| |
Main
Date: 17 Aug 2006 11:12:30
From: Rich
Subject: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
60 years of age or older.
Those are the only reasons they came up with the idea including Pluto
in the list of planets
and expanding the list to twelve.
They decide that two characteristics make a planet, while they ignore a
slew of others. Like one Virginia astronomer said, in 10 years we
could see 100 or more objects designated as "planets." What would be
the purpose of this?
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 21:09:06
From: Rich
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Phil Wheeler wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
> > 60 years of age or older.
>
> So you mean that all over 60 are lunatics?
>
> Phil
"and" old geezers.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 04:33:21
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Rich wrote:
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
>>> 60 years of age or older.
>> So you mean that all over 60 are lunatics?
>>
>> Phil
>
> "and" old geezers.
>
Your day will come, grasshopper ;)
Phil the Geezer
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 05:30:11
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Rich wrote:
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
>>> 60 years of age or older.
>> So you mean that all over 60 are lunatics?
>>
>> Phil
>
> "and" old geezers.
>
He doesn't know us very well, Phil!
-Sam
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 13:56:27
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
>>>> 60 years of age or older.
>>> So you mean that all over 60 are lunatics?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>
>> "and" old geezers.
>>
>
>
> He doesn't know us very well, Phil!
>
Not such a bad thing, Sam ;)
Phil
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 21:08:21
From: Rich
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Ed wrote:
> > If you ever discover a planet or comet, think how you would feel if
> > someone decided that your discovery wasn't much or wasn't real or....
> > whatever.
> >
> > Methinks you would not be such a happy camper.
> >
> > Sounds more like "Revisionist Astronomy" to me!
>
> I think Rich would assert (and I would agree), that the argument to
> reclassify his discovery would still be valid, even if he refused to
> accept it on personal grounds.
>
> However, I think Rich has something personal against Pluto. :) He's
> never been interested in seeing it explored by spacecraft.
>
Because it isn't worth it. It isn't dynamic like Venus, or Mars, or
Jupiter, or Saturn, or Uranus or Neptune. According to most estimates,
it's a ball of rock and ice. Why send any spacecraft to visit it?
It's also the reason there is no big push to explore Mercury, since
Mercury is a larger version of Earth's Moon. No atmosphere = no value.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 10:12:29
From: Per Erik Jorde
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > writes:
> Because it isn't worth it. It isn't dynamic like Venus, or Mars, or
> Jupiter, or Saturn, or Uranus or Neptune. According to most estimates,
> it's a ball of rock and ice. Why send any spacecraft to visit it?
> It's also the reason there is no big push to explore Mercury, since
> Mercury is a larger version of Earth's Moon. No atmosphere = no value.
Well, but Pluto _has_ a dynamically active atmosphere.
pej
--
Per Erik Jorde
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 03:32:19
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Rich wrote:
> I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
> 60 years of age or older.
So you mean that all over 60 are lunatics?
Phil
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 19:26:14
From: Ed
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
And Rich, yes when you are say 20 everyone older (don't trust anyone
over 30!) looks like an old geezer. Trouble is that when you are 49
and still do not look that old, you realize that 60 is not really that
old.
Age is partly due to an "Outlook" and partly due to physical
deteoriation. These days,
quite a few folks seem to last way,way into their 80's without the
rigors of "old age".
Your time will come to my friend, faster,far faster than you think!
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 14:27:09
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
In article <1155867974.666011.18590@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
ed1ward2@verizon.net says...
> And Rich, yes when you are say 20 everyone older (don't trust anyone
> over 30!) looks like an old geezer. Trouble is that when you are 49
> and still do not look that old, you realize that 60 is not really that
> old.
>
> Age is partly due to an "Outlook" and partly due to physical
> deteoriation. These days, quite a few folks seem to last way, way
> into their 80's without the rigors of "old age".
>
> Your time will come to my friend, faster,far faster than you think!
Most young people who make such negative generalized statements about
older people probably don't realise that they're also making the same
statement about their own future....
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 13:58:31
From: Phil Wheeler
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <1155867974.666011.18590@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> ed1ward2@verizon.net says...
>
>> And Rich, yes when you are say 20 everyone older (don't trust anyone
>> over 30!) looks like an old geezer. Trouble is that when you are 49
>> and still do not look that old, you realize that 60 is not really that
>> old.
>>
>> Age is partly due to an "Outlook" and partly due to physical
>> deteoriation. These days, quite a few folks seem to last way, way
>> into their 80's without the rigors of "old age".
>>
>> Your time will come to my friend, faster,far faster than you think!
>
> Most young people who make such negative generalized statements about
> older people probably don't realise that they're also making the same
> statement about their own future....
>
Fortunately, such naifs are not much in (public) evidence.
Phil
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 19:22:23
From: Ed
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Brian,
I wonder if it's not just Rich, these days quite a few folks seem to
have it in for the 9th planet! After all, it's just a planet and
pretty special too!:)
Of course, there is always the other side to think about:)
If there were really aliens out there, what would they classify us as
and our
planets?:)
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 17:24:53
From: Ed
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Rich,
If you ever discover a planet or comet, think how you would feel if
someone
decided that your discovery wasn't much or wasn't real or....whatever.
Methinks you would not be such a happy camper.
Sounds more like "Revisionist Astronomy" to me!
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 17:59:38
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Ed wrote:
> If you ever discover a planet or comet, think how you would feel if
> someone decided that your discovery wasn't much or wasn't real or....
> whatever.
>
> Methinks you would not be such a happy camper.
>
> Sounds more like "Revisionist Astronomy" to me!
I think Rich would assert (and I would agree), that the argument to
reclassify his discovery would still be valid, even if he refused to
accept it on personal grounds.
However, I think Rich has something personal against Pluto. :) He's
never been interested in seeing it explored by spacecraft.
--
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: 17 Aug 2006 23:13:06
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> Ed wrote:
>
>>If you ever discover a planet or comet, think how you would feel if
>>someone decided that your discovery wasn't much or wasn't real or....
>>whatever.
>>
>>Methinks you would not be such a happy camper.
>>
>>Sounds more like "Revisionist Astronomy" to me!
>
>
> I think Rich would assert (and I would agree), that the argument to
> reclassify his discovery would still be valid, even if he refused to
> accept it on personal grounds.
>
> However, I think Rich has something personal against Pluto. :) He's
> never been interested in seeing it explored by spacecraft.
>
Hope he doesn't test positive for steroids after discovering the next
big comet.
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 17:22:21
From: Ed
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Sam,
While we are "rearranging" the Solar System, why can't we substitute
"Planetoid" for Asteroid?
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 16:12:51
From: Rich
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Richard Adams wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
> > 60 years of age or older.
> > Those are the only reasons they came up with the idea including Pluto
> > in the list of planets
> > and expanding the list to twelve.
> > They decide that two characteristics make a planet, while they ignore a
> > slew of others. Like one Virginia astronomer said, in 10 years we
> > could see 100 or more objects designated as "planets." What would be
> > the purpose of this?
>
> Hm!! When 60 years old you are, look as good you will not!
My comment had more to do with the mindset "Lets not strip long-dead
Tombaugh of
his status as discoverer of the 9th planet!"
David Levy must be jumping for joy.
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 19:45:10
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Rich wrote:
> I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
> 60 years of age or older.
> Those are the only reasons they came up with the idea including Pluto
> in the list of planets
> and expanding the list to twelve.
> They decide that two characteristics make a planet, while they ignore a
> slew of others. Like one Virginia astronomer said, in 10 years we
> could see 100 or more objects designated as "planets." What would be
> the purpose of this?
>
From a teaching perspective, I'm hoping for a sensible outcome
o four small terrestrial planets
o asteroids
o four gas giant planets
o Kuiper belt objects (icy bodies)
o comets and other debris
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 22:49:28
From: Shawn Curry
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
>> I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
>> 60 years of age or older.
>> Those are the only reasons they came up with the idea including Pluto
>> in the list of planets
>> and expanding the list to twelve.
>> They decide that two characteristics make a planet, while they ignore a
>> slew of others. Like one Virginia astronomer said, in 10 years we
>> could see 100 or more objects designated as "planets." What would be
>> the purpose of this?
60 doesn't seem so old looking from 42 (43 in less than a month, yikes!).
> From a teaching perspective, I'm hoping for a sensible outcome
>
> o four small terrestrial planets
> o asteroids
> o four gas giant planets
> o Kuiper belt objects (icy bodies)
> o comets and other debris
Seems reasonable to me. Some just can't see demoting Pluto. Maybe it
messes up a mnemonic they learned as a kid, or it's a Disney thing.
Silly really.
By the definition I read, a planet/satellite system has its barycenter
within the planet's surface. Pluto and Charon are "double planets"
because their barycenter is outside of both bodies. The Sun/Jovian
barycenter is above the Sun's surface. Does this mean Jupiter will be
more than just a planet? Or will they ignore this inconsistency?
Shawn
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 05:29:19
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Shawn Curry wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>> I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
>>> 60 years of age or older.
>>> Those are the only reasons they came up with the idea including Pluto
>>> in the list of planets
>>> and expanding the list to twelve.
>>> They decide that two characteristics make a planet, while they ignore a
>>> slew of others. Like one Virginia astronomer said, in 10 years we
>>> could see 100 or more objects designated as "planets." What would be
>>> the purpose of this?
>
> 60 doesn't seem so old looking from 42 (43 in less than a month, yikes!).
>
>> From a teaching perspective, I'm hoping for a sensible outcome
>>
>> o four small terrestrial planets
>> o asteroids
>> o four gas giant planets
>> o Kuiper belt objects (icy bodies)
>> o comets and other debris
>
> Seems reasonable to me. Some just can't see demoting Pluto. Maybe it
> messes up a mnemonic they learned as a kid, or it's a Disney thing.
> Silly really.
>
> By the definition I read, a planet/satellite system has its barycenter
> within the planet's surface. Pluto and Charon are "double planets"
> because their barycenter is outside of both bodies. The Sun/Jovian
> barycenter is above the Sun's surface. Does this mean Jupiter will be
> more than just a planet? Or will they ignore this inconsistency?
>
>
> Shawn
The location of the solar system barycenter is continuously changing
with that planetary patterns... interesting!
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 03:36:57
From: POA
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
I would agree with that completely but, you/we will never get simplicity.
If it makes sense it must be "rebellious"?
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
> > 60 years of age or older.
> > Those are the only reasons they came up with the idea including Pluto
> > in the list of planets
> > and expanding the list to twelve.
> > They decide that two characteristics make a planet, while they ignore a
> > slew of others. Like one Virginia astronomer said, in 10 years we
> > could see 100 or more objects designated as "planets." What would be
> > the purpose of this?
> >
>
> From a teaching perspective, I'm hoping for a sensible outcome
>
> o four small terrestrial planets
> o asteroids
> o four gas giant planets
> o Kuiper belt objects (icy bodies)
> o comets and other debris
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2006 11:17:32
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Rich wrote:
> I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
> 60 years of age or older.
> Those are the only reasons they came up with the idea including Pluto
> in the list of planets
> and expanding the list to twelve.
> They decide that two characteristics make a planet, while they ignore a
> slew of others. Like one Virginia astronomer said, in 10 years we
> could see 100 or more objects designated as "planets." What would be
> the purpose of this?
Hm!! When 60 years old you are, look as good you will not!
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 04:27:27
From: Ed
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
POA,
As John remarked it is political but not, I think, in the same sense as
he is taking it.
To me, it's more of the same "Revisionist thinking". As in we must
always downsize and revize and cut down our heros and everyone else as
in Revisionist History.
And again, it takes these "professional astronomers" 76 years to settle
on the definition of a planet?
Gee wiz, I am certainly glad that we don't have to rely on these folks
to actually make
life and death decisions in split seconds.
We would have been dead long ago....:(
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 03:39:13
From: POA
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
I knew Clyde Tombaugh and I resent your stupid empty remarks.
Rich wrote:
> Richard Adams wrote:
> > Rich wrote:
> > > I saw the shots of their meeting. They all look like they are pushing
> > > 60 years of age or older.
> > > Those are the only reasons they came up with the idea including Pluto
> > > in the list of planets
> > > and expanding the list to twelve.
> > > They decide that two characteristics make a planet, while they ignore a
> > > slew of others. Like one Virginia astronomer said, in 10 years we
> > > could see 100 or more objects designated as "planets." What would be
> > > the purpose of this?
> >
> > Hm!! When 60 years old you are, look as good you will not!
>
> My comment had more to do with the mindset "Lets not strip long-dead
> Tombaugh of
> his status as discoverer of the 9th planet!"
> David Levy must be jumping for joy.
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 03:33:11
From: POA
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Rich wrote:
> Brian Tung wrote:
> > Ed wrote:
> > > If you ever discover a planet or comet, think how you would feel if
> > > someone decided that your discovery wasn't much or wasn't real or....
> > > whatever.
> > >
> > > Methinks you would not be such a happy camper.
> > >
> > > Sounds more like "Revisionist Astronomy" to me!
> >
> > I think Rich would assert (and I would agree), that the argument to
> > reclassify his discovery would still be valid, even if he refused to
> > accept it on personal grounds.
> >
> > However, I think Rich has something personal against Pluto. :) He's
> > never been interested in seeing it explored by spacecraft.
> >
>
> Because it isn't worth it. It isn't dynamic like Venus, or Mars, or
> Jupiter, or Saturn, or Uranus or Neptune. According to most estimates,
> it's a ball of rock and ice. Why send any spacecraft to visit it?
> It's also the reason there is no big push to explore Mercury, since
> Mercury is a larger version of Earth's Moon. No atmosphere = no value.
Very short sighted.
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2006 10:41:03
From: Some guy in Arizona
Subject: Re: The IAU is people by lunatics and old geezers
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
> From a teaching perspective, I'm hoping for a sensible outcome
>
> o four small terrestrial planets
> o asteroids
> o four gas giant planets
> o Kuiper belt objects (icy bodies)
> o comets and other debris
I am reminded of something Bill Arnett wrote many years ago, which I
think really puts this whole discussion into perspective:
"Looking at the solar system objectively, I see one modest
star and a bit of debris. Looking really closely one sees
that the debris consists of one big planet and three smaller
ones (plus some other junk)."
|
|
