Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 17 Dec 2006 18:36:48
From: Rich
Subject: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Letters to the ed. favour keeping Pluto as a planet by 80% or something
like that.
Either this is a highly skewed sample of the general opinion, or it's
proof people only write letters
when they feel incensed. I'd hate to think 80% of Sky and Tel's
readers are old, nostalgic dummies who act emotionally rather than
think rationally.
The demotion of Pluto was not an attack on Tombaugh. He had no idea
what he was really looking at, nor did anyone else up until recently.
Any real attack on Tombaugh for not understanding the true nature of
Pluto would be like attacking some guy from the 1880s who skimmed over
3C273 thinking, "Ah, a little blue star..."

Date: 17 Dec 2006 19:58:07
From: RichIsaTroll
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

AT LEAST 80% of the readers here, most of them perfectly rational and
intelligent consider you a TROLL.

AstroHoney

Rich wrote:
> Letters to the ed. favour keeping Pluto as a planet by 80% or something
> like that.
> Either this is a highly skewed sample of the general opinion, or it's
> proof people only write letters
> when they feel incensed. I'd hate to think 80% of Sky and Tel's
> readers are old, nostalgic dummies who act emotionally rather than
> think rationally.
> The demotion of Pluto was not an attack on Tombaugh. He had no idea
> what he was really looking at, nor did anyone else up until recently.
> Any real attack on Tombaugh for not understanding the true nature of
> Pluto would be like attacking some guy from the 1880s who skimmed over
> 3C273 thinking, "Ah, a little blue star..."

Date: 18 Dec 2006 09:51:45
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Date: 18 Dec 2006 09:42:49
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

WTF wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
> > Letters to the ed. favour keeping Pluto as a planet by 80% or something
> > like that.
> > Either this is a highly skewed sample of the general opinion, or it's
> > proof people only write letters
> > when they feel incensed. I'd hate to think 80% of Sky and Tel's
> > readers are old, nostalgic dummies who act emotionally rather than
> > think rationally.
> > The demotion of Pluto was not an attack on Tombaugh. He had no idea
> > what he was really looking at, nor did anyone else up until recently.
>
> Then all of that research of the 70-80 -90's.... was wasted.
> Clyde was a dummy. And YOU are a tomato.

I rest my case. Emotional morons are endemic.

Date: 18 Dec 2006 02:09:01
From: WTF
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Date: 19 Dec 2006 09:00:35
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Let's look at this another way...

When you are rather young, in college or just out, you tend to think
you know everything.
As you get older you begin to realize that there is a heck of a lot you
don't know. And getting older still you realize that you know even
less.

Putting it another way "Logic is the beginning of wisdom".

Now, there is nothing at all wrong about being enthusiastic because
enthusiasm is the desire that pushes life forward including discovery
but there is something wrong headed by believing that just because
someone is older that they are irrelevant or that whatever they
accomplished is irrelevant.

I believe that those who scoff at discovery need to ask themselves why?

Why is it so terribly bad that we keep Pluto as a Planet and decide
that it is the lower limit distinguishing a planet from an asteroid????

Why?

Because some scoff at tradition?

Better be careful because tradition is one of those elements of human
culture that bind us together as a people and as a species.

Because it's not logical?

How so?

It's very logical

Yes, it's important to classify but where do you set a limit?
At what point in time does classification become so irrelevant that it
really
exists more of a attribute to O.C.D.?

Personally, I think it's reached that fine point.

And, while we are at it, why is it that we allow a very small subset of
people and then a smaller subset of professional astronomers (not to
mention those who were not there) to make such a determination?

A "Rush job" to say the very least.

No, like other groups of people, astronomers sometimes are wrong.

And in time, they will bend with the will of the people.

Date: 20 Dec 2006 02:54:33
From: dart
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Rich wrote:
> Letters to the ed. favour keeping Pluto as a planet by 80% or something
> like that.
> Either this is a highly skewed sample of the general opinion, or it's
> proof people only write letters
> when they feel incensed. I'd hate to think 80% of Sky and Tel's
> readers are old, nostalgic dummies who act emotionally rather than
> think rationally.
> The demotion of Pluto was not an attack on Tombaugh. He had no idea
> what he was really looking at, nor did anyone else up until recently.
> Any real attack on Tombaugh for not understanding the true nature of
> Pluto would be like attacking some guy from the 1880s who skimmed over
> 3C273 thinking, "Ah, a little blue star..."
>

I wish people would drop the ad hominem attacks.

The IAU decision was made by just a relatively few astronomers (several
hundred as I recall). Such a change should've been made by at least a
significant number of astronomers, IMHO. Perhaps a mailed ballot to IAU
membership would be in order.

There's a lot of dissension over definitions of planets, stars, etc
(fusors, planemos, brown dwarfs, etc). There are objects that appear to
be planet class masswise, but don't orbit any stars (and have their own
satellite systems). Seems likely that nature has produced a nearly continuous
spectrum of masses for objects. The IAU definition (although supposedly limited
to just our own solar system) seems to be lacking, especially if one does extend
it to other solar systems (spherical -- just how spherical? ellipticity of what
level will be accepted? dynamic clearing -- some young systems seem likely to
have jupiter-class objects that haven't finished clearing their orbits; besides,
just how clear is clear? Earth still has a class of Atens floating about its
orbit, perhaps Earth isn't a planet?). My point here is that there isn't likely
to be a good, clean definition of a planet. It'll necessarily have arbitrary
cutoffs.

Personally, I have no problem with leaving Pluto in as a planet; Eris, too.
That way we can have one planet for each finger! :)

Regards,
Dart

Date: 20 Dec 2006 03:51:18
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:54:33 GMT, dart <dart@nowhere.com > wrote:

>My point here is that there isn't likely
>to be a good, clean definition of a planet.

Which is a good reason to leave it loosely defined. As I use the term,
it includes anything orbiting a star. Can't get much more general than
that <g >. There is also a modern classical common usage (if you'll
excuse the oxymoron), which is the planets Mercury through Pluto.
Something of a Planets with a capital "P", if you will. I can't see any
reason not to leave that intact- it really has nothing to do with
science.

What is important to science is the _classification_ of planets. A good
start has been made at that, although the classifications are sure to
change as more objects are discovered, including objects around other
stars than our own (or maybe even loose in space).

_________________________________________________

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

Date: 19 Dec 2006 21:44:14
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:54:33 GMT, dart <dart@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>My point here is that there isn't likely
>>to be a good, clean definition of a planet.
>
> Which is a good reason to leave it loosely defined.
...
>
> What is important to science is the _classification_ of planets. A good
> start has been made at that, although the classifications are sure to
> change as more objects are discovered, including objects around other
> stars than our own (or maybe even loose in space).

Classiications are useful when they actually serve some purpose.

While I'm no planetologist (I'm an engineer and computer scientist), I
see four kinds of planets in this solar system: rocky planets (the four
inner planets), asteroids (though is Ceres an asteroid or a rocky
planet?), gas giants, and the small (so far) icy outer planets. They're
all planets because they orbit a star.

Comets might fit in there somehow, as long as they're in a stable
elliptical orbit.

We will certainly need to rethink planet classifications as we discover
more planets in other solar systems that don't fit easily into these
classifications.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Date: 19 Dec 2006 18:48:14
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

I greatly fear there is just a bit of a generation gap here. Perhaps
you "breezed through" my comments without even considering them perhaps
not. Whatever the case, you might as well try to get along with folks
who are say 20 or so years older than you because they are probably
going to be your bosses for a while.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 18:26:19
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Thank you Chris:)
Your point is well taken.

Date: 19 Dec 2006 16:44:05
From: Rich
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Patrick Edward Murray wrote:
> Let's look at this another way...
>
> When you are rather young, in college or just out, you tend to think
> you know everything.
> As you get older you begin to realize that there is a heck of a lot you
> don't know. And getting older still you realize that you know even
> less.
>
> Putting it another way "Logic is the beginning of wisdom".
>
> Now, there is nothing at all wrong about being enthusiastic because
> enthusiasm is the desire that pushes life forward including discovery
> but there is something wrong headed by believing that just because
> someone is older that they are irrelevant or that whatever they
> accomplished is irrelevant.
>
> I believe that those who scoff at discovery need to ask themselves why?
>
> Why is it so terribly bad that we keep Pluto as a Planet and decide
> that it is the lower limit distinguishing a planet from an asteroid????
>
> Why?
>
> Because some scoff at tradition?
>
> Better be careful because tradition is one of those elements of human
> culture that bind us together as a people and as a species.
>
> Because it's not logical?
>
> How so?
>
> It's very logical
>
> Yes, it's important to classify but where do you set a limit?
> At what point in time does classification become so irrelevant that it
> really
> exists more of a attribute to O.C.D.?
>
> Personally, I think it's reached that fine point.
>
> And, while we are at it, why is it that we allow a very small subset of
> people and then a smaller subset of professional astronomers (not to
> mention those who were not there) to make such a determination?
>
> A "Rush job" to say the very least.
>
> No, like other groups of people, astronomers sometimes are wrong.
>
> And in time, they will bend with the will of the people.

Is that like the "tyranny of an illiterate (Scientifically speaking)"
majority?

Date: 20 Dec 2006 01:34:33
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

On 19 Dec 2006 16:44:05 -0800, "Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote:

>Is that like the "tyranny of an illiterate (Scientifically speaking)"
>majority?

It is worth noting that a significant number of professional astronomers
(over half by many accounts) disagree with the IAU definition and are
not using it.

Only time will tell how this will shake out. I hope (and have some
reasonable expectation) that "planet" will ultimately be left undefined,
or loosely defined as in the past. It certainly doesn't need a rigorous
definition; the current IAU definition leaves science somewhat
impoverished.

_________________________________________________

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

Date: 19 Dec 2006 13:20:48
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Date: 20 Dec 2006 10:06:30
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Sky and Tel and why letters are sometimes unimportant and misleading

Dart,

It wasn't just that they did it, it was the way that they did it. I
concur, just a few hundred out of thousands is not really a good thing
to do. They did it hurriedly, like they wanted to put their "Seal of
Approval" on it and that would be that. I've been a member of too many
societies and have seen the same thing happen.

Not a good idea if you have a rather large public that might overule
you.

It's their own fault however, they could have really done justice to
the idea and be done with it.

We amateurs are mostly the folks who sponsor all kind of public events
and talk with the public they usually don't.