[meteorite-list] Pluto May Get Demoted After All

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Aug 18 21:18:58 2006
Message-ID: <20060819011854.35034.qmail_at_web36913.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi all -

Sterling, I want to arise in defense of Rob Roy Britt.
 

--- "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb_at_sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Second: you'll notice that much of the
> "coverage" of the planet definition controversy is
> coming out of Space.com. In searching up articles, I
> have become aware that Space.com and particularly
Mr. > Britt, who's doing most of their pieces, have
> adopted a tabloid-esque approach. They're trying to
> boost "circulation," so to speak.

That's the reporter's job, Sterling: boost circulation
= get an an audience with reportage.

> Encouraging controversy and then getting people
> to then react to it is an old trick of the yellow
> rag. Of course, the controversy is REAL,

Yes, as you can see by reading the meteorite list
messages, this controversy is REAL, and was not
created by Britt.

> but what tone it has is another matter.
> In one piece discussing the "double planet"
> concept, Britt uses a phrase about them having that
"barycenter thing going." Hey! Making bad slangy jokes
about science is my job! I doubt the working
astronomers are talking about it that way. Maybe...

Ah hah - we get to the root of the problem - you're
JEALOUS of Britt!

Well, Sterling, not every story is as good as this
one, and the pay is lousy, frankly. Britt recognized
a good story early on, lined up his contacts, works
them, and writes good copy that people read.

I think that's what a journalist does. Just because
the story is sensational and he got there first does
not allow you to accuse Britt of being a
"sensationalist". We prefer the word "lively".

good hunting,
Ed

>
> When I found that Proposal V exists only in
> press releases
> from the IAU and not in their schedule, I commented
> that they
> are obviously "flying by the seat of their pants" on
> this one.
> This is a very fluid situation. "The IAU has the
> authority to
> handle the debate however it wishes. It could either
> amend the
> existing proposal or adopt the competing proposal.
> The ultimate
> plan is to put something before the IAU membership
> for a vote
> on Thursday, Aug. 24." Gingerich said the Executive
> Committee
> "will undoubtedly come before the membership with a
> single
> resolution. They may make some adjustments."
>
> In other words, the present proposal we're all
> arguing about
> has been "floated," as the politicians call the
> process. Say you're
> going to do such-and-such and see how people react
> to it. Then,
> change it to reflect what people will accept.
>
> It will be hard to do that here. This is
> science, not party politics.
> And, the division seems to be about even. WHATEVER
> you do
> will upset about half of the constituents. Another
> possibility is that
> the proposal will pass narrowly for no other reason
> than the fact
> that astronomers are very uncomfortable with this
> present chaotic
> situation.
>
> A parent can take their child to a museum this
> Sunday where
> there are EIGHT planets, then next Sunday to a
> museum where
> there are NINE planets, and then your kid says,
> "Nah, there are
> TWELVE planets; I read it on the Internet."
>
> Let's face it: the natural inclination of the
> Executive Committee
> is to postpone. They'll already done that... twice.
> And the situation
> didn't go away; it got worse. But, rather than
> institutionalize the
> division, they may want not to have any vote. But
> Gingerich seems
> to think there will be some vote (and he would know,
> I think).
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MexicoDoug" <MexicoDoug_at_aim.com>
> To: "Ron Baalke" <baalke_at_zagami.jpl.nasa.gov>;
> "Meteorite Mailing List"
> <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Pluto May Get Demoted
> After All
>
>
> >"> 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.
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Fri 18 Aug 2006 09:18:54 PM PDT