| |
Main
Date: 25 Aug 2006 08:36:13
From: George
Subject: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News
A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip
Pluto of its status as a planet.
On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto
to a lesser category of object.
But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the
ruling, calling it "embarrassing".
And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a definition
implied that the vote had effectively been "hijacked".
The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day
General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for
astronomy since 1919.
Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting
took part.
An initial proposal by the IAU to add three new planets to the Solar
System - the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon and the distant world
known as 2003 UB313 - met with considerable opposition at the meeting. Days
of heated debate followed during which four separate proposals were tabled.
Eventually, the scientists adopted historic guidelines that see Pluto
relegated to a secondary category of "dwarf planets".
Drawing the line
Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to
Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition;
it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons.
"Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between
dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for
some arbitrary reason, like 'they tend to live in groups'.
"Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's inconsistent."
One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have
"cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the
Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it out
of the way with a gravitational swipe.
Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with
that of Neptune.
But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also
not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth
asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids
on its orbital path.
These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the
formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.
"If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.
Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto
reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to "Honk if Pluto is
still a planet" have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails circulating
about the decision have been describing the IAU as the "Irrelevant
Astronomical Union".
'Inconvenient arrangements'
Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped
draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12.
The Harvard professor emeritus blamed the outcome in large part on a
"revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study the motion and
gravitational effects of celestial objects.
"In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the
planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted
that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were
enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.
"Their revolt raised enough of a fuss to destroy the scientific integrity
and subtlety of the [earlier] resolution."
He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day
period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and
were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers
than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is
working on'."
E-voting
Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and therefore could
not vote himself, said he would like to see electronic ballots introduced
in future.
Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room
in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room -
you can't even claim consensus.
"If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted to vote
for President, we would have very different results because no one would
vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for
this decision."
He added that he could not see the resolution standing for very long and
did not plan to change any of the astronomy textbook he was currently
writing.
But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official roster
of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU's president of planetary
systems science, commented: "Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we're not
so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets
crowded.
"By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think
people would have said 'my goodness, what a mess they made back in 2006'."
Shaking hands
Robin Catchpole, of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, UK, said: "My
own personal opinion was to leave things as they were. I met Clyde
Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, and thought, it's nice to shake hands with
someone who discovered a planet.
"But since the IAU brought out the first draft resolution, I was rather
against that because I thought it was going to be very confusing. So the
best of the alternatives was to keep the eight planets as they are, and
then demote Pluto. I think this is a far superior solution."
The need for a strict definition was deemed necessary after new telescope
technologies began to reveal far-off objects that rivalled Pluto in size.
The critical blow for Pluto came with the discovery three years ago of an
object currently designated 2003 UB313. Discovered by Mike Brown and
colleagues at the California Institute of Technology, 2003 UB313 has been
lauded by some as the "10th Planet".
Measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope show it to have a diameter of
3,000km (1,864 miles), a few hundred km more than Pluto. 2003 UB313 will
now join Pluto in the dwarf planet category.
Mike Brown seemed happy with Pluto's demotion. "Eight is enough," he told
the Associated Press, jokingly adding: "I may go down in history as the guy
who killed Pluto."
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 11:23:29
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
George quoted the BBC:
> The Harvard professor emeritus [Owen Gingerich] blamed the outcome
> in large part on a "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study
> the motion and gravitational effects of celestial objects.
Civil war in Iraq, the reemergence of the Taliban, and now a revolt by
dynamicists.
We should have seen this coming. I shudder to think what weapons might
be available to people who can cause planets to disappear with just the
power of their minds.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 12:52:51
From: George
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
"Davoud" <star@sky.net > wrote in message
news:250820061123295975%star@sky.net...
> George quoted the BBC:
>> The Harvard professor emeritus [Owen Gingerich] blamed the outcome
>> in large part on a "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study
>> the motion and gravitational effects of celestial objects.
>
> Civil war in Iraq, the reemergence of the Taliban, and now a revolt by
> dynamicists.
>
> We should have seen this coming. I shudder to think what weapons might
> be available to people who can cause planets to disappear with just the
> power of their minds.
>
> Davoud
>
> --
> usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
LOL. As a geologist, I think it is obvious that we are living in the
ishouldhavecene epoch!
George
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:11:26
From: El Guapo
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
"George" <george@yourservice.com > wrote in message
news:6qOdnbzhftkhc3PZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
>
> By Paul Rincon
> Science reporter, BBC News
>
> A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip
> Pluto of its status as a planet.
> On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto
> to a lesser category of object.
>
> But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted
> the ruling, calling it "embarrassing".
I don't have a problem with tossing Pluto out as a planet, but the
definition they approved is ridiculous. Even if only 4% of professional
astronomers voted, it's still pretty sad that this is the best that they
could come up with.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 06:24:52
From: Ed
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
90% of professional astronomers did not vote pluto out either.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 06:05:18
From: CNJ999
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
George wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
>
> By Paul Rincon
> Science reporter, BBC News
>
> A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip
> Pluto of its status as a planet.
> On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto
> to a lesser category of object.
>
> But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the
> ruling, calling it "embarrassing".
>
> And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a definition
> implied that the vote had effectively been "hijacked".
>
> The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day
> General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for
> astronomy since 1919.
>
> Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting
> took part.
>
> An initial proposal by the IAU to add three new planets to the Solar
> System - the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon and the distant world
> known as 2003 UB313 - met with considerable opposition at the meeting. Days
> of heated debate followed during which four separate proposals were tabled.
>
> Eventually, the scientists adopted historic guidelines that see Pluto
> relegated to a secondary category of "dwarf planets".
>
> Drawing the line
>
> Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to
> Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition;
> it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons.
>
> "Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between
> dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for
> some arbitrary reason, like 'they tend to live in groups'.
>
> "Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's inconsistent."
>
> One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have
> "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the
> Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it out
> of the way with a gravitational swipe.
>
> Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with
> that of Neptune.
>
> But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also
> not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth
> asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids
> on its orbital path.
>
> These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the
> formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.
>
> "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.
>
> Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto
> reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to "Honk if Pluto is
> still a planet" have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails circulating
> about the decision have been describing the IAU as the "Irrelevant
> Astronomical Union".
>
> 'Inconvenient arrangements'
>
> Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped
> draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12.
>
> The Harvard professor emeritus blamed the outcome in large part on a
> "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study the motion and
> gravitational effects of celestial objects.
>
> "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the
> planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted
> that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were
> enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.
>
> "Their revolt raised enough of a fuss to destroy the scientific integrity
> and subtlety of the [earlier] resolution."
>
> He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day
> period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and
> were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers
> than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is
> working on'."
>
> E-voting
>
> Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and therefore could
> not vote himself, said he would like to see electronic ballots introduced
> in future.
>
> Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room
> in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room -
> you can't even claim consensus.
>
> "If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted to vote
> for President, we would have very different results because no one would
> vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for
> this decision."
>
> He added that he could not see the resolution standing for very long and
> did not plan to change any of the astronomy textbook he was currently
> writing.
>
> But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official roster
> of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU's president of planetary
> systems science, commented: "Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we're not
> so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets
> crowded.
>
> "By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think
> people would have said 'my goodness, what a mess they made back in 2006'."
>
> Shaking hands
>
> Robin Catchpole, of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, UK, said: "My
> own personal opinion was to leave things as they were. I met Clyde
> Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, and thought, it's nice to shake hands with
> someone who discovered a planet.
>
> "But since the IAU brought out the first draft resolution, I was rather
> against that because I thought it was going to be very confusing. So the
> best of the alternatives was to keep the eight planets as they are, and
> then demote Pluto. I think this is a far superior solution."
>
> The need for a strict definition was deemed necessary after new telescope
> technologies began to reveal far-off objects that rivalled Pluto in size.
>
> The critical blow for Pluto came with the discovery three years ago of an
> object currently designated 2003 UB313. Discovered by Mike Brown and
> colleagues at the California Institute of Technology, 2003 UB313 has been
> lauded by some as the "10th Planet".
>
> Measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope show it to have a diameter of
> 3,000km (1,864 miles), a few hundred km more than Pluto. 2003 UB313 will
> now join Pluto in the dwarf planet category.
>
> Mike Brown seemed happy with Pluto's demotion. "Eight is enough," he told
> the Associated Press, jokingly adding: "I may go down in history as the guy
> who killed Pluto."
Wow, even the professional ranks are full of cry babies!
CNJ999
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:06:50
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On 25 Aug 2006 06:05:18 -0700, "CNJ999" <jbortle@aol.com > wrote:
>Wow, even the professional ranks are full of cry babies!
Consider what happened: the IAU created a committee to define the
nomenclature around "planet", an already controversial question. They
spent months doing so, but kept the definition to themselves until just
before the IAU meeting. Once it was public, many deficiencies were
immediately pointed out by other astronomers. As a consequence, a whole
series of revisions and compromises were developed and tweaked over just
a week. It is hardly surprising that the final result remains
problematic for many. This really was a failure of process, and IMO an
embarrassment for professional astronomy.
IAU definitions are only useful if they are actually used; it remains to
be seen if that happens in this case (not that I can recall, off hand,
any professional publication that has used the word "planet" in a way
that required precision).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 01:03:47
From: Ten Cuidado
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
"CNJ999" <jbortle@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156511118.515497.295070@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> George wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
> >
> > By Paul Rincon
> > Science reporter, BBC News
> >
> > A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip
> > Pluto of its status as a planet.
> > On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted
Pluto
> > to a lesser category of object.
> >
> > But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted
the
> > ruling, calling it "embarrassing".
> >
> > And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a
definition
> > implied that the vote had effectively been "hijacked".
> >
> > The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU)
10-day
> > General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body
for
> > astronomy since 1919.
> >
> > Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the
meeting
> > took part.
> >
> > An initial proposal by the IAU to add three new planets to the Solar
> > System - the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon and the distant world
> > known as 2003 UB313 - met with considerable opposition at the meeting.
Days
> > of heated debate followed during which four separate proposals were
tabled.
> >
> > Eventually, the scientists adopted historic guidelines that see Pluto
> > relegated to a secondary category of "dwarf planets".
> >
> > Drawing the line
> >
> > Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to
> > Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful
definition;
> > it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two
reasons.
> >
> > "Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between
> > dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for
> > some arbitrary reason, like 'they tend to live in groups'.
> >
> > "Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's
inconsistent."
> >
> > One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have
> > "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the
> > Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it
out
> > of the way with a gravitational swipe.
> >
> > Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with
> > that of Neptune.
> >
> > But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also
> > not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000
near-Earth
> > asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan
asteroids
> > on its orbital path.
> >
> > These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the
> > formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.
> >
> > "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.
> >
> > Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto
> > reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to "Honk if Pluto
is
> > still a planet" have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails
circulating
> > about the decision have been describing the IAU as the "Irrelevant
> > Astronomical Union".
> >
> > 'Inconvenient arrangements'
> >
> > Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped
> > draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12.
> >
> > The Harvard professor emeritus blamed the outcome in large part on a
> > "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study the motion and
> > gravitational effects of celestial objects.
> >
> > "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the
> > planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted
> > that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there
were
> > enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.
> >
> > "Their revolt raised enough of a fuss to destroy the scientific
integrity
> > and subtlety of the [earlier] resolution."
> >
> > He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day
> > period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed
and
> > were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger
numbers
> > than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU
is
> > working on'."
> >
> > E-voting
> >
> > Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and therefore
could
> > not vote himself, said he would like to see electronic ballots
introduced
> > in future.
> >
> > Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a
room
> > in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that
room -
> > you can't even claim consensus.
> >
> > "If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted to vote
> > for President, we would have very different results because no one would
> > vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for
> > this decision."
> >
> > He added that he could not see the resolution standing for very long and
> > did not plan to change any of the astronomy textbook he was currently
> > writing.
> >
> > But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official
roster
> > of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU's president of planetary
> > systems science, commented: "Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we're
not
> > so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets
> > crowded.
> >
> > "By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think
> > people would have said 'my goodness, what a mess they made back in
2006'."
> >
> > Shaking hands
> >
> > Robin Catchpole, of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, UK, said:
"My
> > own personal opinion was to leave things as they were. I met Clyde
> > Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, and thought, it's nice to shake hands
with
> > someone who discovered a planet.
> >
> > "But since the IAU brought out the first draft resolution, I was rather
> > against that because I thought it was going to be very confusing. So the
> > best of the alternatives was to keep the eight planets as they are, and
> > then demote Pluto. I think this is a far superior solution."
> >
> > The need for a strict definition was deemed necessary after new
telescope
> > technologies began to reveal far-off objects that rivalled Pluto in
size.
> >
> > The critical blow for Pluto came with the discovery three years ago of
an
> > object currently designated 2003 UB313. Discovered by Mike Brown and
> > colleagues at the California Institute of Technology, 2003 UB313 has
been
> > lauded by some as the "10th Planet".
> >
> > Measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope show it to have a diameter of
> > 3,000km (1,864 miles), a few hundred km more than Pluto. 2003 UB313 will
> > now join Pluto in the dwarf planet category.
> >
> > Mike Brown seemed happy with Pluto's demotion. "Eight is enough," he
told
> > the Associated Press, jokingly adding: "I may go down in history as the
guy
> > who killed Pluto."
>
> Wow, even the professional ranks are full of cry babies!
>
> CNJ999
>
He's head of the Pluto mission. Is he scared his little toy will get taken
away because it's not going to a real planet?
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 01:59:57
From: Wally Wonderful
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
CNJ999 wrote:
> George wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
> >
> > By Paul Rincon
> > Science reporter, BBC News
> >
> > A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip
> > Pluto of its status as a planet.
> > On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto
> > to a lesser category of object.
> >
> > But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the
> > ruling, calling it "embarrassing".
> >
> > And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a definition
> > implied that the vote had effectively been "hijacked".
> >
> > The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day
> > General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for
> > astronomy since 1919.
> >
> > Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting
> > took part.
> >
> > An initial proposal by the IAU to add three new planets to the Solar
> > System - the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon and the distant world
> > known as 2003 UB313 - met with considerable opposition at the meeting. Days
> > of heated debate followed during which four separate proposals were tabled.
> >
> > Eventually, the scientists adopted historic guidelines that see Pluto
> > relegated to a secondary category of "dwarf planets".
> >
> > Drawing the line
> >
> > Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to
> > Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition;
> > it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons.
> >
> > "Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between
> > dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for
> > some arbitrary reason, like 'they tend to live in groups'.
> >
> > "Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's inconsistent."
> >
> > One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have
> > "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the
> > Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it out
> > of the way with a gravitational swipe.
> >
> > Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with
> > that of Neptune.
> >
> > But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also
> > not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth
> > asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids
> > on its orbital path.
> >
> > These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the
> > formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.
> >
> > "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.
> >
> > Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto
> > reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to "Honk if Pluto is
> > still a planet" have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails circulating
> > about the decision have been describing the IAU as the "Irrelevant
> > Astronomical Union".
> >
> > 'Inconvenient arrangements'
> >
> > Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped
> > draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12.
> >
> > The Harvard professor emeritus blamed the outcome in large part on a
> > "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study the motion and
> > gravitational effects of celestial objects.
> >
> > "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the
> > planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted
> > that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were
> > enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.
> >
> > "Their revolt raised enough of a fuss to destroy the scientific integrity
> > and subtlety of the [earlier] resolution."
> >
> > He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day
> > period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and
> > were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers
> > than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is
> > working on'."
> >
> > E-voting
> >
> > Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and therefore could
> > not vote himself, said he would like to see electronic ballots introduced
> > in future.
> >
> > Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room
> > in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room -
> > you can't even claim consensus.
> >
> > "If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted to vote
> > for President, we would have very different results because no one would
> > vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for
> > this decision."
> >
> > He added that he could not see the resolution standing for very long and
> > did not plan to change any of the astronomy textbook he was currently
> > writing.
> >
> > But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official roster
> > of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU's president of planetary
> > systems science, commented: "Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we're not
> > so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets
> > crowded.
> >
> > "By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think
> > people would have said 'my goodness, what a mess they made back in 2006'."
> >
> > Shaking hands
> >
> > Robin Catchpole, of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, UK, said: "My
> > own personal opinion was to leave things as they were. I met Clyde
> > Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, and thought, it's nice to shake hands with
> > someone who discovered a planet.
> >
> > "But since the IAU brought out the first draft resolution, I was rather
> > against that because I thought it was going to be very confusing. So the
> > best of the alternatives was to keep the eight planets as they are, and
> > then demote Pluto. I think this is a far superior solution."
> >
> > The need for a strict definition was deemed necessary after new telescope
> > technologies began to reveal far-off objects that rivalled Pluto in size.
> >
> > The critical blow for Pluto came with the discovery three years ago of an
> > object currently designated 2003 UB313. Discovered by Mike Brown and
> > colleagues at the California Institute of Technology, 2003 UB313 has been
> > lauded by some as the "10th Planet".
> >
> > Measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope show it to have a diameter of
> > 3,000km (1,864 miles), a few hundred km more than Pluto. 2003 UB313 will
> > now join Pluto in the dwarf planet category.
> >
> > Mike Brown seemed happy with Pluto's demotion. "Eight is enough," he told
> > the Associated Press, jokingly adding: "I may go down in history as the guy
> > who killed Pluto."
>
> Wow, even the professional ranks are full of cry babies!
>
> CNJ999
Drive on YOUR SIDE of the road please - killer moron!@
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 17:38:22
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> If they are using the paper by Steven Soter as supplement to the
> definition, then the IAU definition is merely the intuitive sense of the
> criterion.
They could have used Soter's paper as the basis for a definition, but
the fact is, they didn't. Of course, it does supply an answer to the
question of what to teach in intro astronomy. This would have meant
defining Lambda = k M^2/P for a suitably chosen constant k, and then
calling anything with Lambda > 1 a planet. I would have thought myself
that a planet remains a planet whereever it is, but at least it would
be a definition.
l
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 21:38:55
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
genewardsmith wrote:
> They could have used Soter's paper as the basis for a definition, but
> the fact is, they didn't. Of course, it does supply an answer to the
> question of what to teach in intro astronomy. This would have meant
> defining Lambda = k M^2/P for a suitably chosen constant k, and then
> calling anything with Lambda > 1 a planet. I would have thought myself
> that a planet remains a planet whereever it is, but at least it would
> be a definition.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Soter's paper is
intended to be the precise statement of the IAU definition. I'll see if
I can't hunt down where I read that.
--
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 16:30:44
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> IAU definitions are only useful if they are actually used; it remains to
> be seen if that happens in this case (not that I can recall, off hand,
> any professional publication that has used the word "planet" in a way
> that required precision).
There's more than professional publications involved. New semesters are
starting. Students are sitting in their Intro Astronomy courses, bright
eyed and bushy tailed, and are expecting this planet thing, which is in
the news, will be explained. But you can't really teach it, because the
supposed "definition" is unintelligable. It uses undefined terms.
If you try to explain that Xena is not a planet because it hasn't
cleared out the Kuiper belt, then you also need to explain why the
Earth is not a planet because it hasn't cleared out the inner solar
system, which is a hell of a lot smaller. Ceres is not a planet because
it hasn't cleared out space junk, but then neither has the Earth.
Jupiter is especially well supplied with space junk, much of which is,
more or less, actually *in* its orbit. Ceres and Vesta may both qualify
as dwarf planets, but then Ceres can't be a real planet since it has a
semimajor axis of 2.766 and Vesta of 2.361, which is too close. Except,
of course, that the inclinations differ by quite a bit, and 2.766-2.361
= 0.405, greater than the semimajor axis of Mercury. And Xena is even
worse. What the hell is in the "neighborhood" of the orbit of Xena,
except Xena itself and satellites? How are people supposed to teach
this if students start to ask questions?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 00:04:37
From: Steve Pope
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
<genewardsmith@gmail.com > wrote:
>There's more than professional publications involved. New semesters are
>starting. Students are sitting in their Intro Astronomy courses, bright
>eyed and bushy tailed, and are expecting this planet thing, which is in
>the news, will be explained. But you can't really teach it, because the
>supposed "definition" is unintelligable. It uses undefined terms.
Students should be able to grasp the concept that if you're
not big enough to clear out the 'hood, you don't count.
S.
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 20:25:56
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Steve Pope wrote:
> Students should be able to grasp the concept that if you're
> not big enough to clear out the 'hood, you don't count.
Except that, as has been widely noted, neither Earth nor Jupiter has
cleared out its 'hood.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 04:08:20
From: Mark Smith
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:25:56 -0400, Davoud <star@sky.net > wrote:
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Students should be able to grasp the concept that if you're
>> not big enough to clear out the 'hood, you don't count.
>
>Except that, as has been widely noted, neither Earth nor Jupiter has
>cleared out its 'hood.
>
I hadn't really considered this point, but there is absolutely no way
that Earth can be considered as having cleared it's orbit. I read an
article just a few weeks ago about a whole class of asteroids that
slowly overtake Earth, become temporary moons for a number of years,
then proceed on ahead. Then we have close calls with undiscovered
asteroids all of the time.
Hmmm...Something else to ponder.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 16:44:41
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
> There's more than professional publications involved. New semesters are
> starting. Students are sitting in their Intro Astronomy courses, bright
> eyed and bushy tailed, and are expecting this planet thing, which is in
> the news, will be explained. But you can't really teach it, because the
> supposed "definition" is unintelligable. It uses undefined terms.
If they are using the paper by Steven Soter as supplement to the
definition, then the IAU definition is merely the intuitive sense of the
criterion. The Soter criteria don't look anything like the definition
because they apply celestial mechanics and perturbation theory to arrive
at a formula. The observational evidence is certainly suggestive that
this formula successfully discriminates between gravitationally dominant
objects and non-dominant ones. What remains to be seen is whether or
not research papers will actually be affected by this distinction.
My guess is that specialization is so rampant in the planetary science
field that it will make only a small difference to only a small number
of researchers. Where this definition will see the most use, if it sees
any at all, will be in explaining to the public why "we" are or aren't
going to call something a planet. (And I use "we" advisedly.)
--
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 00:19:47
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:44:41 -0700 (PDT), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
wrote:
>My guess is that specialization is so rampant in the planetary science
>field that it will make only a small difference to only a small number
>of researchers. Where this definition will see the most use, if it sees
>any at all, will be in explaining to the public why "we" are or aren't
>going to call something a planet. (And I use "we" advisedly.)
Exactly, which is why it is so silly. Astronomers don't have any need
for a definition of "planet". Never did, and probably never will. But it
is rare for an astronomical matter to catch the public eye as much as
this one has. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:50:19
From: Bryan
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Not all attention is good for the science of astronomy. This one smells
like it is not so good due to the type of media coverage it is receiving.
It is difficult to explain the reasoning of the IAU in a short sound bite.
Bryan
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:9p4ve2pl15gqv8cvfo7n0j5v5efqq7vnrf@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:44:41 -0700 (PDT), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
> wrote:
>
>>My guess is that specialization is so rampant in the planetary science
>>field that it will make only a small difference to only a small number
>>of researchers. Where this definition will see the most use, if it sees
>>any at all, will be in explaining to the public why "we" are or aren't
>>going to call something a planet. (And I use "we" advisedly.)
>
> Exactly, which is why it is so silly. Astronomers don't have any need
> for a definition of "planet". Never did, and probably never will. But it
> is rare for an astronomical matter to catch the public eye as much as
> this one has. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 15:07:14
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:50:19 GMT, "Bryan" <behenry@mindspring.com >
wrote:
>Not all attention is good for the science of astronomy. This one smells
>like it is not so good due to the type of media coverage it is receiving.
>It is difficult to explain the reasoning of the IAU in a short sound bite.
I agree, this has produced primarily negative publicity. And in this
case, it is hard to explain the reasoning of the IAU (or lack thereof)
in a full length paper!
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 11:04:21
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:07:14 GMT, Chris L Peterson
<clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:50:19 GMT, "Bryan" <behenry@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Not all attention is good for the science of astronomy. This one smells
>>like it is not so good due to the type of media coverage it is receiving.
>>It is difficult to explain the reasoning of the IAU in a short sound bite.
>
>I agree, this has produced primarily negative publicity. And in this
>case, it is hard to explain the reasoning of the IAU (or lack thereof)
>in a full length paper!
>
>_________________________________________________
>
>Chris L Peterson
>Cloudbait Observatory
>http://www.cloudbait.com
Well I would say:
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.
Cliff notes version:
Pluto is over 3,000x less massive then was estimated in 1930. There
are 7 moons in the solar system larger than Pluto.
-- Kevin Heider
West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 13:55:35
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Kevin Heider wrote:
> This was a huge long-term mistake and I am glad that it is now corrected.
That is now about the fourth time you've written that sentence. It
still doesn't make any sense to me. It wasn't a mistake, because
(a) We didn't know nearly as much about the solar system even 10 years
ago as we do now, and (b) your assertion presupposes that there is a
"right" answer. There is no "right" answer. At most, there are
classifications that are more or less useful for planetary scientists to
do their work, and to explain that work to each other and to the public.
However, I haven't seen the research paper that focuses on all the major
planets, and *only* the major planets. So that leaves public education.
As far as I'm concerned, the IAU definition--even though it has the
benefit of being precise, and naturally suggested by observations--makes
little difference in the arena of public education.
--
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 16:34:29
From: Kevin Heider
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:55:35 -0700 (PDT), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
wrote:
>Kevin Heider wrote:
>> This was a huge long-term mistake and I am glad that it is now corrected.
>That is now about the fourth time you've written that sentence. It
>still doesn't make any sense to me
>So that leaves public education.
>As far as I'm concerned, the IAU definition--even though it has the
>benefit of being precise, and naturally suggested by observations--makes
>little difference in the arena of public education.
Bingo! That's more or less my thinking. The public at large is
uneducated about the solar system. Joe Public is taught that little
Pluto is that lonely, small, last planet in the solar system. He then
goes home not knowing that there are tens (if not hundreds) of other
Pluto sized objects in the outer solar system.
This is why I like the term Dwarf Planet. It is now easier for the
public to understand that Pluto is not all by himself and he has many
cousins (roughly his size) in his neighborhood.
I think this is good for public education. Mr Rogers would be proud.
-- Kevin Heider
West Coast Swing Photos at:
http://www.pbase.com/kheider
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:14:15
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
In article <ecqcg7$593$1@praesepe.isi.edu >, Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu> wrote:
> Kevin Heider wrote:
>> This was a huge long-term mistake and I am glad that it is now corrected.
>
> That is now about the fourth time you've written that sentence. It
> still doesn't make any sense to me. It wasn't a mistake, because
> (a) We didn't know nearly as much about the solar system even 10 years
> ago as we do now,
....which was the reason for the mistake. If Pluto had been discovered
more recently, or if its correct size and mass had been known shortly after
the discovery, it would most likely not have been called a "planet" at
all.
> and (b) your assertion presupposes that there is a "right" answer. There
> is no "right" answer. At most, there are classifications that are more or
> less useful for planetary scientists to do their work, and to explain that
> work to each other and to the public.
Having to change a less useful definition to a more useful definition
means that the original definition was a mistake (if it wasn't a mistake,
it wouldn't have to be changed). The original mistake can be understandable,
e.g. due to lack of knowledge, but it was nevertheless a mistake.
Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta were called "planets" for several decades,
until it was known that there are many other small bodies like them -
then Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta lost their planetary status.
Pluto was called a "planet" for even more decades, until its correct size
was known and until it was known that Pluto too isn't alone - there are many
other Pluto-like objects out there - then Pluto lost its planetary status.
History repeats itself here -- what happens now is more or less a repetition
of what happened some 150 years ago, and for the same reason.
> However, I haven't seen the research paper that focuses on all the major
> planets, and *only* the major planets.
There have been such papers, but they are probably quite old by now.
They weren't uncommon when the orbital motion was the major focus of
the planetary studies. Quite naturally, as the physics of the planets
themselves got available for study, papers tended to deal with
individual planets or perhaps a few similar planets, rather than with
all planets at once.
However:
Bretagnon developed the VSOP analytical theories for the motions
of the major planets some time in the 1980's (that's too old to be
in arxiv.org). These theories replaced the century-old theories by
Newcomb. Perhaps you never saw Bretagnon's papers?
Thiorie du mouvement de l'ensemble des planhtes. Solution VSOP82.
Pierre Bretagnon, Astronomy and Astrophysics 114 (1982). o.V., S. 278288
PDF at (url split in 2 lines):
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1982
A%26A...114..278B&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Planetary theories in rectangular and spherical variables. VSOP87 solutions.
P. Bretagnon, G. Francou, Astronomy and Astrophysics 202 (1988). o.V., S. 309315
PDF at (url split in 2 lines):
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1988
A%26A...202..309B&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
We also have papers like:
Perturbations of the five outer planets by the four inner ones
G.M. Clemence, USNO, A.P. Vol XIII, Pt V
THIS paper was about all the planets -- including Pluto. Since it was
published in 1953, there was then no doubt about whether Pluto was to
be considered a planet or not - it was believed to be bigger than the
Earth.
Btw, one thing which distinguishes the planets (according to the new
definition of "planet") is that analytical theories of their motions
exist for all the planets but for none of the dwarf planets. Efforts
have been made on both Pluto and Ceres, but they were never completed.
(analytical theories have been developed also for several natural
satellites, such as our own Moon, Jupiter's Galilean satellites, and
several of Saturn's and Uranus' satellites).
An attempt to create an analytical theory of Pluto was done here:
A semianalytical theory for the long-term motion of Pluto
Paul E. Nacozy and Roger E Diehl
The Astronomical Journal, Vol 83 No 5 p 522-530, May 1978
This was not an analytical theory of Pluto, but merely a curve fit to
numerical integration data -- there's no knowledge at all of the
accuracy of this representation before 1885 or after 2099:
An accurate representation of the motion of Pluto
E. Goffin, J. Meeus and C. Steyaert
Astron. Astrophys. 155, 323-325 (1986)
> So that leaves public education.
> As far as I'm concerned, the IAU definition--even though it has the
> benefit of being precise, and naturally suggested by observations--makes
> little difference in the arena of public education.
Dunno about that. Perhaps you're right in the short term, but in the long
term, public education will catch up. Nobody misses Ceres, Pallas, Juno,
Vesta among the planets today. Likewise, I'm convinced nobody will miss
Pluto among the planets in 150 years.
But it'll probably take some time for people to get used to the change.
--
------
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 11:19:58
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Having to change a less useful definition to a more useful definition
> means that the original definition was a mistake (if it wasn't a mistake,
> it wouldn't have to be changed). The original mistake can be understandable,
> e.g. due to lack of knowledge, but it was nevertheless a mistake.
I disagree. It is a definition, an artificial classification; it can
therefore be no more right (or wrong) than any other definition. It
can only be more or less useful, which is a perfectly good reason to
change a definition that has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness.
If you change the design of a power tool to improve its usefulness, for
instance, that doesn't mean the previous design was right or wrong--that
doesn't mean anything. It just means the new design is more useful, and
the old design less useful.
What *can* be right or wrong is the application of a definition to a
particular object. If this definition had been in place in 1930, and
we had called Pluto a planet then, we would have made a mistake, even
though we did so in good faith, on incomplete information. But the
definition itself cannot be a mistake.
> Bretagnon developed the VSOP analytical theories for the motions
> of the major planets some time in the 1980's (that's too old to be
> in arxiv.org). These theories replaced the century-old theories by
> Newcomb. Perhaps you never saw Bretagnon's papers?
No, I know of the papers, and have read the VSOP theories. However,
each planet has its own theory. What I meant, in case it was unclear,
was that few if any papers deal with the major planets as a group.
> Dunno about that. Perhaps you're right in the short term, but in the long
> term, public education will catch up. Nobody misses Ceres, Pallas, Juno,
> Vesta among the planets today. Likewise, I'm convinced nobody will miss
> Pluto among the planets in 150 years.
I didn't say that public usage wouldn't change. I said that the
difference between the two does not materially affect public education
about astronomy--by which I mean the quality of that education.
--
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: 27 Aug 2006 20:43:26
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
In article <ecsnoe$2qb$1@praesepe.isi.edu >, Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu> wrote:
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> Bretagnon developed the VSOP analytical theories for the motions
>> of the major planets some time in the 1980's (that's too old to be
>> in arxiv.org). These theories replaced the century-old theories by
>> Newcomb. Perhaps you never saw Bretagnon's papers?
>
>No, I know of the papers, and have read the VSOP theories. However,
>each planet has its own theory. What I meant, in case it was unclear,
>was that few if any papers deal with the major planets as a group.
You can't make an accurate theory for one planet and ignore all the
other planets - they affect one another mutually. So when making a theory
for one of the planets, you have to account for several others of them,
sometimes all of them depending on what accuracy you want.
Bretagnon did present his VSOP theories for all the planets in one
single paper more than once. I also listed another paper dealing
with the planets as a group. So you can remove the "if any" above.
There is few such papers, true, but their number do exceed zero!
>> Dunno about that. Perhaps you're right in the short term, but in the long
>> term, public education will catch up. Nobody misses Ceres, Pallas, Juno,
>> Vesta among the planets today. Likewise, I'm convinced nobody will miss
>> Pluto among the planets in 150 years.
>
>I didn't say that public usage wouldn't change. I said that the
>difference between the two does not materially affect public education
>about astronomy--by which I mean the quality of that education.
Indeed, the quality of education goes deeper than how one labels
stuff.
Also, what's out there to see is not at all affected by how we define
"planet"..... :-)
--
------
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 14:15:23
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> You can't make an accurate theory for one planet and ignore all the
> other planets - they affect one another mutually. So when making a theory
> for one of the planets, you have to account for several others of them,
> sometimes all of them depending on what accuracy you want.
Perhaps, although my impression was that these dependencies are already
factored into each theory--that is, you don't *have* to compute Uranus's
position, for instance, in order to compute Saturn's. Is that not so?
--
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: 28 Aug 2006 06:42:59
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
In article <ect21b$3od$1@praesepe.isi.edu >, Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu> wrote:
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> You can't make an accurate theory for one planet and ignore all the
>> other planets - they affect one another mutually. So when making a theory
>> for one of the planets, you have to account for several others of them,
>> sometimes all of them depending on what accuracy you want.
>
> Perhaps, although my impression was that these dependencies are already
> factored into each theory--that is, you don't *have* to compute Uranus's
> position, for instance, in order to compute Saturn's. Is that not so?
You're unaware of that you're doing it, but since Uranus'
perturbations upon Saturn is highly dependent on where Uranus resides,
you must of course know Uranus' position to compute its perturbations
on Saturn. Not to full precision, but you still need an approximate
position.
But since this is factored into each theory, you're usually not aware
of what you're actually computing when you just use the theory. This
is particularly true for the VSOP theories, which are highly processed
so all you see is a long line of terms with a bunch of coefficients
which you chew through, without being aware of what they actually are.
If you instead use Newcomb's theories, you see a bit more of what you
are computing (mostly due to some explanations alongside the formulae
in the papers where the theories were explained; when Newcomb's
theories were published, "computers" were humans doing computations,
and hand computation was the norm).
--
------
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 08:10:50
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> But since this is factored into each theory, you're usually not aware
> of what you're actually computing when you just use the theory. This
> is particularly true for the VSOP theories, which are highly processed
> so all you see is a long line of terms with a bunch of coefficients
> which you chew through, without being aware of what they actually are.
I think that's what I already said. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.
:)
--
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 13:59:33
From: Thomas Lee Elifritz
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Kevin Heider wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:07:14 GMT, Chris L Peterson
> <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:50:19 GMT, "Bryan" <behenry@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Not all attention is good for the science of astronomy. This one smells
>>> like it is not so good due to the type of media coverage it is receiving.
>>> It is difficult to explain the reasoning of the IAU in a short sound bite.
>> I agree, this has produced primarily negative publicity. And in this
>> case, it is hard to explain the reasoning of the IAU (or lack thereof)
>> in a full length paper!
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> Chris L Peterson
>> Cloudbait Observatory
>> http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> Well I would say:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Cliff notes version:
>
> Pluto is over 3,000x less massive then was estimated in 1930. There
> are 7 moons in the solar system larger than Pluto.
Yet Pluto and Ceres are gravitationally relaxed. Damn that's weird.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:17:12
From: beav
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
>
>Exactly, which is why it is so silly. Astronomers don't have any need
>for a definition of "planet". Never did, and probably never will. But it
>is rare for an astronomical matter to catch the public eye as much as
>this one has. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up.
>
>_________________________________________________
>
>Chris L Peterson
>Cloudbait Observatory
>http://www.cloudbait.com
astronomers don't have a need for a definition of "planet" because its
basically "understood" during the good old days of pluto being a
"planet".
that changed when we started to get a more realistic view of the outer
solar sytem. if pluto IS a "planet," then all the objects recently
discovered, and yet to come, will be planets, too.
this situation was resolved in 1850 (+ or -), previously. technology
and observation has caught up with theory.
the reason that its caught the puiblic eye is that we'd be going from
a system of 9 major (classical?) objects to 12 or 15 or 25 or who
knows how many. you shouldn't need a periodic table of objects to
figure out whats in the system. classify them in major groups and move
on.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:32:58
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:17:12 GMT, beav <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET > wrote:
>astronomers don't have a need for a definition of "planet" because its
>basically "understood" during the good old days of pluto being a
>"planet".
You missed the point. Astronomers need a system for classifying objects
that orbit a star. That is not the same as defining "planet". As our
understanding of the Solar System grows, we will need to add more
classifications. None of them need to be "planet".
There is no need for a single technical word that exclusively defines
the inner eight (or nine) planets, because such a classification is
largely meaningless. The word "planet" has an historical common usage
that is well understood. It doesn't require another definition added on
top of it (which is what the IAU did- they didn't redefine anything).
Now what we have is a single word that astronomers are supposed to use
for describing certain bodies, but the word still isn't well enough
defined to make it useful, especially when discussing extrasolar
planets.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 01:07:25
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Chris L Peterson writes:
> Astronomers need a system for classifying objects that orbit a star.
Why? I'm not aware of any hindrance to astronomers' understanding of the
Solar System by the lack of a definition for "planet". The questions
"Is Pluto a planet?" have been coming from the public, not astronomers.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 01:19:16
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:07:25 GMT, tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
>Chris L Peterson writes:
>
>> Astronomers need a system for classifying objects that orbit a star.
>
>Why? I'm not aware of any hindrance to astronomers' understanding of the
>Solar System by the lack of a definition for "planet". The questions
>"Is Pluto a planet?" have been coming from the public, not astronomers.
Astronomers don't need a definition for "planet", and IMO creating one
was a big mistake. But they do need a classification system for the
myriad bodies present in a stellar system. Why? So they can communicate
with each other efficiently. Every specialty needs its precise
terminology.
So what we have now is a useless definition of "planet" and only a very
limited set of "official" definitions for planetary bodies (by which I
mean everything from dust up through Jupiter).
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 10:06:39
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
A picture is worth a thousand words. We have TV and binary newsgroups now.
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:p957f25nfdv5j0qjl67j68diitt27kebum@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:07:25 GMT, tholen@antispam.ham wrote:
>
> >Chris L Peterson writes:
> >
> >> Astronomers need a system for classifying objects that orbit a star.
> >
> >Why? I'm not aware of any hindrance to astronomers' understanding of the
> >Solar System by the lack of a definition for "planet". The questions
> >"Is Pluto a planet?" have been coming from the public, not astronomers.
>
> Astronomers don't need a definition for "planet", and IMO creating one
> was a big mistake. But they do need a classification system for the
> myriad bodies present in a stellar system. Why? So they can communicate
> with each other efficiently. Every specialty needs its precise
> terminology.
>
> So what we have now is a useless definition of "planet" and only a very
> limited set of "official" definitions for planetary bodies (by which I
> mean everything from dust up through Jupiter).
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 07:58:21
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Chris L Peterson writes:
>>> Astronomers need a system for classifying objects that orbit a star.
>> Why? I'm not aware of any hindrance to astronomers' understanding of the
>> Solar System by the lack of a definition for "planet". The questions
>> "Is Pluto a planet?" have been coming from the public, not astronomers.
> Astronomers don't need a definition for "planet", and IMO creating one
> was a big mistake. But they do need a classification system for the
> myriad bodies present in a stellar system. Why? So they can communicate
> with each other efficiently. Every specialty needs its precise
> terminology.
We already have an asteroid taxonomy.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 18:42:59
From: Jo Schaper
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
It's lumpers vs splitters. Same argument, all branches of science.
It it's glowing, or formerly glowing in the human visible spectrum, its
a star. Astronomers have special additional categories like 'infrared
star' or 'radio star' and such.
If it's smaller, orbiting a star, big enough to land a spaceship on and
not glowing, its a planet.
If it's natural, and orbiting a planet it is a satellite or 'moon'.
If it is too small to land a spaceship on, it is an asteroid or
planetoid, or a big rock or space dust.
if it has an eccentric orbit and develops a gaseous tail only when near
a star, it is comet.
No one cares but the people on planet 3 anyway.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:05:38
From: robert casey
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
Jo Schaper wrote:
>
> If it's smaller, orbiting a star, big enough to land a spaceship on and
> not glowing, its a planet.
NASA landed that spacecraft probe it sent to Eros on Eros at the end of
its mission. But Eros is an asteroid.
I'll go with what the IAU ruled: A planet is an object that orbits a
star directly, does not burn deuterium in its core (a brown dwarf bigger
than 13 Jupiter masses does that), and is round, and is the major object
in its orbital neighborhood and cleared its orbit of similar objects.
You get a similar issue when deciding if an object orbiting Saturn is a
"moon" or a ring particle.
> No one cares but the people on planet 3 anyway.
>
Heard that the Plutocrats have plutonium based weapons, so we better
watch our steps.... :-)
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:48:34
From: Jo Schaper
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
robert casey wrote:
> Jo Schaper wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If it's smaller, orbiting a star, big enough to land a spaceship on
>> and not glowing, its a planet.
>
>
> NASA landed that spacecraft probe it sent to Eros on Eros at the end of
> its mission. But Eros is an asteroid.
They've also landed probes on a comet or two. I specified a
spaceship...i.e., craft large enough to contain humans. It's a very
human centric definition, I know. But the definition of a cave is any
void large enough for a human to crawl into, and the cavers have been
doing quite well with that one.
>
> I'll go with what the IAU ruled: A planet is an object that orbits a
> star directly, does not burn deuterium in its core (a brown dwarf bigger
> than 13 Jupiter masses does that), and is round, and is the major object
> in its orbital neighborhood.
I'm with them up to this point. 3 out of 4 ain't bad...*
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 03:32:16
From: robert casey
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
> and cleared its orbit of similar objects.
>
> I'm just not sure about this 'cleared its orbit' thing. Seems a fuzzy
> sort of addendum merely because every generally accepted planet has
> other space junk following it around, or crossing its orbit at some
> time. Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit of Pluto, has it? Is Neptune a
> planet?
Well, Pluto is way smaller than Neptune, and there's no other Neptunes
in the area. The operative word is "similar". Pluto is not similar to
Neptune.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:43:31
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
In article <m61Jg.112$v%4.59@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
robert casey <wa2ise@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>Jo Schaper wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If it's smaller, orbiting a star, big enough to land a spaceship on and
>> not glowing, its a planet.
>
>NASA landed that spacecraft probe it sent to Eros on Eros at the end of
>its mission. But Eros is an asteroid.
Not anymore! Eros is now a "small solar system object".... :-)
>I'll go with what the IAU ruled:
Then, stop calling Eros an "asteroid" - that term is now obsolete.... <g >
>A planet is an object that orbits a
>star directly, does not burn deuterium in its core (a brown dwarf bigger
>than 13 Jupiter masses does that), and is round, and is the major object
> in its orbital neighborhood and cleared its orbit of similar objects.
>
>You get a similar issue when deciding if an object orbiting Saturn is a
>"moon" or a ring particle.
>
>
>> No one cares but the people on planet 3 anyway.
>>
>
>Heard that the Plutocrats have plutonium based weapons, so we better
>watch our steps.... :-)
--
------
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 14:06:05
From: beav
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:32:58 GMT, Chris L Peterson
<clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:17:12 GMT, beav <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote:
>
>>astronomers don't have a need for a definition of "planet" because its
>>basically "understood" during the good old days of pluto being a
>>"planet".
>
>You missed the point. Astronomers need a system for classifying objects
>that orbit a star. That is not the same as defining "planet". As our
>understanding of the Solar System grows, we will need to add more
>classifications. None of them need to be "planet".
i understood exactly.
and that's what happened.
>
>There is no need for a single technical word that exclusively defines
>the inner eight (or nine) planets, because such a classification is
>largely meaningless. The word "planet" has an historical common usage
>that is well understood. It doesn't require another definition added on
>top of it (which is what the IAU did- they didn't redefine anything).
"planet"= "wanderer"
by that definition, everything is a planet.
>
>Now what we have is a single word that astronomers are supposed to use
>for describing certain bodies, but the word still isn't well enough
>defined to make it useful, especially when discussing extrasolar
>planets.
i disagree. when the discussion first was run up the flagpole that
the IAU would be "adding" ceres, xena and charon as "planets" i was
convinced from the outset that they were using an absolutely arbitrary
that was going to open the floodgates.
the curretn definition, until a statistically significant number of
exceptions is found, is very workable.
>
>_________________________________________________
>
>Chris L Peterson
>Cloudbait Observatory
>http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:59:33
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
beav writes:
> "planet"= "wanderer"
>
> by that definition, everything is a planet.
Based on what we now know, yes. However, the stars did not visibly
move to the ancients, even over a lifetime, whereas the planets did
visibly move over the course of a single year.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:42:38
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
In article <86i8f2pe1ondbe4np5rr31739p68fnuhug@4ax.com >,
beav <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET > wrote:
>"planet"= "wanderer"
>
>by that definition, everything is a planet.
That's not a definition, it's an etymology.
-- Richard
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 14:15:33
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:06:05 GMT, beav <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET > wrote:
>>You missed the point. Astronomers need a system for classifying objects
>>that orbit a star. That is not the same as defining "planet". As our
>>understanding of the Solar System grows, we will need to add more
>>classifications. None of them need to be "planet".
>
>
>i understood exactly.
>
>and that's what happened.
I disagree.
>"planet"= "wanderer"
>
>by that definition, everything is a planet.
Maybe, although the term's history required a _visible_ wanderer. All
the same, if the IAU really feels it necessary to define "planet", I
would be happiest with a definition that includes any body in orbit
around a star, from dust through gas giants.
>the curretn definition, until a statistically significant number of
>exceptions is found, is very workable.
And entirely unnecessary.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:19:03
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
To the unaided eye, on earth, a planet is a spot of light that wanders
aimlessly among some apparently fixed stars. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642),
using Johannes Keplers (1571-1630) interpretation of Tycho Brahes
(1546-1601) data, found a way to predict the planets movements, and the
wandering became a predictable path, rather than aimless wandering, but the
name stuck.
Be careful about naming things before you know everything about them, is the
lesson to be learned by this story.
"beav" <BEAVITH1@NETSCAPE.NET > wrote in message
news:86i8f2pe1ondbe4np5rr31739p68fnuhug@4ax.com...
> "planet"= "wanderer"
>
> by that definition, everything is a planet.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 21:25:10
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:19:03 GMT, <tapwater@roomtemperature.deg > wrote:
>To the unaided eye, on earth, a planet is a spot of light that wanders
>aimlessly among some apparently fixed stars...
Long before anyone had worked out methods for rigorously predicting
planet positions, the general patterns of movement were well known.
Since men were men, I doubt the movement of the planets was seen as
"aimless".
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 21:56:29
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
OK, but I will restate my contention that the word "planet" itself is a
misnomer, and not to be fought over.
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:u0c9f2lddfpsftqemor9uvgfe5j9gc0rj4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:19:03 GMT, <tapwater@roomtemperature.deg> wrote:
>
> >To the unaided eye, on earth, a planet is a spot of light that wanders
> >aimlessly among some apparently fixed stars...
>
> Long before anyone had worked out methods for rigorously predicting
> planet positions, the general patterns of movement were well known.
> Since men were men, I doubt the movement of the planets was seen as
> "aimless".
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 01:36:32
From: Ken Arromdee
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
In article <1156548644.036771.299620@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
<genewardsmith@gmail.com > wrote:
>If you try to explain that Xena is not a planet because it hasn't
>cleared out the Kuiper belt, then you also need to explain why the
>Earth is not a planet because it hasn't cleared out the inner solar
>system, which is a hell of a lot smaller. Ceres is not a planet because
>it hasn't cleared out space junk, but then neither has the Earth.
>Jupiter is especially well supplied with space junk, much of which is,
>more or less, actually *in* its orbit.
I think that everyone will agree that the space junk around Jupiter is much
smaller than it. Clearing out doesn't have to mean that absolutely all
other objects are gone.
On the other hand, that's a good point about Earth. Exactly how big an area
near the object has to be cleared out?
(For real fun, try to explain why Sedna is not a planet according to the
new definition. Quite a few scientists think it isn't really in the Kuiper
Belt, and there certainly aren't a lot of known objects near it--and since
there seems to be a gap outside the Kuiper Belt, it may genuinely be the only
object there.)
>Ceres can't be a real planet since it has a
>semimajor axis of 2.766 and Vesta of 2.361, which is too close.
Vesta fails because it isn't round.
>What the hell is in the "neighborhood" of the orbit of Xena,
>except Xena itself and satellites?
That's another good point. Do we know of any other sizable objects at such
inclinations?
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:10:02
From: Joseph Lazio
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
>>>>> "KA" == Ken Arromdee <arromdee@green.rahul.net> writes:
KA > On the other hand, that's a good point about Earth. Exactly how
KA > big an area near the object has to be cleared out?
I don't remember a precise definition of "cleared out" being given.
Clearly, as the number of Near-Earth Objects indicates, the annulus
around Earth's orbit is not entirely devoid of objects.
I interpreted this part of the defintion to mean that none of the
objects in orbits similar to the Earth can affect the Earth's orbit
as opposed to the converse (the Earth can and does affect the orbits
of NEOs).
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 09:48:21
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 13:09:55
From: Timberwoof
Subject: Re: Pluto is Planet, We have 11 Planets.
|
In article <1156610901.335235.46380@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote:
> 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
Hi, Sanny.
I think you should review Newton's Law of Gravity: Any object with mass
has gravity. (Even you do. Just not very much.) Small asteroids have
gravity ... just not as much as bigger ones. You know, they landed an
artificial satellite on asteroid Eros:
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/eros.htm
One proposal that the IAU had the other week was similar to what you
said: if a body has enough gravity to make it into a sphere, then it can
be a planet. (Of course, even that distinction has fuzzy edges.)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com > http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 02:01:22
From: Wally Wonderful
Subject: Re: Pluto is Planet, We have 11 Planets.
|
Sanny wrote:
> 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
This thing is never going to be resolved - people cant agree on anything.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:34:28
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto is Planet, We have 11 Planets.
|
Lets take a vote!
All those in favor of calling "Wally Wonderful" a dwarf dork will signify
their decision by *NOT* responding to this message!!
"Wally Wonderful" <wally@ufo.org > wrote in message
news:44F14342.C55AEB6B@ufo.org...
>
> This thing is never going to be resolved - people cant agree on anything.
>
>
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 04:23:16
From:
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
George quoted, in part:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
> Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting
> took part.
> Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped
> draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12.
> "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the
> planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted
> that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were
> enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.
> He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day
> period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and
> were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers
> than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is
> working on'."
This raises a new factor.
I had carelessly assumed that the assembled astronomers simply found
the original proposal, to admit Ceres once again as a planet, and
recognize several new objects in the Kuiper Belt as full-fledged
planets, as simply too bold. And, thus, despite the fact that demoting
Pluto would seem a bold move to the man in the street, the consensus
was simply to go with traditionalism.
Whether things are as bad as they seem, though, depends on other
factors.
Of 2,700 astronomers in Prague, I hardly think they were composed of
424 dynamicists, and 2,276 planetary geologists. A few, for example,
might have been astrophysicists - which, I think, remain the most
numerous specialty within astronomy, even if planetary astronomy has
recovered from the desuetude that saw the planetary astronomy
consisting of one and a half astronomers (two thirds of which, of
course, were Gerard Kuiper).
Still, admirers of Pluto can take heart that it is entirely possible
that when the IAU next convenes, it just might reconsider its decision.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 11:50:23
From: Blurrt
Subject: Re: Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
|
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca > wrote in message
news:1156677796.165467.200710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> George quoted, in part:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
>
> > Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the
meeting
> > took part.
>
> > Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped
> > draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12.
>
> > "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the
> > planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted
> > that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there
were
> > enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.
>
> > He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day
> > period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed
and
> > were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger
numbers
> > than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU
is
> > working on'."
>
> This raises a new factor.
>
> I had carelessly assumed that the assembled astronomers simply found
> the original proposal, to admit Ceres once again as a planet, and
> recognize several new objects in the Kuiper Belt as full-fledged
> planets, as simply too bold. And, thus, despite the fact that demoting
> Pluto would seem a bold move to the man in the street, the consensus
> was simply to go with traditionalism.
>
> Whether things are as bad as they seem, though, depends on other
> factors.
>
> Of 2,700 astronomers in Prague, I hardly think they were composed of
> 424 dynamicists, and 2,276 planetary geologists. A few, for example,
> might have been astrophysicists - which, I think, remain the most
> numerous specialty within astronomy, even if planetary astronomy has
> recovered from the desuetude that saw the planetary astronomy
> consisting of one and a half astronomers (two thirds of which, of
> course, were Gerard Kuiper).
>
> Still, admirers of Pluto can take heart that it is entirely possible
> that when the IAU next convenes, it just might reconsider its decision.
>
> John Savard
>
They are going to have to reconsider the definition.
I've had a think about this and came up with:
http://rogersplanetaryclassification.bigblog.com.au/data/2/11182/file/rogersplanetaryclassificationwebpage4856320060826163909.htm
Which I'm very proud of!
Pluto is still a Planet |
|
