rules for a planet state: "a celestial body that is in orbit
around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and
cleared the neighborhood around its orbit".

See: http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.14-15/debris4.jpg

Date: 24 Aug 2006 20:09:37
From: N. Foldager
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

I wrote:

>> Can someone explain to me, why is Pluto not a planet? Which bodies
>> around its orbit are not cleared?
>>
>> Why did IAU not define a satellite?
>> Is Pluto-Charon a double dwarf-planet or a dwarf-planet with a moon?

Sam Wormley:

> The new rules for a planet state: "a celestial body that is in orbit
> around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
> rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and
> cleared the neighborhood around its orbit".

I know. That's why I ask.

The last sentence makes Pluto a dwarf planet, they say indirectly, in
that Pluto should not clear around its orbit. Then I ask: Which
objects around the orbit of Pluto are not cleared?

Niels Foldager

Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:50:49
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

N. Foldager wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>>> Can someone explain to me, why is Pluto not a planet? Which bodies
>>> around its orbit are not cleared?
>>>
>>> Why did IAU not define a satellite?
>>> Is Pluto-Charon a double dwarf-planet or a dwarf-planet with a moon?
>
>
> Sam Wormley:
>
>> The new rules for a planet state: "a celestial body that is in orbit
>> around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
>> rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and
>> cleared the neighborhood around its orbit".
>
> I know. That's why I ask.
>
> The last sentence makes Pluto a dwarf planet, they say indirectly, in
> that Pluto should not clear around its orbit. Then I ask: Which
> objects around the orbit of Pluto are not cleared?
>
> Niels Foldager

Small debris that has an infrared signature.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:36:27
From: N. Foldager
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Sam Wormley:

> Small debris that has an infrared signature.

If you have a reference/link, I would be very interested.

Niels Foldager

Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:05:31
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

N. Foldager wrote:
> The last sentence makes Pluto a dwarf planet, they say indirectly, in
> that Pluto should not clear around its orbit. Then I ask: Which
> objects around the orbit of Pluto are not cleared?

Other plutinos, perhaps.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:07:39
From: IAU Realty
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

That gentirification! There will be an immediate appeal by the Cosmic
Liberties Union!

Sam Wormley wrote:

> N. Foldager wrote:
> >> * Dwarf Planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared
> >> the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."
> >
> > Can someone explain to me, why is Pluto not a planet? Which bodies
> > around its orbit are not cleared?
> >
> > Why did IAU not define a satellite?
> > Is Pluto-Charon a double dwarf-planet or a dwarf-planet with a moon?
> >
> > Niels Foldager
>
> The new rules for a planet state: "a celestial body that is in orbit
> around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
> rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and
> cleared the neighborhood around its orbit".
>
> See: http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.14-15/debris4.jpg

Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:26:05
From: Esmail Bonakdarian
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Sam Wormley wrote:
> Pluto loses status as a planet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
>

Blasphemy! ..

Date: 25 Aug 2006 00:56:34
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

From the looks of things, it ain't over yet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14489259/

RJ

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:VAiHg.106293$FQ1.46132@attbi_s71...
> Pluto loses status as a planet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
>
> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
> International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>
> Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a
> planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:50:31
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

I've been on commitees before and I know what happens when you are
pressed for time.
But they waited until the last day and let's be fair, there are reasons
that you may wait for the last day such as many of the attendees have
already left which is probably why the vote was so very close.

And I did expect them, of all people, to honor the discovery that was
made 76 years ago.
Of course, Clyde Tombaugh wasn't a "Professional" astronomer and I
wonder if that had something to do with it?

Well, as far as I can tell, if PhD's want to throw that "Professional"
baloney around then we have to let go of all the classical astronomers
like Galileo, Tycho, Copernicus both Hershels etc.

Astronomy will probably always be the one science that a non-PhD can
make a discovery and who the heck cares what these Professionals do!

They don't hold their own pursestrings.

And they certainly don't do all the educating as many scientists are
not known for their
"Social Skills" either.

You can sure tell why because of the way they screwed this up.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 19:08:47
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> And I did expect them, of all people, to honor the discovery that was
> made 76 years ago.
> Of course, Clyde Tombaugh wasn't a "Professional" astronomer and I
> wonder if that had something to do with it?

I doubt it. I think most of them wanted very much to have some reason
to keep Pluto a planet, but it had to be a legitimate one. They would
rather do something that made them feel bad, than to do something that
they had no reason to do but to make them feel good. It is in that way
that I think they were honest.

I'm pretty sure Tombaugh went on to get a degree (master's?) in
astronomy, so he certainly does count as a professional amateur. I
think you misrepresent the vast majority of professional astronomers
when you characterize them as dismissive of amateurs.

> Astronomy will probably always be the one science that a non-PhD can
> make a discovery and who the heck cares what these Professionals do!

I do. I also care what amateurs do. I think it is foolish to hold a
grudge.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:44:59
From: jt
Subject: Re: So can it still be a dog?

Tommy Lee wrote:
> "Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com> wrote in message
> news:ms0h3fx0zqpj$.1p94zmlippvxp.dlg@40tude.net...
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> >> its status as a planet.
> >
> >
> > So can it still be a dog?
> >
>
>
> Why do you persist in supplying inane comments that have nothing to do with
> the topic??

No more inane than the #*##!!* IAU, I'd say.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:12:13
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Talk about bad science. I haven't followed astronomy much lately, even
though I have a degree in it. Life's just moved me in other directions
for now.

I couldn't care less if Pluto is defined to be a planet or not but the
definition is awful. Here are my objections:

1) Under this definition a "dwarf planet" is not a "planet". This is
confusing and counter-inituitive. They should have named the dwarf
planet category something that did not contain the world planet.
Perhaps a derivative of the word like planetlet, but not xxxxx planet.

2) The deinition is abitrary. Now planets must orbit the sun (ie our
sun Sol). Not any star just the sun. So where does this leave
extra-solar planets? Where does it leave over a decade of research
papers that refer to these bodies as planets. 100 years from now this
is going to make reading those works more difficult and less intuitive.
What's worse is that right now those who are learning about extra-solar
planets, and those use to speaking/writing about them are going to have
to break a habit if they wish to be technically correct. This was going
to happen anyway as scientists and people in general are divided about
whether Pluto is a planet and what makes a planet. However I can't
think of a worse way to make a distinction than based on whether or not
something happens to orbit our local star.

3) The definition is imprecise and parts of the definition require
further defintion. This particularly applies to the phrasing around has
vs has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. What's the
standard for clearing the orbit exactly? Since Pluto crosses Neptune's
orbit, does that mean Neptune hasn't cleared its neighbourhood? (Yes
they're in no danger of colliding and exhibit orbital resonance, but
does that mean if there's a resonance this rule doesn't apply?).

As for dwarf planet definition part (d) "is not a satellite"...is not a
satellite of what? Clearly they mean not a satellite of a planet or
dwarf planet but every planet can be considered a satellite of its star
can't it? I guess I'd have to go look at the definition of satellite.

4) What's with the backflip? This new definition couldn't be more
different than the press release of a week ago regarding the draft
defintion (which made much more sense). This has to be politics at
work, and when you get so big a difference between the draft and final
of something so fundamental non-experts tend to wonder if it's all just
being made up on the spur of the moment.

5) No explanation of the reasoning behind the backflip. There's
reference to an upcoming news conference but it won't receive the
coverage that this did. Reasons for such a big change in fundamental
categorisation need to be explained in full.

This is science at its worst (well not quite, no one died, but it's bad
science nonetheless).

Sammy

Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:14:01
From: IAU Realty
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

syousef@bigpond.net.au wrote:

> Talk about bad science. I haven't followed astronomy much lately, even
> though I have a degree in it. Life's just moved me in other directions
> for now.
>
> I couldn't care less if Pluto is defined to be a planet or not but the
> definition is awful. Here are my objections:
>
> 1) Under this definition a "dwarf planet" is not a "planet". This is
> confusing and counter-inituitive. They should have named the dwarf
> planet category something that did not contain the world planet.
> Perhaps a derivative of the word like planetlet, but not xxxxx planet.
>
> 2) The deinition is abitrary. Now planets must orbit the sun (ie our
> sun Sol). Not any star just the sun. So where does this leave
> extra-solar planets? Where does it leave over a decade of research
> papers that refer to these bodies as planets. 100 years from now this
> is going to make reading those works more difficult and less intuitive.
> What's worse is that right now those who are learning about extra-solar
> planets, and those use to speaking/writing about them are going to have
> to break a habit if they wish to be technically correct. This was going
> to happen anyway as scientists and people in general are divided about
> whether Pluto is a planet and what makes a planet. However I can't
> think of a worse way to make a distinction than based on whether or not
> something happens to orbit our local star.
>
> 3) The definition is imprecise and parts of the definition require
> further defintion. This particularly applies to the phrasing around has
> vs has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. What's the
> standard for clearing the orbit exactly? Since Pluto crosses Neptune's
> orbit, does that mean Neptune hasn't cleared its neighbourhood? (Yes
> they're in no danger of colliding and exhibit orbital resonance, but
> does that mean if there's a resonance this rule doesn't apply?).
>
> As for dwarf planet definition part (d) "is not a satellite"...is not a
> satellite of what? Clearly they mean not a satellite of a planet or
> dwarf planet but every planet can be considered a satellite of its star
> can't it? I guess I'd have to go look at the definition of satellite.
>
> 4) What's with the backflip? This new definition couldn't be more
> different than the press release of a week ago regarding the draft
> defintion (which made much more sense). This has to be politics at
> work, and when you get so big a difference between the draft and final
> of something so fundamental non-experts tend to wonder if it's all just
> being made up on the spur of the moment.
>
> 5) No explanation of the reasoning behind the backflip. There's
> reference to an upcoming news conference but it won't receive the
> coverage that this did. Reasons for such a big change in fundamental
> categorisation need to be explained in full.
>
> This is science at its worst (well not quite, no one died, but it's bad
> science nonetheless).
>
> Sammy

and the IAU at its drunken best, in full living Technocratic colour.

The IAU just made itself obsolete! (Its about time).

Date: 25 Aug 2006 11:29:38
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in news:VAiHg.106293$FQ1.46132
@attbi_s71:

> Pluto loses status as a planet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm

Now that is just Goofy. Or do I mean Mickey Mouse ;- > ?

Klazmon

>
> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
> International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>
> Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a
> planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.
>

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:35:18
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I do tend to respect people in general and in
> particular someone with a masters or PhD but I really expected much
> more from this group of folks.

To some degree I agree with you. I can't help but see the well thought
out arguments at some point degrading to:

"Is not!"
"Is too!"
"Is not!"
"Is too!"
...

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:22:07
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Don't get me wrong, I do tend to respect people in general and in
particular someone with a masters or PhD but I really expected much
more from this group of folks.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:26:54
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I do tend to respect people in general and in
> particular someone with a masters or PhD but I really expected much
> more from this group of folks.

What more did you expect? As I recall, you were pushing for setting
Pluto as the bar for planet status, which frankly has nothing going for
it *but* sentiment. I don't think you can really expect anyone trying
to be honest about this using that as a major basis for setting the
criteria.

Scientists are human. Therefore, if there is a toss-up between going
one way and offending a (dead) scientist and going the other way and
somehow honoring him, it is likely that the former is the more objective
approach, because none of the human factors are going for it. If it
were objectively a dead heat between the two definitions, the IAU would
have preserved Pluto as a planet, I think.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:11:59
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> its status as a planet.

So can it still be a dog?

--
Martin R. Howell

"The Astro Post"
www.theastropost.com

Date: 25 Aug 2006 03:39:59
From: Tommy Lee
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Pluto is the roman equivalent of the greek Hades. God of the underworld.
http://www.myastrologybook.com/Hades-Pluto-mythology-gods.htm
and Judeo-Christian Satan.

I understand that the planet was named by a little girl in 1930
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4596246.stm

It just sounded right even though any relation to a Roman God of the
underworld was ludicrous.

Pluto has always been in the collective imagination until the HST unlocked
some secrets. In a strict physical sense, it really
doesn't fit into the planet domain due to its eccentric orbit above the
ecliptic. It is small and we won't really know anything about it for the
next ten
years. In a real sense it is still in the collective imagination. Too bad
all the textbooks and science lectures will have to change back after 76
years
of planetary status.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 00:53:33
From: Richard Jarnagin
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Yeah, but this dog won't hunt (anymore).

RJ

"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:ms0h3fx0zqpj$.1p94zmlippvxp.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
> > Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> > its status as a planet.
>
>
> So can it still be a dog?
>
>
>
> --
> Martin R. Howell
>
> "The Astro Post"
> www.theastropost.com

Date: 25 Aug 2006 00:11:06
From: Tommy Lee
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

"Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com > wrote in message
news:ms0h3fx0zqpj$.1p94zmlippvxp.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
>> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
>> its status as a planet.
>
>
> So can it still be a dog?
>

Why do you persist in supplying inane comments that have nothing to do with
the topic??

Date: 24 Aug 2006 19:05:41
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:11:06 GMT, Tommy Lee wrote:

> "Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com> wrote in message
> news:ms0h3fx0zqpj$.1p94zmlippvxp.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
>>> its status as a planet.
>>
>>
>> So can it still be a dog?
>>
>
>
> Why do you persist in supplying inane comments that have nothing to do with
> the topic??

This has everything to do with the topic. Pluto was Mickey Mouse's dog. I
was pointing out (and would have thought it obvious to anyone capable of
thought) that we don't have to ask permission to continue to call Mickey's
pet "Pluto" a dog and we don't have to get anybody okay to continue to
refer to Pluto as a planet.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (you do understand what this
has to do with things, don't you?

Now, here is my first "inane" reply to this topic:

O.K. . .and the Pacific Ocean will from now on be referred to as "The
Pacific Great Big Lake."

I was making the same case here. Think about it, and don't be so quick to
flame me because that flame burns you in the eyes of those who are smart
enough to have understood these "inane" post.

Consider the word "box" as a real object. Learn to think outside of it.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 21:08:53
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:05:41 -0700, Martin R. Howell wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:11:06 GMT, Tommy Lee wrote:
>
>> "Martin R. Howell" <martinhowell@ilikestarsisp.com> wrote in message
>> news:ms0h3fx0zqpj$.1p94zmlippvxp.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:20:37 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
>>>> its status as a planet.
>>>
>>>
>>> So can it still be a dog?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why do you persist in supplying inane comments that have nothing to do with
>> the topic??
>
>
> This has everything to do with the topic. Pluto was Mickey Mouse's dog. I
> was pointing out (and would have thought it obvious to anyone capable of
> thought) that we don't have to ask permission to continue to call Mickey's
> pet "Pluto" a dog and we don't have to get anybody okay to continue to
> refer to Pluto as a planet.
>
> A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (you do understand what this
> has to do with things, don't you?
>
>
>
> Now, here is my first "inane" reply to this topic:
>
> O.K. . .and the Pacific Ocean will from now on be referred to as "The
> Pacific Great Big Lake."
>
>
> I was making the same case here. Think about it, and don't be so quick to
> flame me because that flame burns you in the eyes of those who are smart
> enough to have understood these "inane" post.
>
> Consider the word "box" as a real object. Learn to think outside of it.

P.S. Here is another inane comment which many will understand the
relevance of here: If it walks like a Mick, smells like a Mick, and talks
like it Mick then it must be a Mick.

--
Martin R. Howell

Date: 25 Aug 2006 04:59:01
From: Tommy Lee
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

>
> P.S. Here is another inane comment which many will understand the
> relevance of here: If it walks like a Mick, smells like a Mick, and talks
> like it Mick then it must be a Mick.
>

So who the hell is Mick? What's in a name Mr. Inane?

Date: 24 Aug 2006 23:40:36
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:59:01 GMT, Tommy Lee wrote:

>>
>> P.S. Here is another inane comment which many will understand the
>> relevance of here: If it walks like a Mick, smells like a Mick, and talks
>> like it Mick then it must be a Mick.
>>
>
>
> So who the hell is Mick?

Have you not figured out yet what reveals your true identity in your posts?
Eh?

Date: 24 Aug 2006 23:34:59
From: Martin R. Howell
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:59:01 GMT, Tommy Lee wrote:

>>
>> P.S. Here is another inane comment which many will understand the
>> relevance of here: If it walks like a Mick, smells like a Mick, and talks
>> like it Mick then it must be a Mick.
>>
>
>
> So who the hell is Mick?

Look in the mirror.

--
Martin R. Howell

"The Astro Post"
www.theastropost.com

Date: 24 Aug 2006 19:42:56
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

RJ,

Thanks for posting the link!

Marty...whatever happened to calling the Sun "Marty"?
Or was that another Marty??:)

Date: 25 Aug 2006 03:28:36
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> RJ,
>
> Thanks for posting the link!
>
> Marty...whatever happened to calling the Sun "Marty"?
> Or was that another Marty??:)
>

Mercury will transit the Marty on November 8th
8 Nov 2006 19 12 01.7 UT

Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:16:05
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

>Marty...whatever happened to calling the
> Sun "Marty"? Or was that another
> Marty??:)

That's me. I'm beginning to wonder if the International Star Registry
is really legit... I still check my mailbox every day looking for my
parchment certificate (suitable for framing, and my charts, showing
where to find my star in the sky.
Marty

Date: 24 Aug 2006 21:25:04
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

For me, Pluto will always be a planet, but if we have to be perfectly
consistent, I figure it's better to demote Pluto than start calling
other relatively large minor bodies major planets.
The entire effort is really pretty hopeless, for there will always
be objects that defy classification. It's sort of like having to decide
when something is "old" or "big."
My wife told me the other day that the guy next door looks like a
pygmy. "But he isn't little, and he isn't black," I replied. I dunno.
Maybe he's a big, white, pygmy...
And Pluto is a planet. To me, anyway. So there. :)
Marty

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:06:54
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

> statement, but as the basic principle, from which a precise definition
> can be drafted. (Whether they'll do that or not, I don't know.)

Uh huh, you know Brian, if I didn't know any better I would say all
these 187 folks were just blokes off the street, not "Professional
Astronomers".

Not College level Professors!

Will they do that? Tune in 3 years from now...

And you know what?

3 Years from now we are all going to laugh at these "Bogus"
Astronomers.

I can't wait to try to explain this to the public:(

It's going to sound awful, just awful.

Or as my brother reminds me sometimes:

PhD.....Piled Higher & Deeper!:(

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:10:53
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> Uh huh, you know Brian, if I didn't know any better I would say all
> these 187 folks were just blokes off the street, not "Professional
> Astronomers".

But you do know better. They are professional astronomers. They are
dealing with a question that is essentially geared toward interaction
with the general public, and toward education. It does not materially
affect how they do their own research. But of anyone they have the
proper background to attempt a more objective definition.

> 3 Years from now we are all going to laugh at these "Bogus"
> Astronomers.

You might. I won't. I don't laugh at people honestly trying to do an
honest job.

Frankly, I think this definition, as flawed as it is, is better than the
earlier one. If it weren't for Pluto, I think most people would have
accepted this one quite readily; it's been long enough since Ceres was
"demoted" that no one is really invested in trying to promote it again.

> Or as my brother reminds me sometimes:
>
> PhD.....Piled Higher & Deeper!:(

Which, unfortunately, applies just as well to those without a Ph.D. as
it does to those with one.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:34:42
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Sam Wormley wrote:
> Pluto loses status as a planet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm

As Aristotle said, "Dear is Pluto, but dearer still is truth."

Joe Ramirez

Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:53:06
From: Zip
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

> As Aristotle said, "Dear is Pluto, but dearer still is truth."
>
> Joe Ramirez

Cleverly summed up.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:28:53
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

This is the most stupid decision I have ever seen. Make sure that you
need 10 years of observation data and a PhD in astronomy to determine
whether a body orbiting a star is a planet or not. Change all the
elementary school science textbooks and turn off children from science
because some braindead, academic, ivory-towered bureaucrats went on a
power trip.

So if a raincoat is still a coat, and a dwarf star is still a star, why
isn't a dwarf planet a planet?

So if you discover that 2 jupitor sized objects orbiting a star have
interconnecting orbits, then they are dwarf planets?

Hey - Why isn't Neptune a dwarf planet also since it hasn't cleared
Pluto out?

So you have to know the origin of the object to call it a planet? What
if a planet from one star gets captured by another star. Can it still
be a planet? Does it lose its status permanently. Or does it have to
"clear out" any competitors? Similar to a male lion fighting off all
other male lions to take control of pride of females and then killing
the young of the previous male lion. So you find this object was
captured by another star. The astronomer will say, "We have to wait
until the fight is over between this new object and the resident
planets before we can call it a planet." Check back in a million years
or so.

People were worried they were going to call Ceres or Charon a planet.
Can't be - because Ceres is an asteroid and Charon is a moon. Some of
this stuff is not hard.

Too many stupid people in this world... I never thought that scientists
would be in that group.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:08:39
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

According to Phil Plait aka The Bad Astronomer
the vote was 187 to 183 so you are telling me that
4 or 5 professional astronomers have the authority to
determine this question?

Nuts I say they are all crazy.

This is what you get when you leave the vote to the very
last day of a convention.

The next vote is in 2009.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 15:13:29
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On 24 Aug 2006 14:08:39 -0700, "Ed" <ed1ward2@verizon.net > wrote:

>According to Phil Plait aka The Bad Astronomer
>the vote was 187 to 183 so you are telling me that
>4 or 5 professional astronomers have the authority to
>determine this question?
>
>The next vote is in 2009.

I watched the webcast live while I was doing some work. Hopefully
they will release the archived video soon.

But as I recall:

The vote to define planet vs "dwarf planet" was basically one sided.
In other words Pluto was going to be known as a Dwarf.

They even decided that the 8 Planets are The Planets, not a sub-class
called Classical Planets.

The vote that was fairly close was what to call Pluto-like TNOs.

The discovery of Pluto led to many questions about the planet. One of
the most puzzling was the fact that Lowell had predicted that Planet X
would have a mass 6.6 times that of Earth. The tiny dot that was
actually discovered could not possibly be that big, unless it was
extraordinarily dark. Estimates of its diameter, for example, ranged
from 6,000 to 14,000 kilometers. After the discovery of Charon in
1978, which permitted determination of the mass through a few simple
calculations, the mass of the Pluto system was determined to be about
500 times smaller than that of the Earth. This was a huge long-term
mistake and I am glad that it is now corrected.

-- Kevin Heider

West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Date: 24 Aug 2006 13:19:41
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Has anyone realized that according to the new IAU definition the Earth
can be defined as not a planet simply because we haven't cleared our
own neighborhood?
Especially with all the Earth crossing asteroids, comets and meteroids?

What about Jupiter with the Trojans?

Huh?

When somoene asks me I'm going to ask what definition do you prefer?
The IAU definition or a regular definition?

Date: 24 Aug 2006 13:19:00
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> Has anyone realized that according to the new IAU definition the Earth
> can be defined as not a planet simply because we haven't cleared our
> own neighborhood?
> Especially with all the Earth crossing asteroids, comets and meteroids?

That's a straw man characterization of the definition. I'm not a big
fan of the definition, but I think it's a mistake to take the phrase
"clear out" literally. It is not meant to be taken as a precise
statement, but as the basic principle, from which a precise definition
can be drafted. (Whether they'll do that or not, I don't know.)

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:11:36
From: IAU Realty
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

about a pre-cise as a hog's arse.

Brian Tung wrote:

> Ed wrote:
> > Has anyone realized that according to the new IAU definition the Earth
> > can be defined as not a planet simply because we haven't cleared our
> > own neighborhood?
> > Especially with all the Earth crossing asteroids, comets and meteroids?
>
> That's a straw man characterization of the definition. I'm not a big
> fan of the definition, but I think it's a mistake to take the phrase
> "clear out" literally. It is not meant to be taken as a precise
> statement, but as the basic principle, from which a precise definition
> can be drafted. (Whether they'll do that or not, I don't know.)
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 24 Aug 2006 13:14:17
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

This is from the IAU home page on membership:

The IAU is composed of:

NATIONAL MEMBERS: Organizations representing national professional
astronomical communities, desiring to promote their participation in
international astronomy and supporting the objective of the Union, may
adhere to the Union as National Members. Organizations desiring to
join the Union as National Members while developing professional
astronomy in the community they represent may do so on an interim
basis. They may later become National Members on a permanent basis.

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS: Professional scientists whose research is directly
relevant to some branch of astronomy are eligible for election as
Individual Members. Individual Members are, normally, admitted by the
Executive Committee on the proposal of a National Member.

I'm sure there must be a membership fee too.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 13:24:06
From: Bill Owen
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> This is from the IAU home page on membership:
>
> The IAU is composed of:
>
>
>
> NATIONAL MEMBERS: Organizations representing national professional
> astronomical communities, desiring to promote their participation in
> international astronomy and supporting the objective of the Union, may
> adhere to the Union as National Members. Organizations desiring to
> join the Union as National Members while developing professional
> astronomy in the community they represent may do so on an interim
> basis. They may later become National Members on a permanent basis.
>
>
>
> INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS: Professional scientists whose research is directly
> relevant to some branch of astronomy are eligible for election as
> Individual Members. Individual Members are, normally, admitted by the
> Executive Committee on the proposal of a National Member.
>
> I'm sure there must be a membership fee too.

Actually, no -- not for individuals. It's the "national members" (in
the US, the American Astronomical Society) which provide the funds to
keep the IAU going.

-- Bill Owen

Date: 24 Aug 2006 13:11:16
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:10:37
From: IAU Realty
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

The IAU has succeeded admirably in its own demolition. Thank God finally!!
They are the laughing stock in every saloon in Regina, Pokatello, and
Prauge.

Richard Adams wrote:

> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Pluto loses status as a planet
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
> >
> > Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> > its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
> > International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
> >
> > Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a
> > planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club
>
> Tune in again next week for another exciting episode of IAU:Trying To
> Make Everyone Happy And Utterly Failing At It.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 12:50:02
From: Eric Chomko
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Kevin Heider wrote:
[...]
> I would like to personally congratulate Ceres for being promoted from
> asteroid to Dwarf Planet status! This reverses a mistake made 150
> years ago.
>

I'm inclined to add Ceres to my planetary orbital software program as
well as keeping Pluto rather than simply removing Pluto. Or, maybe I
should remove Pluto and make an asteriod version and a pluton (KBO)
version?

Eric

> History will judge us all...
>
> -- Kevin Heider
>
> West Coast Swing Photos at:
> http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Date: 25 Aug 2006 08:19:15
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On 24 Aug 2006 12:50:02 -0700, "Eric Chomko" <pne.chomko@verizon.net >
wrote:

Kevin Heider wrote:

> I would like to personally congratulate Ceres for being promoted from
> asteroid to Dwarf Planet status! This reverses a mistake made 150
> years ago.

>I'm inclined to add Ceres to my planetary orbital software program as
>well as keeping Pluto rather than simply removing Pluto. Or, maybe I
>should remove Pluto and make an asteriod version and a pluton (KBO)
>version?

>Eric

Hello Eric;

For now I would keep Pluto displayed with the other planets. I would
add Ceres as a planet since that should not mess up the display scale
that your program is using.

I woud add Xena as the outermost Planet assuming that your program is
capable of scaling the solar system to display objects outside of
Pluto.

In a few years time when we have 20+ official dwarf planets then you
will need the option to display the 8 Major Planets, the 20+ Dwarf
Planets, and hopefully an option to display all of the above at once.

-- Kevin Heider

West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:13:48
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <kp4ue2l94l00rp4magn1u5f44pa314uc6t@4ax.com >,
Kevin Heider <usenet1.zoo.kheider@xoxy.net > wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2006 12:50:02 -0700, "Eric Chomko" <pne.chomko@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>Kevin Heider wrote:
>
>> I would like to personally congratulate Ceres for being promoted from
>> asteroid to Dwarf Planet status! This reverses a mistake made 150
>> years ago.
>
>>I'm inclined to add Ceres to my planetary orbital software program as
>>well as keeping Pluto rather than simply removing Pluto. Or, maybe I
>>should remove Pluto and make an asteriod version and a pluton (KBO)
>>version?
>
>>Eric
>
>Hello Eric;
>
>For now I would keep Pluto displayed with the other planets. I would
>add Ceres as a planet since that should not mess up the display scale
>that your program is using.
>
>I woud add Xena as the outermost Planet assuming that your program is
>capable of scaling the solar system to display objects outside of
>Pluto.
>
>In a few years time when we have 20+ official dwarf planets then you
>will need the option to display the 8 Major Planets, the 20+ Dwarf
>Planets, and hopefully an option to display all of the above at once.
>
>-- Kevin Heider
>
>West Coast Swing Photos at:
>http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Planetarium software shouldn't determine which object to display based
on the label of the object. It should determine it based on the
magnitude of the object - after all, planetarium software is supposed
to be a simulation of the sky, right?

If Pluto is to be displayed, then hundreds of asteroids (...excuse me,
I mean "small solar system objects" of course :-) should be displayed
as well - why? Because they shine brighter than Pluto in the sky.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 24 Aug 2006 12:10:04
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Chris L Peterson ha escrito:

(...)
> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.

>From the above I gather that you are doing public education, and your
remark raises a certain question:

Will you tell the kids that

A) there are many more objects which are similar to Pluto further out
in our solar system, and that

B) at least one of them is bigger than Pluto?

Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:50:47
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On 24 Aug 2006 12:10:04 -0700, ph42@infocanarias.com wrote:

>From the above I gather that you are doing public education, and your
>remark raises a certain question:
>
>Will you tell the kids that
>
>A) there are many more objects which are similar to Pluto further out
>in our solar system, and that
>
>B) at least one of them is bigger than Pluto?

Of course; I have done that for a long time (well, not so long that one
was larger than Pluto).

This IAU decision changes nothing as far as I'm concerned. I've always
detailed the sorts of bodies that are actually in the Solar System, and
obviously that hasn't changed. I simply respect the common definition of
"planet" (which hasn't changed) over the IAU definition. I think the
historical definition has more power than the one adopted today (which I
don't think will last).

Of course, I'll also explain that there is now a scientifically accepted
(maybe <g >) definition for "planet", but that it isn't the only
definition. We already talk about the names used by different cultures,
and how that fits in with the names that scientists use.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:49:07
From: Carsten A. Arnholm
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

ph42@infocanarias.com wrote:
> Chris L Peterson ha escrito:
>
> (...)
>> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
>> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
>> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
>> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.
>
>
>> From the above I gather that you are doing public education, and your
> remark raises a certain question:
>
> Will you tell the kids that
>
> A) there are many more objects which are similar to Pluto further out
> in our solar system, and that
>
> B) at least one of them is bigger than Pluto?

I have told my kids (9 and 13) this. They have no problem accepting it, and
why should they. It is the way it is.

--
Carsten A. Arnholm
http://arnholm.org/
N59.776 E10.457

Date: 24 Aug 2006 21:45:32
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <muidnVhiAZdejXPZ4p2dnA@telenor.com >,
Carsten A. Arnholm <arnholm@offline.no > wrote:
>ph42@infocanarias.com wrote:
>> Chris L Peterson ha escrito:
>>
>> (...)
>>> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
>>> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
>>> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
>>> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.
>>
>>
>>> From the above I gather that you are doing public education, and your
>> remark raises a certain question:
>>
>> Will you tell the kids that
>>
>> A) there are many more objects which are similar to Pluto further out
>> in our solar system, and that
>>
>> B) at least one of them is bigger than Pluto?
>
>I have told my kids (9 and 13) this. They have no problem accepting it, and
>why should they. It is the way it is.
>
>--
>Carsten A. Arnholm
>http://arnholm.org/
>N59.776 E10.457

Kids often find it easier to accept changes than adults do...... :-)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:41:09
From: Don't Be Evil
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

N. Foldager wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> >> Can someone explain to me, why is Pluto not a planet? Which bodies
> >> around its orbit are not cleared?
> >>
> >> Why did IAU not define a satellite?
> >> Is Pluto-Charon a double dwarf-planet or a dwarf-planet with a moon?
>
>
> Sam Wormley:
>
> > The new rules for a planet state: "a celestial body that is in orbit
> > around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome
> > rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and
> > cleared the neighborhood around its orbit".
>
> I know. That's why I ask.
>
> The last sentence makes Pluto a dwarf planet, they say indirectly, in
> that Pluto should not clear around its orbit. Then I ask: Which
> objects around the orbit of Pluto are not cleared?
>
> Niels Foldager

Neptune

Date: 25 Aug 2006 10:51:41
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <1156444869.772068.23350@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
Don't Be Evil <g626700-gg@yahoo.com > wrote:

>> Which
>> objects around the orbit of Pluto are not cleared?

>Neptune

And of course Neptune hasn't cleared Pluto out of its orbit, so Neptune is
not a planet either. I suppose it must also be a dwarf planet.

-- Richard

Date: 25 Aug 2006 07:38:54
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On 25 Aug 2006 10:51:41 GMT, richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
wrote:

>In article <1156444869.772068.23350@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>Don't Be Evil <g626700-gg@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Which objects around the orbit of Pluto are not cleared?
>>Neptune

>And of course Neptune hasn't cleared Pluto out of its orbit, so Neptune is
>not a planet either. I suppose it must also be a dwarf planet.

At 8600x the mass of Pluto, I think Neptune is safe.

The problem with Pluto is that it' mass is 3,300x smaller than they
originally thought it was.

-- Kevin Heider

West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:35:56
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Sam Wormley wrote:
> Pluto loses status as a planet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
>
> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
> International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>
> Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a
> planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.

It is O.K. Sam,I have managed to strip people of their 'astronomer'
status and reduced them to what they actually are,either
astrophotographers interested in optics and magnification ot celestial
sphere astrologers who justify the Ra/Dec system.

When men start behaving like men,drop this silly and meaningless fuss
over definitions and perhaps attempt to comprehend the original
reasoning of the Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomers then and only
then can they be admitted to the noble discipline of astronomy.

I only hope that my efforts have generated this latest biout of
definitional thumbsucking.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:36:43
From: Tommy Lee
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:VAiHg.106293$FQ1.46132@attbi_s71...
> Pluto loses status as a planet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm
>
> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the
> International Astronomical Union's (IAU) general assembly.
>
> Astronomers rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a
> planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.

Finally reason has dominated! Before you knbow it, every kind of freak and
outcast will
want equal rights!

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:31:47
From: Pierre Vandevennne
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in news:VAiHg.106293$FQ1.46132
@attbi_s71:

> Astronomers meeting in the Czech capital have voted to strip Pluto of
> its status as a planet. About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the

Cheers! At least some common sense.

http://www.eightplanets.com/

is for sale - someone grabs it when it is still cheap. ;-)

Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:12:03
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> No they haven't. They have only adopted a nomenclature that could have a
> minor effect on scientific discussion and publications. The common
> definition of "planet" hasn't changed- that is beyond the authority of
> the IAU (or any other organization).

> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.

It may well be true that among the common people, in the vernacular,
Pluto might be considered to be a planet.

But just as you will no longer find any respectable Natural History
museum referring to that great big herbivorous dinosaur as a
"Brontosaurus", since, officially and scientifically, it is an
Apatosaurus now (was it Cope or Marsh who put the wrong head on it?) I
think you will find that planetaria having affiliation with, or
accreditation by, academic bodies will experience pressure to conform
to the *official*, and hence authoritative (if not, in the strict
sense, all that much more 'scientific') definition of a planet.

Since the "dwarf planets" are still elevated to a status higher than
run-of-the-mill minor planets/planetoids/asteroids, though, one could
certainly say planets* *includes dwarf planets, and then go on as if
the *other* proposal had been accepted... Ceres, Xena, and probably
Sedna and Quaoar too then keeping Pluto company.

Of course, there's just *one* thing wrong with their definition of
dwarf planets.

Although Ceres is the *largest* of the asteroids, it is still not a
planet, because although all the other asteroids are smaller than it,
that doesn't count as having 'cleared' its orbital neighborhood.

The orbital neighborhood of Pluto isn't the Kuiper Belt, home to Sedna,
Quaoar, and Xena. It's the orbit of *Neptune*.

Thus, clearly, Neptune is a dwarf planet.

Then, of course, there are Geographos and Toro. That makes Earth a
dwarf planet, doesn't it?

What about the Trojan asteroids? Clearly, as any fool can see, Jupiter
is a dwarf planet!

But it's the largest planet in our solar system!

Maybe Earth and Jupiter can be saved, if they write a suitable
definition of "clear" into their definition of a planet (if it weren't
for Geographos and Toro, Earth's orbital neighborhood might have
reached Operating Thetan)... but for Neptune, alas, I see no hope.

John Savard

Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:37:13
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On 24 Aug 2006 10:12:03 -0700, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:

>Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
>> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
>> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
>> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.

Tell the truth. Let them know that Ceres was once thought to be a
planet until astronomers came to realize that there were a lot of
other objects in the asteroid belt (the gap between Mars & Jupiter.)
Once astronomers knew that there were 15 asteroids and that they would
be finding many more, they created the asteroid belt and demoted Ceres
from planet status.

I am glad that Pluto & Ceres are now known as Dwarf Planets. I am
glad that Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea will be evaluated as potential
dwarf planets.

>It may well be true that among the common people, in the vernacular,
>Pluto might be considered to be a planet.

Probably for the next 25 years.

>Since the "dwarf planets" are still elevated to a status higher than
>run-of-the-mill minor planets/planetoids/asteroids, though, one could
>certainly say planets* *includes dwarf planets, and then go on as if
>the *other* proposal had been accepted... Ceres, Xena, and probably
>Sedna and Quaoar too then keeping Pluto company.

I believe that is the point IAU was trying to make. Besides I think a
Dwarf Planet and a Planetoid are the same thing.

>Of course, there's just *one* thing wrong with their definition of
>dwarf planets.
>
>Although Ceres is the *largest* of the asteroids, it is still not a
>planet, because although all the other asteroids are smaller than it,
>that doesn't count as having 'cleared' its orbital neighborhood.

Thus Ceres is a Dwarf Planet.

>The orbital neighborhood of Pluto isn't the Kuiper Belt, home to Sedna,
>Quaoar, and Xena. It's the orbit of *Neptune*.
>
>Thus, clearly, Neptune is a dwarf planet.

Neptune is the gravitationally dominant body in it's neighborhood.
This is why Pluto orbits in a 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune.

Beginning in the 1990s, other trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) were
discovered, and a certain number of these also have a 3:2 orbital
resonance with Neptune. TNOs with this orbital resonance are named
"plutinos", after Pluto.

>Then, of course, there are Geographos and Toro. That makes Earth a
>dwarf planet, doesn't it?

No.

Toro orbits the Sun in an 8:5 resonance with Earth, and a 13:5
resonance with Venus.

Geographos is Mars-crossing asteroid and a near-Earth object. It does
not challenge either Mars & Earths gravitational dominance in their
respective orbits.

>What about the Trojan asteroids? Clearly, as any fool can see, Jupiter
>is a dwarf planet!

The trojan asteroids (1691 of them) are kept at Lagrange points that
balance the gravitational pull of the Sun and Mighty Jupiter. Let's
see Pluto pull that off.

>But it's the largest planet in our solar system!

Hey, you got one right. :-)

>John Savard

I would like to personally congratulate Ceres for being promoted from
asteroid to Dwarf Planet status! This reverses a mistake made 150
years ago.

History will judge us all...

-- Kevin Heider

West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:52:23
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> No they haven't. They have only adopted a nomenclature that could have a
>> minor effect on scientific discussion and publications. The common
>> definition of "planet" hasn't changed- that is beyond the authority of
>> the IAU (or any other organization).
>
>> Whether Pluto remains a "planet" or not is largely a matter of public
>> usage. I'll certainly continue to teach the classical nine planets in
>> the classroom. I predict it will be a long time (if ever) before most
>> people stop considering Pluto to be a planet.
>
> It may well be true that among the common people, in the vernacular,
> Pluto might be considered to be a planet.
>
> But just as you will no longer find any respectable Natural History
> museum referring to that great big herbivorous dinosaur as a
> "Brontosaurus", since, officially and scientifically, it is an
> Apatosaurus now (was it Cope or Marsh who put the wrong head on it?) I
> think you will find that planetaria having affiliation with, or
> accreditation by, academic bodies will experience pressure to conform
> to the *official*, and hence authoritative (if not, in the strict
> sense, all that much more 'scientific') definition of a planet.
>
> Since the "dwarf planets" are still elevated to a status higher than
> run-of-the-mill minor planets/planetoids/asteroids, though, one could
> certainly say planets* *includes dwarf planets, and then go on as if
> the *other* proposal had been accepted... Ceres, Xena, and probably
> Sedna and Quaoar too then keeping Pluto company.
>
> Of course, there's just *one* thing wrong with their definition of
> dwarf planets.
>
> Although Ceres is the *largest* of the asteroids, it is still not a
> planet, because although all the other asteroids are smaller than it,
> that doesn't count as having 'cleared' its orbital neighborhood.
>
> The orbital neighborhood of Pluto isn't the Kuiper Belt, home to Sedna,
> Quaoar, and Xena. It's the orbit of *Neptune*.
>
> Thus, clearly, Neptune is a dwarf planet.
>
> Then, of course, there are Geographos and Toro. That makes Earth a
> dwarf planet, doesn't it?
>
> What about the Trojan asteroids? Clearly, as any fool can see, Jupiter
> is a dwarf planet!
>
> But it's the largest planet in our solar system!
>
> Maybe Earth and Jupiter can be saved, if they write a suitable
> definition of "clear" into their definition of a planet (if it weren't
> for Geographos and Toro, Earth's orbital neighborhood might have
> reached Operating Thetan)... but for Neptune, alas, I see no hope.
>
> John Savard
>

Clearly the solar system is the way it is regardless of our names
and words.

Date: 24 Aug 2006 10:23:57
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

John Savard wrote:
> Of course, there's just *one* thing wrong with their definition of
> dwarf planets.
>
> Although Ceres is the *largest* of the asteroids, it is still not a
> planet, because although all the other asteroids are smaller than it,
> that doesn't count as having 'cleared' its orbital neighborhood.
>
> The orbital neighborhood of Pluto isn't the Kuiper Belt, home to Sedna,
> Quaoar, and Xena. It's the orbit of *Neptune*.

Although Pluto's orbit does in fact cross that of Neptune, it would be
misleading to say that Neptune has failed to dominate its orbital zone.
Pluto is just the largest (apparently) of a broad class of objects that
are each in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune. That is to say, they complete
two orbits for every three of Neptune's. These objects are called
plutinos. They constitute the inner edge of the Kuiper Belt.

There are also objects called twotinos, which as you might expect, are
in a 2:1 resonance with Neptune. They complete one orbit for every two
of Neptune's. They *seem* to represent the outer edge of the Kuiper
Belt, although it may be possible that there is merely a small gap, and
there are more distant objects beyond that gap. However, that is not
expected to be the case.

In part because of these resonances, none of these bodies approaches
closer to Neptune than about 15 AU, and I don't think their orbits get
any closer than about 5 AU.

Let's face it, the definition, as stated in the news release, is not
designed to be precise. It is supposed to state the intent of the
classification; it remains to the rivet artists to make the definition
more precise, I suppose.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:40:28
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Brian Tung wrote:
> John Savard wrote:
>> Of course, there's just *one* thing wrong with their definition of
>> dwarf planets.
>>
>> Although Ceres is the *largest* of the asteroids, it is still not a
>> planet, because although all the other asteroids are smaller than it,
>> that doesn't count as having 'cleared' its orbital neighborhood.
>>
>> The orbital neighborhood of Pluto isn't the Kuiper Belt, home to Sedna,
>> Quaoar, and Xena. It's the orbit of *Neptune*.
>
> Although Pluto's orbit does in fact cross that of Neptune, it would be
> misleading to say that Neptune has failed to dominate its orbital zone.

Yes -- exactly.

--
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: 25 Aug 2006 08:05:01
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Whats the status of Krypton, the home of Superman.

syousef@bigpond.net.au wrote:
> Talk about bad science. I haven't followed astronomy much lately, even
> though I have a degree in it. Life's just moved me in other directions
> for now.
>
> I couldn't care less if Pluto is defined to be a planet or not but the
> definition is awful. Here are my objections:
>
> 1) Under this definition a "dwarf planet" is not a "planet". This is
> confusing and counter-inituitive. They should have named the dwarf
> planet category something that did not contain the world planet.
> Perhaps a derivative of the word like planetlet, but not xxxxx planet.
>
> 2) The deinition is abitrary. Now planets must orbit the sun (ie our
> sun Sol). Not any star just the sun. So where does this leave
> extra-solar planets? Where does it leave over a decade of research
> papers that refer to these bodies as planets. 100 years from now this
> is going to make reading those works more difficult and less intuitive.
> What's worse is that right now those who are learning about extra-solar
> planets, and those use to speaking/writing about them are going to have
> to break a habit if they wish to be technically correct. This was going
> to happen anyway as scientists and people in general are divided about
> whether Pluto is a planet and what makes a planet. However I can't
> think of a worse way to make a distinction than based on whether or not
> something happens to orbit our local star.
>
> 3) The definition is imprecise and parts of the definition require
> further defintion. This particularly applies to the phrasing around has
> vs has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. What's the
> standard for clearing the orbit exactly? Since Pluto crosses Neptune's
> orbit, does that mean Neptune hasn't cleared its neighbourhood? (Yes
> they're in no danger of colliding and exhibit orbital resonance, but
> does that mean if there's a resonance this rule doesn't apply?).
>
> As for dwarf planet definition part (d) "is not a satellite"...is not a
> satellite of what? Clearly they mean not a satellite of a planet or
> dwarf planet but every planet can be considered a satellite of its star
> can't it? I guess I'd have to go look at the definition of satellite.
>
> 4) What's with the backflip? This new definition couldn't be more
> different than the press release of a week ago regarding the draft
> defintion (which made much more sense). This has to be politics at
> work, and when you get so big a difference between the draft and final
> of something so fundamental non-experts tend to wonder if it's all just
> being made up on the spur of the moment.
>
> 5) No explanation of the reasoning behind the backflip. There's
> reference to an upcoming news conference but it won't receive the
> coverage that this did. Reasons for such a big change in fundamental
> categorisation need to be explained in full.
>
> This is science at its worst (well not quite, no one died, but it's bad
> science nonetheless).
>
> Sammy

Date: 25 Aug 2006 08:27:20
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On 25 Aug 2006 08:05:01 -0700, Havriliak@aol.com wrote:

>Whats the status of Krypton, the home of Superman.

Since Krypton blew up, I would guess that is now primarily a Krypton
Belt of asteroids around it's central star. :-)

In other words, Krypton is no longer a planet either!

-- Kevin Heider

West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Date: 25 Aug 2006 05:37:32
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

And Tommy, don't forget that the first two letter of Pluto are the
initials of the great
amateur astronomer Perceival Lowell!

Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:24:54
From: Tommy Lee
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

"Ed" <ed1ward2@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1156509452.604614.310310@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> And Tommy, don't forget that the first two letter of Pluto are the
> initials of the great
> amateur astronomer Perceival Lowell!

Perceival??? HAHAHAHhhaaaa! You IDIOT! Who or whatever you are.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 05:33:35
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Not only that but by the IAU definition of Planet they demoted both the
Earth & Jupiter!

Let make it known that if you have an IAU membership, you are not
getting any more
American money!

I can see it now, American members of the IAU quickly tearing up their
membership cards!

Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:53:46
From: canopus56
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Brian Tung wrote:
<snip all >

For lurkers - the text of the final resolutions - Canopus56

====================================

>From the IAU website:
http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html

RESOLUTIONS

Resolution 5A is the principal definition for the IAU usage of "planet"
and related terms.

Resolution 6A creates for IAU usage a new class of objects, for which
Pluto is the prototype. The IAU will set up a process to name these
objects.

IAU Resolution: Definition of a Planet in the Solar System
Contemporary observations are changing our understanding of planetary
systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect
our current understanding. This applies, in particular, to the
designation 'planets'. The word 'planet' originally described
'wanderers' that were known only as moving lights in the sky. Recent
discoveries lead us to create a new definition, which we can make using
currently available scientific information.

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar
System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the
Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid
body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round)
shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around
the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid
body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round)
shape2 , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and
(d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be
referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune.
2 An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into
either dwarf planet and other categories.
3 These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most
Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IAU Resolution: Pluto

RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as
the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.1

Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:39:25
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Planetary status has been stripped from Pluto.

This is a disrespectful way to treat our friend in distant space.
Earth and Pluto have long coexisted in peace and harmony, and to
declare our fellow solar body a "Dwarf Planet" is unacceptable and
undignified.

Tell the International Astronomical Union (IAU) that you demand Justice
For Pluto.

http://www.cafepress.com/JusticeForPluto

Date: 25 Aug 2006 13:05:19
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

The problem is that kids always ask why and I will give them my best
guess as to why.
But the reality here is this....does anyone know why this group of
"learned men & women" just never got around to hammering out a
definition for planet?

Date: 26 Aug 2006 23:38:52
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <1156536319.603587.200160@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
Ed <ed1ward2@verizon.net > wrote:

>But the reality here is this....does anyone know why this group of
>"learned men & women" just never got around to hammering out a
>definition for planet?

Because it doesn't matter. There's no sharp scientific distinction
that needs to be made, so why bother with precise definition?

-- Richard

Date: 25 Aug 2006 12:56:49
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Chris L Peterson ha escrito:

> On 24 Aug 2006 12:10:04 -0700, ph42@infocanarias.com wrote:
>
> >From the above I gather that you are doing public education, and your
> >remark raises a certain question:
> >
> >Will you tell the kids that
> >
> >A) there are many more objects which are similar to Pluto further out
> >in our solar system, and that
> >
> >B) at least one of them is bigger than Pluto?
>
> Of course; I have done that for a long time (well, not so long that one
> was larger than Pluto).

Now if this is the case, are you going to tell me that none of the kids
ever asked you a question like:"And why isn=B4t the bigger one called a
planet too?".

Kids ain=B4t that dumb, so don=B4t tell me it never happened. So when it
happened, what did you answer?

>
> This IAU decision changes nothing as far as I'm concerned. I've always
> detailed the sorts of bodies that are actually in the Solar System, and
> obviously that hasn't changed. I simply respect the common definition of
> "planet" (which hasn't changed) over the IAU definition. I think the
> historical definition has more power than the one adopted today (which I
> don't think will last).

"More power" in which sense, exactly? This is the crucial question
here.

Let me just mention the following: These kids are generally condemned
to grow up in a world dominated by passionate apes that pretend to be
reasonable beings. And teaching science gives you the opportunity to
help these kids to become a little bit more human and thus a bit more
capable to discern which are the appropriate circumstances in which
they ought to employ either their passionate or their rational mental
capacities. Because in distinction to mere homo sapiens (i.e. bipedal
primates capable of speech) human beings are not born but made - by
education, which can also be self-education. Generally but by no means
astonishingly, in homo sapiens the power of passion is greater than the
power of reason.

And as an educator you too have a certain degree of power, and you
should use it wisely.

>
> Of course, I'll also explain that there is now a scientifically accepted
> (maybe <g>) definition for "planet", but that it isn't the only
> definition.

There is no real need to mention *that* there exists another - and you
meant to say the traditional - definition, because its existence is as
obvious as is the existence of gravitation. The non obvious topic of
true educational value is to tell the kids *why* the traditional
definition does not only exist, but will probably persist for quite
some time to come, at least among the common folks.

But this is a ticklish issue. Because talking about *why* it will
persist involves delving into the nature of homo sapiens. And I don=B4t
believe in shock threapy for children(*). Rather, I try to provide them
with the appropriate tools to find out by themselves (examples on
request).

It is therefore, that in the last year I have always presented the
traditional definition as something soon to be abolished, and described
the solar from a perspective compatiple with (though not exactly equal
to) the first proposal of the IAU.

>From now on, feeling justified by the acceptation of the second
proposal, I will be able to save a lot of teaching time for other more
interesting aspects of truly astronomical nature by simply not
mentioning the traditional definition of planets unless the kids want
to hear about it. But if they want to hear about it, then I will have a
splendid opportunity to talk about the value of passion versus reason
in science. I feel that in public science education one should not only
try to fill people with data synthesized into easily digestable
patterns (if you=B4re good), but one should also try to not waste an
oportunity to leave them with a general message.

> We already talk about the names used by different cultures,
> and how that fits in with the names that scientists use.

Sounds interesting, but what do you mean by "fits in"?

Peter

(*): With supposedly grown up people I am less lenient.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:28:35
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

On 25 Aug 2006 12:56:49 -0700, ph42@infocanarias.com wrote:

>Now if this is the case, are you going to tell me that none of the kids
>ever asked you a question like:"And why isn�t the bigger one called a
>planet too?".
>
>Kids ain�t that dumb, so don�t tell me it never happened. So when it
>happened, what did you answer?

I tell them that every bit of stuff orbiting the Sun is a planet, but
that some of them are more likely to be called that than others, mostly
for historical reasons. I ask them whether Greenland is an island or a
continent, same for Australia. I ask them which of the big rises around
us are mountains and which are hills. They get it.

>It is therefore, that in the last year I have always presented the
>traditional definition as something soon to be abolished, and described
>the solar from a perspective compatiple with (though not exactly equal
>to) the first proposal of the IAU.

I will present the IAU definition as transient, since I think it is
likely to change (or ideally, be eliminated completely).

>> We already talk about the names used by different cultures,
>> and how that fits in with the names that scientists use.
>
>Sounds interesting, but what do you mean by "fits in"?

I simply mean that well known astronomical bodies have various names in
different languages and cultures. None of these are right or wrong, but
normally only one name is accepted by the IAU, and that is the one that
will be used in technical discussion.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 25 Aug 2006 12:00:19
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Well Tommy, that just goes to show how young you apparently are. Either
that or you
don't know the history.

Lowell did search for Planet X for many years.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:51:36
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Ed wrote:
> Well Tommy, that just goes to show how young you apparently are. Either
> that or you don't know the history.
>
> Lowell did search for Planet X for many years.

You are being trolled for your spelling of "Percival." Don't waste your
energy on this one.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 26 Aug 2006 09:43:21
From: Sanny
Subject: Pluto is Planet, We have 11 Planets.

Pluto Diameter is 2300 km That is Quite Big. So we cannot say it is a
astroid.

Astroid has size of maximum 1-2 kms.

Although most asteroids are small, Ceres (newly redefined as a Dwarf
Planet) is over 900km diameter, and there are several that are well
over 100km across.

Moon is a satellite of Earth, Why as it revolves arround the Earth and
is big enough to have a gravity.

Pluto is a Planet as it also moves arround Sun and has a Gravitational
Pull for objects sitting on it.

Any heavenly body which revolves arround a star and has significant
gravity can be considered as a Planet.

Astroids are so small that they do not have any gravity just like other
small objects on earth.

Instead of having 11 Planets Scientists disregarded Pluto as a Planet.

A Man is Tall
A Man is Short
A Man is Fat

Whatever he is he is a Man. Simmilarly A Planet whether Big or Small is
a Planet. Pluto
Pluto Diameter is 2300 km That is Quite Big. So we cannot say it is a
astroid.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 26 Aug 2006 10:48:10
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto is Planet, We have 11 Planets.

On 26 Aug 2006 09:48:21 -0700, "Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Pluto Diameter is 2300 km That is Quite Big. So we cannot say it is a
>astroid.

Correct. That is why it is called a Dwarf Planet.

>Astroid has size of maximum 1-2 kms.

Asteroids have a roughly a maximum size of 400-800km. Any larger and
they become at least Dwarf Planets by definition.

> [deleted] which revolves arround a star and has significant
>gravity can be considered as a Planet.

Correct, if you properly define "significant gravity". See:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608359

>Astroids are so small that they do not have any gravity just like other
>small objects on earth.

Wrong!

>Bye
>Sanny
>
>Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

http://www.chessclub.com/finger/lugnut

-- Kevin Heider

West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider

Date: 26 Aug 2006 17:11:11
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

At this point in time, I believe that it is appropriate to present a
-naturally subjective- synopsis and evaluation of the most salient
aspects of the 2006 IAU General Assembly.

Needless to say that there were more points on the agenda of the GA
than reaching an agreement on what is a planet, but this latter issue
without doubt dominated on this occasion. So I will limit myself to
this most salient of salient aspects.

In the plenum of astronomers there circulated - above as well as below
the table - three proposals on how to define a planet: Two official
ones und one non official one. All of these proposals had in common
that they somehow tried to define a lower limit of size which would
enable us to distinguish between planets and the myriad of smaller or
even microscopical objects in our solar system. And one of these
proposals stipulated a definition which could also be applied to other
solar systems. Of course, all of these proposals differed in the manner
in which said lower limit of size should be determined, but the manner
in which these manners of definition differed among each other can
clearly be characterized as their respective degree of rationality - as
will be shown below. Below I will assume my readers to be familiar with
the precise content of the three proposals in question.

The first official proposal of the IAU, which was also the one which
potentially could have been applied to extrasolar planets, tried to
define the lower size limit of what a planet is in terms as rational as
possible, i.e. by making use exclusively of physical properties of the
objects in question.

The second official proposal of the IAU was a compromise between
rational criteria and historical convention. It consisted of declaring
a somewhat arbitrary lower size limit of what is a planet, but in such
a manner that this lower size limit could nevertheles be justified in
one way or another by physical criteria unrelated to size, like
differences in composition, type of orbit around the sun and type of
solar system region in which the body is located.

The third and unofficial proposal was based entirely on sentiments
about historical convention, i.e. consisted in not changing anything
about the historical definition of what is a planet. And despite of at
times desperate attempts, nobody has been able to find any physical
criteria of any type which could somehow corroborate this definition.

Naturally, the most rational proposal was also the most revolutionary
one. The visionary part in the first proposal of the IAU was the
recognition that in our search for extrasolar planets we might one day
discover planet/sattelite systems in which the components are so
simimilar in size, that we could not avoid to call them multiple planet
systems. But the rational criterion which they proposed in order to
distinguish between planet/sattelite systems and multiple planet
systems also converted the Pluto/Charon system into a multiple planet
system. It is to be assumed that it was this circumstance, and not the
easily correctable problem of the barycenter of the system possibly
dipping in and out of one of its components in the case of the presence
of very eliptical orbits, which lead to the inmediate rejection of this
concept by a great part of the participants. It was just too
revolutionary to them.

But the most revolutionary aspect of the first proposal was its
consequence that - starting with the inmediate declaration of three
more planets and announcing the declaration of many more within a short
time - the idea of a fixed and precisely known number of planets would
soon have to be abolished. As it turned out, he abolishement of the
idea of a fixed and precisely known number of planets was so shocking a
proposal to its opponents, that they weren=B4t even capable of attacking
it directly, but were only able to reflect on their inner state by
calling it "confusing".

Besides aiming at being rational, the first proposal was aiming above
all at being a practical solution to the problem of defining a planet,
thus deriving its distinguishing criteria from observed qualities
rather than deriving them from mathematical definitions. As it turns
out, in distinction to natural processes the properties of natural
objects by themselves can never be defined in mathematical terms,
because all natural objects are intrinsically non-perfect (*).
Nevertheless, the first proposal of the IAU was widely attacked for the
lack of mathematical precision of its distinguishing criteria.

Under such circumstances, it was no surprise to see that the first
proposal ended up being rejected in the conference from early on.

But in all likelyhood, very many of those attendants who rather
fiercely attacked the first proposal of the IAU for the lack of
mathematical precision in its distinguing criterion between planets and
non-planets ("roundness", or rather the hydrostatical equilibrium of a
planet) did NOT do this because they wanted a more rational solution
than what was offered in this proposal. This is because they usually
did not make any suggestions with regard to how to improve it, but they
simply wanted it to be discarded without offering any rational
alternative to it. So rather, and due to the mechanism described in the
inmediately following paragraph, it is reasonable to assume that those
people who immediately and fiercely attacked the first proposal of the
IAU were largely and clandestinely supporting the unofficial proposal.

Honesty does not belong to the typical characteristics of homo sapiens.
And just because a person is highly emotional, that does not
necessarily mean that it is also stupid or ignorant of its own
emotionality. Thus, because -not only- emotional people like to "win"
the arguments in which they get involved, and since -above all in
science- the emotivity of an argument is not generally accepted as a
sign of its quality, we must always expect that there exist hidden
motives behind the arguments which are explicitly stated by people.
Thus, the unofficial proposal was largely dealt "below the table".
There was a last ditch attempt, possibly promoted by Richard Binzel of
MIT, to get the unofficial proposal - though camouflaged as a
reinterpretation of the term "classical planet" from the first IAU
proposal - on top of the table, but this attempt did not succeed.

So in the end, and in order to not end up with empty hands and expose
oneself to even more ridicule than in the past, and also in oder to be
able to proceed with the long overdue naming of certain KBOs, the IAU
adopted the second proposal as a compromise.

In the press, this compromise has been hailed as a victory for reason.
But in the light of what I have written above, it turns out to just
have been a defeat of utter irrationality. And it was a close defeat.
Only about 12% of the original attendants of the conference actually
participated in the vote. And among these, the second proposal only won
by a narrow margin (if I wasn=B4t mislead by a potentially dubious
source in this thread). It would be interesting to speculate on what
was the predominant motive among those who voted against the second
proposal, but I will abstain from doing it here.

The interesting question which remains is: Why did the vast majority of
the attendants leave the conference so early that they couldn=B4t
participate in the actual decision -i.e. the voting, even though the
preceeding discussions had been so bitter at times? I have no doubt
that they would come up with all sorts of excuses if we would ask each
one of them personally. But in the light of what I have said above
about hidden motives, I consider the most likely explanation for the
early good-bye of many of them to be the following: They were
scientists, and they hated the solution they would have to vote for if
they didn=B4t listen to their heart. Besides, the vote was not secret
and they possibly feared to become targets of ridicule. And because
they were not able to deal with these circumstances they simply ran
away.

As a final remark: It might well be that from the viewpoint of pure
astronomical research this general assembly of the IAU hasn=B4t been too
interesting for not to say sensational. But from the viewpiont of
another science, which is psychology, the data which can be gathered
from this general assembly, in combination with interviews of its
participants, should offer sufficient material for at least one
dorate thesis. In terms of interdisciplinary science astronomy and
psychology might appear as strange bedfellows, but strange bedfellows
is what life often produces.

Peter

(*): Something which creationists should be made aware of.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 04:58:40
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

jsavard@ecn.ab.ca ha escrito:

> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> > Something as shocking as stripping a long-standing member of the
> > planetary club of its status, though, from the perspective of
> > non-astronomers, is a weighty decision that probably should have been
> > years in the making.
>
> Basically, the root of the problem is this:
>
> After Ceres was discovered, it wasn't that long before a few of the
> other asteroids were found as well, although there was a hiatus during
> the process of discovery in the asteroid belt.
>
> But after Pluto was discovered, there was a *long* wait before the
> discovery of other Kuiper Belt objects.
>
> Thus, Pluto had much more time than Ceres to get firmly established in
> our minds as a planet.
>
> John Savard

Which only goes to show how utterly irrelevant public opinion should be
for science. This hiatus is not a property of the solar system, but is
exclusively due to properties of homo sapiens.

It is science which is supposed to teach the public, and not vice
versa. This is what scientists are paid for.

And doing science means to change the books.

And since when do school kids get the right to vote on whether two plus
two makes four? Within the context of anti-autoritarian education, this
impossibility has actually been discussed. But not so: If you refuse to
learn, then you (should) have to wear the dunce cap and stand in the
corner.

Unfortunately, with the present decay of authority of high school
teachers among their students this has become impossible.

Peter

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:17:15
From: Mike Rhino
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

<ph42@infocanarias.com > wrote in message
news:1156679920.092278.74950@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca ha escrito:
>
>> jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>> > Something as shocking as stripping a long-standing member of the
>> > planetary club of its status, though, from the perspective of
>> > non-astronomers, is a weighty decision that probably should have been
>> > years in the making.
>>
>> Basically, the root of the problem is this:
>>
>> After Ceres was discovered, it wasn't that long before a few of the
>> other asteroids were found as well, although there was a hiatus during
>> the process of discovery in the asteroid belt.
>>
>> But after Pluto was discovered, there was a *long* wait before the
>> discovery of other Kuiper Belt objects.
>>
>> Thus, Pluto had much more time than Ceres to get firmly established in
>> our minds as a planet.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Which only goes to show how utterly irrelevant public opinion should be
> for science. This hiatus is not a property of the solar system, but is
> exclusively due to properties of homo sapiens.
>
> It is science which is supposed to teach the public, and not vice
> versa. This is what scientists are paid for.
>
> And doing science means to change the books.
>
> And since when do school kids get the right to vote on whether two plus
> two makes four? Within the context of anti-autoritarian education, this
> impossibility has actually been discussed. But not so: If you refuse to
> learn, then you (should) have to wear the dunce cap and stand in the
> corner.
>
> Unfortunately, with the present decay of authority of high school
> teachers among their students this has become impossible.
>
> Peter

Scientists are not gods. After all, one of their decisions about Pluto was
wrong. There is a difference between labeling and learning. Most
scientists who were not part of this decision.

Some museums demoted Pluto before this vote. Can those same museums now
promote Pluto?

Date: 27 Aug 2006 04:11:42
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Something as shocking as stripping a long-standing member of the
> planetary club of its status, though, from the perspective of
> non-astronomers, is a weighty decision that probably should have been
> years in the making.

Basically, the root of the problem is this:

After Ceres was discovered, it wasn't that long before a few of the
other asteroids were found as well, although there was a hiatus during
the process of discovery in the asteroid belt.

But after Pluto was discovered, there was a *long* wait before the
discovery of other Kuiper Belt objects.

Thus, Pluto had much more time than Ceres to get firmly established in
our minds as a planet.

John Savard

Date: 26 Aug 2006 23:02:15
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Kevin Heider wrote:
> Tell the truth. Let them know that Ceres was once thought to be a
> planet until astronomers came to realize that there were a lot of
> other objects in the asteroid belt (the gap between Mars & Jupiter.)
> Once astronomers knew that there were 15 asteroids and that they would
> be finding many more, they created the asteroid belt and demoted Ceres
> from planet status.

This is true, and it makes sense that there is some hesitancy over
recognizing the newly-discovered objects in the Kuiper Belt as planets
for the same reason.

But we don't really know how many more large objects there might be out
there in the Kuiper Belt. If there are only a few of them, recognizing
them all as planets would not be inappropriate. If, indeed, there is a
vast multitude, of course, that cannot be done, and it also does call
Pluto's status into question.

This particular decision was reached hastily after it was discovered
that 2003UB313, better known under the unofficial sobriquet 'Xena', was
larger than Pluto. One would almost think that someone didn't _like_
its discoverer. (However, an article in Discover magazine quotes him as
endorsing the principle of treating both the several bodies he
discovered, and Pluto as well, as different from the recognized
planets, so that is hardly a fair conclusion.) I can see that this fact
makes it more urgent to get a consensus on this matter, but is it
really all that urgent?

Of course, in fairness, Pluto's mass and diameter are much less than
was originally believed at the time of its discovery... and, indeed,
less than was accepted for some considerable time afterwards.

Something as shocking as stripping a long-standing member of the
planetary club of its status, though, from the perspective of
non-astronomers, is a weighty decision that probably should have been
years in the making.

John Savard

Date: 27 Aug 2006 10:07:59
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

(John Savard) jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:

>But we don't really know how many more large objects there might be out
>there in the Kuiper Belt. If there are only a few of them, recognizing
>them all as planets would not be inappropriate. If, indeed, there is a
>vast multitude, of course, that cannot be done,

The number of planets that result from a definition or classification
scheme should have absolutely no bearing on the acceptability of that
definition or classification scheme.

Willie R. Meghar

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:14:13
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <qng3f2504k2ooc9vgcfs594e2r1lm90eqa@4ax.com >,
Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote:
>(John Savard) jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>But we don't really know how many more large objects there might be out
>>there in the Kuiper Belt. If there are only a few of them, recognizing
>>them all as planets would not be inappropriate. If, indeed, there is a
>>vast multitude, of course, that cannot be done,
>
>The number of planets that result from a definition or classification
>scheme should have absolutely no bearing on the acceptability of that
>definition or classification scheme.
>
>Willie R. Meghar

Perhaps you think it "shouldn't" - but it does. That's why Ceres, Pallas,
Juno and Vesta ceased to be considered planets some 150 years ago - there
were too many other small solar system bodies which got discovered. If
Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta really had been the only asteroids, chances
are we would still have called them "planets" today.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:59:25
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

>In article <qng3f2504k2ooc9vgcfs594e2r1lm90eqa@4ax.com>,
>Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote:

>>The number of planets that result from a definition or classification
>>scheme should have absolutely no bearing on the acceptability of that
>>definition or classification scheme.
>
>Perhaps you think it "shouldn't" - but it does. That's why Ceres, Pallas,
>Juno and Vesta ceased to be considered planets some 150 years ago - there
>were too many other small solar system bodies which got discovered. If
>Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta really had been the only asteroids, chances
>are we would still have called them "planets" today.

Consider the following story:

You've lived your entire life on an island; and in all the history of
your people nobody has ever left the island and returned.

This island has had on it 7 trees for all of recorded history. Each
of the trees has its own name; but collectively they've been called
trees. Then one day a guy named Herschel is the first islander to
ever return from a journey to the other side of Mt. Jumbo. Herschel
brings proof of the existence of another tree. That tree is given a
name.

More recently, a fellow named Clyde returned from a journey to the
other side of Mt. Bigger. Using a spy glass he spots a distant object
that looks like yet another tree . . .

Meanwhile, Ferdinand builds some ships and journeys out to sea. He
returns with news of other lands. Of particular interest is
Ferdinand's account of multitudes of tree-like objects. They seem to
be trees; but some of them have short, stubby, broad, flat "leaves".
Some have short, narrow, pointed leaves. Others are more similar to
those on the home island -- trees with "common" leaves and coconuts.

This is too much for the island's mystical tree keepers to cope with.
They decide that in order to be a tree, a tree must be located on the
home island and must have the common leaf type and bear coconuts.

This means (after closer inspection) that Clyde's "tree" cannot be a
tree anymore (It doesn't bear coconuts). Naturally, the tree-like
objects found on other lands cannot be trees either. The island's
tree mystics decide to call those objects "pseudo-trees", making it
clear that a pseudo-tree isn't actually a tree.

Now the entire human population of the island is polarized: Some
think "tree" should be re-defined so that only eight trees exist.
Some want the number to be nine. Some want to call all similar
objects, no matter where they are found, "trees".

**************** End of Story ***************

Willie R. Meghar

Date: 28 Aug 2006 02:13:20
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

I don't think the "name" for a thing really matters. The thing is still =
the same thing. It doesn't matter. Pluto didn't change. Nothing in the =
sky changed.=20

.Florian

Date: 28 Aug 2006 06:42:59
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <hfj4f25i5gc95lkcqokeq9ttmdc9cunsd9@4ax.com >,
Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote:

> pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>>In article <qng3f2504k2ooc9vgcfs594e2r1lm90eqa@4ax.com>,
>>Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote:
>
>>>The number of planets that result from a definition or classification
>>>scheme should have absolutely no bearing on the acceptability of that
>>>definition or classification scheme.
>>
>>Perhaps you think it "shouldn't" - but it does. That's why Ceres, Pallas,
>>Juno and Vesta ceased to be considered planets some 150 years ago - there
>>were too many other small solar system bodies which got discovered. If
>>Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta really had been the only asteroids, chances
>>are we would still have called them "planets" today.
>
> Consider the following story:
>
> You've lived your entire life on an island; and in all the history of
> your people nobody has ever left the island and returned.
>
> This island has had on it 7 trees for all of recorded history. Each
> of the trees has its own name; but collectively they've been called
> trees. Then one day a guy named Herschel is the first islander to
> ever return from a journey to the other side of Mt. Jumbo. Herschel
> brings proof of the existence of another tree. That tree is given a
> name.
>
> More recently, a fellow named Clyde returned from a journey to the
> other side of Mt. Bigger. Using a spy glass he spots a distant object
> that looks like yet another tree . . .
>
> Meanwhile, Ferdinand builds some ships and journeys out to sea. He
> returns with news of other lands. Of particular interest is
> Ferdinand's account of multitudes of tree-like objects. They seem to
> be trees; but some of them have short, stubby, broad, flat "leaves".
> Some have short, narrow, pointed leaves. Others are more similar to
> those on the home island -- trees with "common" leaves and coconuts.
>
> This is too much for the island's mystical tree keepers to cope with.
> They decide that in order to be a tree, a tree must be located on the
> home island and must have the common leaf type and bear coconuts.
>
> This means (after closer inspection) that Clyde's "tree" cannot be a
> tree anymore (It doesn't bear coconuts). Naturally, the tree-like
> objects found on other lands cannot be trees either. The island's
> tree mystics decide to call those objects "pseudo-trees", making it
> clear that a pseudo-tree isn't actually a tree.
>
> Now the entire human population of the island is polarized: Some
> think "tree" should be re-defined so that only eight trees exist.
> Some want the number to be nine. Some want to call all similar
> objects, no matter where they are found, "trees".
>
> **************** End of Story ***************
>
> Willie R. Meghar

Your story has flaws: it doesn't tell the story about how two of those
original trees became non-trees (the Sun and the Moon, both considered
planets in anceint times, are now considered to be non-planets). Neither
does it tell about the discovery of when that whole island was discovered
to just be a tree among the other trees, all floating freely in space
(the Earth was discovered to be just a planet among the other planets).
So your story also argues for a geocentric worldview.......

And you don't tell about four other trees which were depreceated to
grass (Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, once considered to be planets, are
now considered to be asteroids).

And regarding that distant tree spotted by Clyde: the spyglass
available to Clyde showed that tree just as a small dot, which caused
speculations about its size - most of the speculations exaggreated its
size. When better spyglasses became available, it turned out that it
wasn't a tree, it was a bush or just grass. But most people insisted it
still was a tree, for "historical reasons".

Finally the IBU (International Botanical Union) decided that
vegetation should be divided into three classes: trees, bushes, and
grass. One particular plant which we may call Ceres, once considered
a tree, then depreceated to grass, was now promoted to a bush. Another
one, Pluto, was depreceated to a bush.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 28 Aug 2006 04:04:19
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

(Paul Schlyter) wrote:

>Your story has flaws:

You are mistaken Paul. It is your critique of the story that is
flawed.

Willie R. Meghar

Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:42:58
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <tdf5f213hrocmr7452hje6k5ph9lomi1ie@4ax.com >,
Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net > wrote:

> (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>> Your story has flaws:
>
> You are mistaken Paul. It is your critique of the story that is
> flawed.
>
> Willie R. Meghar

In what way? And are you claiming that the Earth isn't a planet? Just
like the island in your story which wasn't a tree....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:52:00
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

(Paul Schlyter) wrote:

>In article <tdf5f213hrocmr7452hje6k5ph9lomi1ie@4ax.com>,
>Willie R. Meghar <NoMail@thisaddress.net> wrote:

>> You are mistaken Paul. It is your critique of the story that is
>> flawed.
>
>In what way? And are you claiming that the Earth isn't a planet? Just
>like the island in your story which wasn't a tree....

Hi Paul,
Peter did a very good job of answering the "In what way?" question. I
started to provide reasons when I wrote the brief posting quoted
above; but it was 4am local time. I had been out observing, and was
in need of sleep. Later I saw Peter's posting and felt an adequate
explanation had been provided.

No, I'm not claiming that the Earth isn't a planet. Some people
understood the story. Some didn't. Such is life. It's time to move
on and return to astronomy.

Willie R. Meghar

Date: 01 Sep 2006 04:31:22
From: Henry Spencer
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <1156658534.950136.312250@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
>Something as shocking as stripping a long-standing member of the
>planetary club of its status, though, from the perspective of
>non-astronomers, is a weighty decision that probably should have been
>years in the making.

The whole thing would have caused at least an order of magnitude less fuss
if the people writing the definitions had been less obsessive about making
every last object toe the line, and a bit more willing to accept pragmatic
compromises in what is (after all) a fairly arbitrary rule. It may be
aesthetically displeasing, but there's nothing fundamentally improper
about writing in a grandfather clause for Pluto. "A planet is an object
which satisfies X, Y, and Z. Exception: Pluto is considered a planet --
despite not satisfying Z -- for historical reasons. There will be no more
such exceptions."
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air;

Date: 01 Sep 2006 15:43:31
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <J4wCKA.EtA@spsystems.net >,
Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net > wrote:
>In article <1156658534.950136.312250@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>Something as shocking as stripping a long-standing member of the
>>planetary club of its status, though, from the perspective of
>>non-astronomers, is a weighty decision that probably should have been
>>years in the making.
>
>The whole thing would have caused at least an order of magnitude less fuss
>if the people writing the definitions had been less obsessive about making
>every last object toe the line, and a bit more willing to accept pragmatic
>compromises in what is (after all) a fairly arbitrary rule. It may be
>aesthetically displeasing, but there's nothing fundamentally improper
>about writing in a grandfather clause for Pluto. "A planet is an object
>which satisfies X, Y, and Z. Exception: Pluto is considered a planet --
>despite not satisfying Z -- for historical reasons. There will be no more
>such exceptions."

There are historical reasons for considering Ceres, Pallas, Jun and Vesta
planets too. And if you go further back in history, there are even historical
reasons for considering the Sun and the Moon planets.....

>spsystems.net is temporarily off the air;

Date: 01 Sep 2006 21:21:41
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

>There are historical reasons for considering Ceres, Pallas, Juno and =
Vesta
>planets too. And if you go further back in history, there are even =
historical
>reasons for considering the Sun and the Moon planets.....

They are all "wanderers". And i'm happy with the current/new =
classification. 4 small rocky inner planets, 4 large gaseous outer =
planets. Pluto never fit in my opinion. But Pluto is still there just as =
before. Nothing really changed.

.Florian

Date: 02 Sep 2006 22:51:57
From: Henry Spencer
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <ed9jrv$2fva$1@merope.saaf.se >,
Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote:
>>The whole thing would have caused at least an order of magnitude less fuss
>>if the people writing the definitions had been less obsessive about making
>>every last object toe the line, and a bit more willing to accept pragmatic
>>compromises in what is (after all) a fairly arbitrary rule...
>
>There are historical reasons for considering Ceres, Pallas, Jun and Vesta
>planets too.

So what? We're talking about pragmatic compromises, *not* blind adherence
to rules, so the fact that those were once considered to be planets --
long enough ago that no living human remembers it -- is irrelevant. Pluto
is the one people care about *now*, and thus is the source of much of the
controversy. Simply conceding Pluto to be a special case would have
prevented at least 95% of the uproar.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air;

Date: 03 Sep 2006 10:14:00
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <J4zM6L.Au8@spsystems.net >,
Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net > wrote:

> In article <ed9jrv$2fva$1@merope.saaf.se>,
> Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:
>>>The whole thing would have caused at least an order of magnitude less fuss
>>>if the people writing the definitions had been less obsessive about making
>>>every last object toe the line, and a bit more willing to accept pragmatic
>>>compromises in what is (after all) a fairly arbitrary rule...
>>
>> There are historical reasons for considering Ceres, Pallas, Jun and Vesta
>> planets too.
>
> So what? We're talking about pragmatic compromises, *not* blind adherence
> to rules, so the fact that those were once considered to be planets --
> long enough ago that no living human remembers it -- is irrelevant. Pluto
> is the one people care about *now*, and thus is the source of much of the
> controversy. Simply conceding Pluto to be a special case would have
> prevented at least 95% of the uproar.

One possible pragmatic compromise could be this: by a special rule,
Pluto is declared to be a major planet. In the rule it's made
explicit that the rule is inconsistent and its only purpose is to
please the current opinion. The rule is also explicitly declared to
be temporary and will automatically expire in, say, 70 years, when
almost all of those participating in the current "uproar" will have
died out.... then we can finally get a more consistent rule of what a
planet is.

What about that? Or do you think such a rule would be too candid? :-)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 04 Sep 2006 05:51:25
From: Henry Spencer
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <ede8vb$169l$1@merope.saaf.se >,
Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote:
>...The rule is also explicitly declared to
>be temporary and will automatically expire in, say, 70 years, when
>almost all of those participating in the current "uproar" will have
>died out...
>
>What about that? Or do you think such a rule would be too candid? :-)

I doubt that one would fly. What you might be able to do is to include a
less-drastic "sunset" clause, calling for review and reconfirmation of the
exception every, say, 50 years. Let a generation or two of astronomers
grow up with footnotes saying "historical exception, subject to later
review", and I think the exception would end up being dropped.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air;

Date: 02 Sep 2006 20:56:35
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <ed9jrv$2fva$1@merope.saaf.se >,
Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se > wrote:

>>"A planet is an object
>>which satisfies X, Y, and Z. Exception: Pluto is considered a planet --
>>despite not satisfying Z -- for historical reasons. There will be no more
>>such exceptions."

>There are historical reasons for considering Ceres, Pallas, Jun and Vesta
>planets too.

So what? That doesn't stop you having a rule that only makes Pluto a
planet for historical reasons.

-- Richard

Date: 03 Sep 2006 10:14:00
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <edcr63$144k$2@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk >,
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk > wrote:

> In article <ed9jrv$2fva$1@merope.saaf.se>,
> Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:
>
>>>"A planet is an object
>>>which satisfies X, Y, and Z. Exception: Pluto is considered a planet --
>>>despite not satisfying Z -- for historical reasons. There will be no more
>>>such exceptions."
>
> >There are historical reasons for considering Ceres, Pallas, Jun and Vesta
> >planets too.
>
> So what? That doesn't stop you having a rule that only makes Pluto a
> planet for historical reasons.
>
> -- Richard

In a way you're right -- factual arguments are no guarantee against creating
arbitrary inconsistent rules just to please a temporary opinion....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:39:29
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Mike Rhino ha escrito:

> <ph42@infocanarias.com> wrote in message
(=2E...)
> > It is science which is supposed to teach the public, and not vice
> > versa. This is what scientists are paid for.
> >
> > And doing science means to change the books.
> >
> > And since when do school kids get the right to vote on whether two plus
> > two makes four? Within the context of anti-autoritarian education, this
> > impossibility has actually been discussed. But not so: If you refuse to
> > learn, then you (should) have to wear the dunce cap and stand in the
> > corner.
> >
> > Unfortunately, with the present decay of authority of high school
> > teachers among their students this has become impossible.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Scientists are not gods.

Which means that they don=B4t know everything about everything, but more
than non-scientists within their respective area of research.

And science is not religion. This is why doing science means to change
the books (see above).

Assuming that you are not a car mechanic: When your car is broken, why
do you bring it to the car mechanic? Because you believe, that even
though he might not know everything about cars (e.g. car electronics)
he knows at least much better than you do. Now would you in this
situation insist in participating in the decision about what is wrong
with your car?

In order to participate in a decision about anything, you ought to know
about the circumstances relevant for that decision. So when, for
instance, it comes to decide on whether Pluto is a planet or not, it is
indispensable that you know something about the general characteristics
of the the Kuiper Belt and about some of its outstanding objects, like
2003UB313 (bigger than Pluto) or 2003EL61 (oblong). In fact, the more
you know the better. Does this surprise you?

> After all, one of their decisions about Pluto was
> wrong.

Which decision? And what was wrong? You cannot blame scientists for the
fact that for more than 60 years they had no idea that Pluto is just
the most easily visible member of a big belt of similar objects which
are sometimes larger than Pluto.

> There is a difference between labeling and learning.

Sure. But you can learn labels more easily, if you can put them into a
meaningfull context (the so called semantic context). So if terms have
meaning instead of merely beeing the results of a conventions based on
nothing (i.e. not on intrinsic characteristics)
it is easier to learn them.

> Most
> scientists who were not part of this decision.
>
> Some museums demoted Pluto before this vote. Can those same museums now
> promote Pluto?

They would loose funding. Especially since last Thursday.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:11:21
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Paul Schlyter ha escrito:

(....)
>
> Your story has flaws:

"Flaw" is the wrong choice of word in this context. What Willie has
written above is a parable. And a parable is a very special kind of
"story".

Parables, being what they are -i.e. similar to fables except that they
exclude animals that assume speech and other powers of homo sapiens-
can never be nor pretend to be *perfect*.

So instead of saying "has flaws", you should have said "is not
perfect". But to say that a parable is not perfect is nothing but to
say that a parable is a parable.

It would have been another thing if you would have claimed that Willies
parable is erroneous. But I do not see you claiming that anywhere. You
seem to just want a more detailed parable. But the spice of a parable
lies exactly within being short, thus emphasizing its moral lesson (see
for example.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parable).

I for my part have enjoyed reading Willies parable .... until it
suddenly stopped.

The last sentence of his parable does of course allude to the first
proposal of the IAU (or the IBU, as you called it. Good idea that). I
feel that Willie should have described the calling together of a big
general assembly of the elders of the island including the mystical
tree keepers for the purpose of officially deciding on what is a tree
and what is not. And how the mystical tree keepers on that meeting
managed to avoide that this "first proposal" was adopted. Since Willie
is a better story teller than I am he perhaps could still do that,
taking due note of the popularity of the mystical tree keepers among
the common folks.

This then would be a parable on the (relative, since it could have been
worse) ridiculousness of the last general assembly of the IAU.

Peter

Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:42:58
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <1156774281.759724.196400@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
<ph42@infocanarias.com > wrote:

> This then would be a parable on the (relative, since it could have been
> worse) ridiculousness of the last general assembly of the IAU.

So the debate isn't really about whether Pluto is a planet or not, but about
whether the IAU is ridiculous or not?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 28 Aug 2006 10:41:26
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Paul Schlyter ha escrito:

(=2E...)
> Finally the IBU (International Botanical Union) decided that
> vegetation should be divided into three classes: trees, bushes, and
> grass.

Not to forget that the term "bush" ( which stands for "dwarf planet")
was new term invented on that occasion. But I think that what you
should have chosen here is something like "non-coconut tree".

> One particular plant which we may call Ceres, once considered
> a tree, then depreceated to grass, was now promoted to a bush. Another
> one, Pluto, was depreceated to a bush.

What I really should have mentioned in my last post, is that your
version of Willie=B4s parable does not get to the crucial point.

And the crucial point is, that when the IBU ended up under the pressure
of the mystical tree keepers backed by the common folks who don=B4t know
much about trees, it took the decision to maintain the concept of a
fixed and precisely known number of trees - but patched it up with a
corrolary (see "bushes" or better "non-coconut trees") in order to
avoid that this decision became absolutely arbitrary, i.e. even more
arbitrary than it already was.

Peter

Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:42:58
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <1156786886.126990.151210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
<ph42@infocanarias.com > wrote:

> Paul Schlyter ha escrito:
>
> (....)
>> Finally the IBU (International Botanical Union) decided that
>> vegetation should be divided into three classes: trees, bushes, and
>> grass.
>
> Not to forget that the term "bush" ( which stands for "dwarf planet")
> was new term invented on that occasion. But I think that what you
> should have chosen here is something like "non-coconut tree".

That would have been inappropriate, since whether something is a planet
or not depends primarily on the size, not primarily on the composition,
of the body.

>> One particular plant which we may call Ceres, once considered
>> a tree, then depreceated to grass, was now promoted to a bush. Another
>> one, Pluto, was depreceated to a bush.
>
> What I really should have mentioned in my last post, is that your
> version of Willie's parable does not get to the crucial point.
>
> And the crucial point is, that when the IBU ended up under the pressure
> of the mystical tree keepers backed by the common folks who don't know
> much about trees, it took the decision to maintain the concept of a
> fixed and precisely known number of trees - but patched it up with a
> corrolary (see "bushes" or better "non-coconut trees") in order to
> avoid that this decision became absolutely arbitrary, i.e. even more
> arbitrary than it already was.
>
> Peter

I see -- the debate has now drifted and is no longer about whether Pluto
is a planet or not, but about whether the IAU is ridiculous or not.

If the IAU instead had decided as you wished it would have decided,
would you then have argued that the IAU acted ridiculously? I think not....

So why not just face it? You "lost" - don't act as a bad loser.

And the definition of "planet" is of course not a matter of science,
it's just a matter of semantics. Pluto is still there, the same as it
was, we just switched the label we attach on it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 30 Aug 2006 09:29:52
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Paul Schlyter ha escrito:

> In article <1156774281.759724.196400@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> <ph42@infocanarias.com> wrote:
>
> > This then would be a parable on the (relative, since it could have been
> > worse) ridiculousness of the last general assembly of the IAU.
>
> So the debate isn't really about whether Pluto is a planet or not, but ab=
out
> whether the IAU is ridiculous or not?

Please read what you quote before quoting it. I was not referring
myself to the IAU, but to the general assembly of accredited
astronomers convened by it in Prague last week. That=B4s what I called
ridiculous. The IAU itself did a good job at presenting the most
rational -though not absolutely perfect- proposal that was in the game.
With a little bit of polishing it should have been acceptable for
everyone (see my evalutation of that GA on this thread). Now I don=B4t
know what rationality in science means to you, but for me science
stands and falls according to the degree of its rationality.

Peter

Date: 30 Aug 2006 17:13:38
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <1156955392.922137.33340@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
<ph42@infocanarias.com > wrote:
>
>Paul Schlyter ha escrito:
>
>> In article <1156774281.759724.196400@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> <ph42@infocanarias.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This then would be a parable on the (relative, since it could have been
>> > worse) ridiculousness of the last general assembly of the IAU.
>>
>> So the debate isn't really about whether Pluto is a planet or not, but ab=
>out
>> whether the IAU is ridiculous or not?
>
>Please read what you quote before quoting it. I was not referring
>myself to the IAU, but to the general assembly of accredited
>astronomers convened by it in Prague last week. That=B4s what I called
>ridiculous. The IAU itself did a good job at presenting the most
>rational -though not absolutely perfect- proposal that was in the game.
>With a little bit of polishing it should have been acceptable for
>everyone (see my evalutation of that GA on this thread). Now I don=B4t
>know what rationality in science means to you, but for me science
>stands and falls according to the degree of its rationality.
>
>Peter

You're nit picking -- nevertheless the debate has drifted from how
Pluto should be labelled to whether some people or their actions
are ridiculous or not.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Date: 30 Aug 2006 09:25:36
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Paul Schlyter ha escrito:

> In article <1156786886.126990.151210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> <ph42@infocanarias.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul Schlyter ha escrito:
> >
> > (....)
> >> Finally the IBU (International Botanical Union) decided that
> >> vegetation should be divided into three classes: trees, bushes, and
> >> grass.
> >
> > Not to forget that the term "bush" ( which stands for "dwarf planet")
> > was new term invented on that occasion. But I think that what you
> > should have chosen here is something like "non-coconut tree".
>
> That would have been inappropriate, since whether something is a planet
> or not depends primarily on the size, not primarily on the composition,
> of the body.

We=B4re talking trees here, and we really shouldn=B4t get too hung up
with parables.

>
> >> One particular plant which we may call Ceres, once considered
> >> a tree, then depreceated to grass, was now promoted to a bush. Another
> >> one, Pluto, was depreceated to a bush.
> >
> > What I really should have mentioned in my last post, is that your
> > version of Willie's parable does not get to the crucial point.
> >
> > And the crucial point is, that when the IBU ended up under the pressure
> > of the mystical tree keepers backed by the common folks who don't know
> > much about trees, it took the decision to maintain the concept of a
> > fixed and precisely known number of trees - but patched it up with a
> > corrolary (see "bushes" or better "non-coconut trees") in order to
> > avoid that this decision became absolutely arbitrary, i.e. even more
> > arbitrary than it already was.
> >
> > Peter
>
> I see -- the debate has now drifted and is no longer about whether Pluto
> is a planet or not, but about whether the IAU is ridiculous or not.
>
> If the IAU instead had decided as you wished it would have decided,
> would you then have argued that the IAU acted ridiculously? I think not.=
.=2E.
>
> So why not just face it? You "lost" - don't act as a bad loser.
>
> And the definition of "planet" is of course not a matter of science,
> it's just a matter of semantics. Pluto is still there, the same as it
> was, we just switched the label we attach on it.

I am not outraged by the outcome of that last GA, just disappointed.
Considering that all attendants were products of biological evolution
(like me, so I know what I am talking about), perhaps it was all we
could hope for under such emotionally charged conditions.

So we will have to stick with the concept of a fixed and precisely
known number of planets. But at least the eight planets to which
planethood in our solar system is now restricted have some physical and
orbital properties by which they can be distinguished from the rest of
the solar system bodies (composition, type of orbit, general region of
the solar system and more). This is not very satisfying, but it could
have been much worse:

If the plutomaniacs would have gotten their way and the number of
planets in our solar system would have been restricted to nine, then
there would not exist any physical or orbital properties by which one
could distinguish planets from KBOs. And even worse, we would have
created the contradictory situation in which Pluto is considered a
planet while 2003UB313 is not. In other words, we would have *created*
a convention which is absolutely meaningless(*). A bit of meaning is
still better than none at all.

The present definition should be able to hold up until some day an
extrasolar planet with less mass than Mercury is found. Unless perhaps
some day it is replaced by a more universal definition which abolishes
the idea of a fixed and precisely known number of planets and is thus
applicable to extrasolar systems without limits (even though we should
always be ready for surprises). Nonetheless, considering how close -to
my understanding- we were last week to a victory of the plutomaniacs
(all they needed was to make any solution impossible, in order to ger
their newfangled "convention" more deeply engrained (*)). The last week
has made me rather sceptical about what reasoning power scientists tend
to have nowadays.

And talking about meaning: Science and semantics are not unrelated,
since it is science which is supposed to find meaningful connections
between the phenomena of this world. And semantics is about contexts of
meaning.

Peter

(*)To call Pluto a planet was much more than just a convention. To
suddenly call this a pure convention is nothing but a straw argument
pulled out of the hat by certain people when they found it convenient.
And even conventions tend to be usefull - whether they are social
conventions or traffic rules.

Date: 30 Aug 2006 17:13:38
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

In article <1156955136.135548.279600@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >,
<ph42@infocanarias.com > wrote:
>Paul Schlyter ha escrito:
>
>> In article <1156786886.126990.151210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>> <ph42@infocanarias.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Paul Schlyter ha escrito:
>> >
>> > (....)
>> >> Finally the IBU (International Botanical Union) decided that
>> >> vegetation should be divided into three classes: trees, bushes, and
>> >> grass.
>> >
>> > Not to forget that the term "bush" ( which stands for "dwarf planet")
>> > was new term invented on that occasion. But I think that what you
>> > should have chosen here is something like "non-coconut tree".
>>
>> That would have been inappropriate, since whether something is a planet
>> or not depends primarily on the size, not primarily on the composition,
>> of the body.
>
>We=B4re talking trees here, and we really shouldn=B4t get too hung up
>with parables.
>
>>
>> >> One particular plant which we may call Ceres, once considered
>> >> a tree, then depreceated to grass, was now promoted to a bush. Another
>> >> one, Pluto, was depreceated to a bush.
>> >
>> > What I really should have mentioned in my last post, is that your
>> > version of Willie's parable does not get to the crucial point.
>> >
>> > And the crucial point is, that when the IBU ended up under the pressure
>> > of the mystical tree keepers backed by the common folks who don't know
>> > much about trees, it took the decision to maintain the concept of a
>> > fixed and precisely known number of trees - but patched it up with a
>> > corrolary (see "bushes" or better "non-coconut trees") in order to
>> > avoid that this decision became absolutely arbitrary, i.e. even more
>> > arbitrary than it already was.
>> >
>> > Peter
>>
>> I see -- the debate has now drifted and is no longer about whether Pluto
>> is a planet or not, but about whether the IAU is ridiculous or not.
>>
>> If the IAU instead had decided as you wished it would have decided,
>> would you then have argued that the IAU acted ridiculously? I think not.=
>.=2E.
>>
>> So why not just face it? You "lost" - don't act as a bad loser.
>>
>> And the definition of "planet" is of course not a matter of science,
>> it's just a matter of semantics. Pluto is still there, the same as it
>> was, we just switched the label we attach on it.
>
>I am not outraged by the outcome of that last GA, just disappointed.

So what kind of outcome would you have preferred?

Personally, I like this outcome. There is a distinct size difference
between e.g. Mercory and Pluto (otoh there's a so a distinct size difference
between the Earth and the gas giants - so the latter are sometimes
called "the giant planets"). And the 8 planets, according to the
current definition, are also the only planets/dwarf planets/small bodies
which ever have had analytical theories developed for their motions.

I've already considered Pluto a "semi-planet" for decades.

>Considering that all attendants were products of biological evolution
>(like me, so I know what I am talking about), perhaps it was all we
>could hope for under such emotionally charged conditions.
>
>So we will have to stick with the concept of a fixed and precisely
>known number of planets.

It's precisely known, but it's not necessarily fixed. Should a
Neptune-sized object be discovered out there (not likely, but also
not impossible), it would definitely be counted as a planet. Or
as a "major planet", to distinguish it from the "dwarf planets".
It won't be a "classical planet" though until it's been known for
one or several centuries.

>But at least the eight planets to which
>planethood in our solar system is now restricted have some physical and
>orbital properties by which they can be distinguished from the rest of
>the solar system bodies (composition, type of orbit, general region of
>the solar system and more). This is not very satisfying, but it could
>have been much worse:
>
>If the plutomaniacs would have gotten their way and the number of
>planets in our solar system would have been restricted to nine, then
>there would not exist any physical or orbital properties by which one
>could distinguish planets from KBOs. And even worse, we would have
>created the contradictory situation in which Pluto is considered a
>planet while 2003UB313 is not. In other words, we would have *created*
>a convention which is absolutely meaningless(*). A bit of meaning is
>still better than none at all.
>
>The present definition should be able to hold up until some day an
>extrasolar planet with less mass than Mercury is found. Unless perhaps
>some day it is replaced by a more universal definition which abolishes
>the idea of a fixed and precisely known number of planets and is thus
>applicable to extrasolar systems without limits (even though we should
>always be ready for surprises). Nonetheless, considering how close -to
>my understanding- we were last week to a victory of the plutomaniacs
>(all they needed was to make any solution impossible, in order to ger
>their newfangled "convention" more deeply engrained (*)). The last week
>has made me rather sceptical about what reasoning power scientists tend
>to have nowadays.
>
>And talking about meaning: Science and semantics are not unrelated,
>since it is science which is supposed to find meaningful connections
>between the phenomena of this world. And semantics is about contexts of
>meaning.

Semantics is about context and meaning *in natural languages*. Science
often uses the "language of science", i.e. math, to express ideas,
and math is much less ambiguous than natural languages.

This definition (or any other definition) of "planet" changes nothing
in our knowledge of planets or our available data of the planets.
Therefore it's not a matter of science, despite science and semantics
sometimes being somewhat related.

>Peter
>
>(*)To call Pluto a planet was much more than just a convention. To
>suddenly call this a pure convention is nothing but a straw argument
>pulled out of the hat by certain people when they found it convenient.
>And even conventions tend to be usefull - whether they are social
>conventions or traffic rules.
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 16:33:19
From: Eric Chomko
Subject: Re: Pluto loses status as a planet

Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <ed9jrv$2fva$1@merope.saaf.se>,
> Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote:
>
> >>"A planet is an object
> >>which satisfies X, Y, and Z. Exception: Pluto is considered a planet --
> >>despite not satisfying Z -- for historical reasons. There will be no more
> >>such exceptions."
>
> >There are historical reasons for considering Ceres, Pallas, Jun and Vesta
> >planets too.
>
> So what? That doesn't stop you having a rule that only makes Pluto a
> planet for historical reasons.

I'm pretty sure Paul's point was that Ceres and the other first
discovered asteriods were considered planets as well. Tradition didn't
sway they being reclassified correctly as asteroids once dozens more
asteriods were discovered in their same region. Likewise, we are
discovering trans-Neptunian objects of which Pluto appears to be one.
Therefore, tradition and history aside as with the asteroids, there is
a good case and reason to reclassify Pluto.

Eric

>
> -- Richard