[meteorite-list] Pluto May Get Demoted After All

From: MexicoDoug <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Aug 18 13:54:39 2006
Message-ID: <008101c6c2ef$447aab20$d3c85ec8_at_0019110394>

"> and the Charon aspect specifically for going too far in essentially
> recasting too many small round objects as full-fledged planets.
Eventually,
> with new discoveries, there would likely be hundreds."

Hello Again, The Charon and the "rotating around center of mass outside the
larger body (Pluto in this case)" criterion aspect is very unwieldy for me.
If a soccer ball, or other object which could have melted and rounded itself
(or even rubble-pile modeled asteroids) gets into a meta stable orbit around
the center of mass of the multi-body system in the appropriate conditions,
it will become a planet for the moments it rotates outside the other members
crust. And more interestingly, if the orbit is of high enough eccentricity,
the center of mass will vary inside and outside the major body. I guess the
simple solution would be to refine the definition for convenience to say
that all bodies are compared as if they orbited the major body of the system
at "X" distance, etc. But this innocent corollary is a needless
complication and goes against the grain of the intention: to make it a
fairly independent set of criteria based on a priori physics. There is
"based on physics" and "making reference to physics". Anyone can make
reference to physics - the IAU committees still hasn't understood that
though they've come a good way along. Ganymede and our Luna moons are
excluded based on what boils down to an arbitrary criterion. Time to cut to
the Gordian chase and toss out this criterion. Anything else will smack of
arbitrariness. How scientific can an issue be when you have near 50%-50%
acceptance/rejection after so many years of debate? I won't get going on
"dwarf" status. With stars it has real meaning. However, it is arbitrary
in its proposed use with the planets and again a cheap shot to put
pseudoscience masquerading as real science (unethically) by experts in
something who seems to feel that their diplomas make them experts in
applying well defined astronomical terms to an amorphous limbo. If you want
to call it a dwarf planet - a double planet - any icy planet - a terrestrial
planet - that's fine and highly context dependent. Thus the adjective of
choice is in the domain of the speaker, not in the quaint streets of Prague
in meetings as astronomers eat up the travel and entertainment bill.
Best wishes, Doug
P.D. The IAU Committee has utterly failed by not including a committee
member of the class and stature of Saul Kripke. Historians and
Astronomers...but how about including someone with real experience and
credentials in aprioricity who has danced with the likes of Kant (and
usually held his own). I trust they will remedy this, as good scientists
not concerned about who shares their turf...
P.P.D. Pluto was actually named after the Disney Dog character by a British
child, but was endorsed by astronomers under the auspices we generally
consider when explaining the logic of planetary nomenclature.
Received on Fri 18 Aug 2006 01:53:50 PM PDT