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