[meteorite-list] Repost: PLANETS, PART ONE

From: Dawn & Gerald Flaherty <grf2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed Aug 3 08:24:13 2005
Message-ID: <031001c59826$3b25f650$6502a8c0_at_GerryLaptop>

I DIG IT. Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <kelly_at_bhil.com>
To: "Meteorite Mailing List" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:29 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Repost: PLANETS, PART ONE


> Hi, Everybody!
>
> This original must have been too log. It didn't post. Here it is in
> parts. Part One:
>
> There is some intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering going on here.
> In his initial press announcement, Brown spoke of 2003UB313 very much as
> you would expect, in the jargon of the trade, referring to it as a KBO
> (and TNO), by number and so forth.
>
> Then, on the fourth day, his press and website sprouted out with the
> word "planet" in great profusion everywhere. It was a total turnabout.
> On the same day, it was announced that the IAU in Paris, which was
> scheduled to deliver a formal definition of "what is a planet?" in
> "about a year from now," would MIRACULOUSLY have a full definition ready
> in about a WEEK! They are so efficient, aren't they? Really marvelous...
>
> It does not take a seer, clairvoyant, or TV psychic to guess what
> that new definition will do to the status of 2003UB313. Otherwise, why
> rush it out?
>
> Brown has said, in effect, that he will see to it, via the press and
> by the "cultural" definition, that everyone on this planet will be
> calling that body a PLANET (whatever the IAU says, is implied) by the
> time they issue their totally objective (naturellement!) academic
> decision.
>
> There are three reasons for this.
>
> One, only three human beings (and no living human being) has ever
> discovered a planet. Those names, Herschel, LeVerrier, and Tombaugh,
> will be in history books for 500 years? 1000 years? getting more
> important as we move out into that solar system, and Brown is staking
> his claim to his place right beside them. He's got the right to.
>
> Two, 2003UB313 IS a planet under the "rules" that were in effect at
> the time of discovery. You don't change the rules after the game is over
> because you don't like the outcome, not even in Paris (or do ou?). This
> is a familiar principle to us all, and has a strong role in the "science
> game," as well as all other human spheres of activity.
>
> Three, he's IN THE RIGHT here. I happen to agree with this myself
> and I thought so before I ever heard Brown's name. I said to my self, I
> said, "Self, if it's twice as big as Pluto (a planet), then it's a
> planet! Wonder who found it? Guy's gonna be famous!"
>
> My definition of a planet in my original post (WHAT IS A PLANET?)
> was as follows: if it goes around the Sun and is demonstrably larger
> than Ceres, IT'S A PLANET.
>
> As for sphericity, anything as big as Ceres is going to be
> spherical, so that roundness is implied, since at this size no material
> could withstand the crushing forces of gravity, neither the lightest
> ices nor iron itself.
>
>
> Stay tuned for Part Two...
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> --------------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Wed 03 Aug 2005 08:24:00 AM PDT