| |
Main
Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:19:08
From: Rich
Subject: Sanity returns to astronomy
|
In this era where political meddling and emotionalism in science is
ruining the disciplines, it's nice to see some logic still being
displayed. Tough luck, Tombaugh, start crying Levy.
Pluto gets the boot
Pluto no longer a planet, say astronomers
PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) -- Leading astronomers declared Thursday
that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that
downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.
After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the
International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status
it has held since its discovery in 1930. The new definition of what is
-- and isn't -- a planet fills a centuries-old black hole for
scientists who have labored since Copernicus without one.
Although astronomers applauded after the vote, Jocelyn Bell Burnell --
a specialist in neutron stars from Northern Ireland who oversaw the
proceedings -- urged those who might be "quite disappointed" to look on
the bright side.
"It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet'
under which the dwarf planets exist," she said, drawing laughter by
waving a stuffed Pluto of Walt Disney fame beneath a real umbrella.
The decision by the prestigious international group spells out the
basic tests that celestial objects will have to meet before they can be
considered for admission to the elite cosmic club.
For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets
in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus and Neptune.
Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a
planet: "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 has cleared the
neighborhood around its orbit."
Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps
with Neptune's.
Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets,"
similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition
also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun --
"small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous
asteroids, comets and other natural satellites.
It was unclear how Pluto's demotion might affect the mission of NASA's
New Horizons spacecraft, which earlier this year began a 91/2-year
journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets.
The decision at a conference of 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries was
a dramatic shift from just a week ago, when the group's leaders floated
a proposal that would have reaffirmed Pluto's planetary status and made
planets of its largest moon and two other objects. (Watch why some
think planet size doesn't matter -- 3:39)
That plan proved highly unpopular, splitting astronomers into factions
and triggering days of sometimes combative debate that led to Pluto's
undoing.
Now, two of the objects that at one point were cruising toward possible
full-fledged planethood will join Pluto as dwarfs: the asteroid Ceres,
which was a planet in the 1800s before it got demoted, and 2003 UB313,
an icy object slightly larger than Pluto whose discoverer, Michael
Brown of the California Institute of Technology, has nicknamed "Xena."
Charon, the largest of Pluto's three moons, is no longer under
consideration for any special designation.
Brown was pleased by the decision. He had argued that Pluto and similar
bodies didn't deserve planet status, saying that would "take the magic
out of the solar system."
"UB313 is the largest dwarf planet. That's kind of cool," he said.
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 19:32:52
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Sanity returns to astronomy
|
Darian wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > In this era where political meddling and emotionalism in science is
> > ruining the disciplines, it's nice to see some logic still being
> > displayed. Tough luck, Tombaugh, start crying Levy.
> >
>
> I agree with you Rich. At first I just wanted them to leave things as
> they were, but what they have done makes a great deal of sense. Pluto
> has always been somewhat of a mystery, & it's kind of neat to only have
> 8 planets now.
8 real planets, with different and interesting compositions and
dynamics. Not ice balls
out at the edge of the solar system. So, er, when is the mission to
Xena? :)
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:28:40
From: Darian
Subject: Re: Sanity returns to astronomy
|
Rich wrote:
> In this era where political meddling and emotionalism in science is
> ruining the disciplines, it's nice to see some logic still being
> displayed. Tough luck, Tombaugh, start crying Levy.
>
I agree with you Rich. At first I just wanted them to leave things as
they were, but what they have done makes a great deal of sense. Pluto
has always been somewhat of a mystery, & it's kind of neat to only have
8 planets now.
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 17:51:40
From:
Subject: Re: Sanity returns to astronomy
|
Rich wrote:
> In this era where political meddling and emotionalism in science is
> ruining the disciplines, it's nice to see some logic still being
> displayed. Tough luck, Tombaugh, start crying Levy.
>
> Pluto gets the boot
> Pluto no longer a planet, say astronomers
>
> PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) -- Leading astronomers declared Thursday
> that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that
> downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.
> [...]
> Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a
> planet: "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 has cleared the
> neighborhood around its orbit."
>
> Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps
> with Neptune's.
Or, Neptune's orbit overlaps Pluto's. They'll never collide and both
are
orbiting the Sun. Throw Neptune out of the planetary list (or relist
it as a
Moon of the Sun) and keep Pluto planetary since it's farther out (and
we'll
be visiting it, not Neptune, in 2015). The arguments will never cease.
:-)
And, is it "THE sun" or "A sun" (re: other solar systems)?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 11:25:53
From: Pieter Litchfield
Subject: Re: Sanity returns to astronomy
|
I saw this same press release and was baffled by the statement "Pluto is
automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with
Neptune's."
Why wouldn't Neptune be "automatically disqualified" beause its obit must
overlap with Pluto's? Clearly it can't be "overlapping obits" alone that
causes Pluto the problem.
Pieter
<thad@thadlabs.com > wrote in message
news:1156467100.179302.76420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich wrote:
>> In this era where political meddling and emotionalism in science is
>> ruining the disciplines, it's nice to see some logic still being
>> displayed. Tough luck, Tombaugh, start crying Levy.
>>
>> Pluto gets the boot
>> Pluto no longer a planet, say astronomers
>>
>> PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) -- Leading astronomers declared Thursday
>> that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that
>> downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.
>> [...]
>> Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a
>> planet: "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 has cleared the
>> neighborhood around its orbit."
>>
>> Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps
>> with Neptune's.
>
> Or, Neptune's orbit overlaps Pluto's. They'll never collide and both
> are
> orbiting the Sun. Throw Neptune out of the planetary list (or relist
> it as a
> Moon of the Sun) and keep Pluto planetary since it's farther out (and
> we'll
> be visiting it, not Neptune, in 2015). The arguments will never cease.
> :-)
>
> And, is it "THE sun" or "A sun" (re: other solar systems)?
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 14:33:02
From:
Subject: Re: Sanity returns to astronomy
|
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: 25 Aug 2006 13:13:33
From: Llanzlan Klazmon
Subject: Re: Sanity returns to astronomy
|
priorknowledge@hotmail.com wrote in news:1156455182.497214.185050@
75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> 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?
Enough of these discriminatory terms! Size impaired planet please ;-^.
Klazmon.
<SNIP >
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:17:34
From: IAU Realty
Subject: Re: Sanity returns to astronomy
|
Rich wrote:
> In this era where political meddling and emotionalism in science is
> ruining the disciplines, it's nice to see some logic still being
> displayed. Tough luck, Tombaugh, start crying Levy.
>
> Pluto gets the boot
> Pluto no longer a planet, say astronomers
>
Dont worry Rich. The IAU will get to you! You just that important.
>
> PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) -- Leading astronomers declared Thursday
> that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that
> downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.
>
> After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the
> International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status
> it has held since its discovery in 1930. The new definition of what is
> -- and isn't -- a planet fills a centuries-old black hole for
> scientists who have labored since Copernicus without one.
>
> Although astronomers applauded after the vote, Jocelyn Bell Burnell --
> a specialist in neutron stars from Northern Ireland who oversaw the
> proceedings -- urged those who might be "quite disappointed" to look on
> the bright side.
>
> "It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet'
> under which the dwarf planets exist," she said, drawing laughter by
> waving a stuffed Pluto of Walt Disney fame beneath a real umbrella.
>
> The decision by the prestigious international group spells out the
> basic tests that celestial objects will have to meet before they can be
> considered for admission to the elite cosmic club.
>
> For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets
> in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
> Uranus and Neptune.
>
> Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a
> planet: "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 has cleared the
> neighborhood around its orbit."
>
> Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps
> with Neptune's.
>
> Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets,"
> similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition
> also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun --
> "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous
> asteroids, comets and other natural satellites.
>
> It was unclear how Pluto's demotion might affect the mission of NASA's
> New Horizons spacecraft, which earlier this year began a 91/2-year
> journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets.
>
> The decision at a conference of 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries was
> a dramatic shift from just a week ago, when the group's leaders floated
> a proposal that would have reaffirmed Pluto's planetary status and made
> planets of its largest moon and two other objects. (Watch why some
> think planet size doesn't matter -- 3:39)
>
> That plan proved highly unpopular, splitting astronomers into factions
> and triggering days of sometimes combative debate that led to Pluto's
> undoing.
>
> Now, two of the objects that at one point were cruising toward possible
> full-fledged planethood will join Pluto as dwarfs: the asteroid Ceres,
> which was a planet in the 1800s before it got demoted, and 2003 UB313,
> an icy object slightly larger than Pluto whose discoverer, Michael
> Brown of the California Institute of Technology, has nicknamed "Xena."
>
> Charon, the largest of Pluto's three moons, is no longer under
> consideration for any special designation.
>
> Brown was pleased by the decision. He had argued that Pluto and similar
> bodies didn't deserve planet status, saying that would "take the magic
> out of the solar system."
>
> "UB313 is the largest dwarf planet. That's kind of cool," he said.
|
|
