[meteorite-list] EVEN THE N. Y. TIMES HAS AN OPINION ON PLANETS

From: Larry Lebofsky <lebofsky_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Aug 19 19:06:40 2006
Message-ID: <1156028794.44e7997a00d32_at_hindmost.LPL.Arizona.EDU>

Sterling:

Well, much of the controversy started when that planetarium in New York found
that it could not fit Pluto into its display because it was too far from the
Sun to fit in the exhibit hall. There were a number of articles about this at
the time.

Beign a scientist I did a scientific poll (sort of, but at least the question
was not biased one way or the other): I polled the Saturday group of people in
my cardiac rehab class, so the only thing in common is have had heart problems
at one time, nearer to God (mostly retired, educations from not finishing high
school to people with multiple degrees (no astronomers) out of 14 people (not
including myself) all 14 thought it would be stupid to "demote" Pluto even if
it did not fit into the definition. Also, most of them were aware that the
planet was not named after the dog. Several of them were around at the time.

And Sterling, before you start on me, no, I do not know the statistical error
on the vote!


Quoting "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb_at_sbcglobal.net>:

> Hi,
>
>
> The New York published an editorial on the
> planet question. Does that settle it?
> Hardly. But it does demonstrate that the
> driving force of the Eight Planet Gang is largely
> emotional and prejudicial.
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/opinion/17thur4.html
>
> Text:
>
> Dissing Pluto and the Other Plutons
> Published: August 17, 2006
>
> A panel appointed by the International Astronomical
> Union thinks it has come up with a dandy compromise
> to the years-long struggle over whether we should continue
> to count Pluto as a planet. The trouble is, the new definition
> of a planet will include an awful m?lange of icy rocks found
> on the outer fringes of the solar system. It would be far
> better to expel Pluto from the planetary ranks altogether,
> leaving us to bask in the comfortable presence of the eight
> classical planets that were discovered before 1900 and have
> excited wonder ever since.
>
> Pluto, discovered in 1930, never deserved to be called a planet.
> It is far smaller than first thought, smaller in fact than our own
> moon. Its orbit is more elliptical and tilted in a different plane
> than those of the other planets, and its icy, rocky body is more
> like a comet's core. If Pluto were discovered today, it seems
> highly unlikely that anyone would consider it a planet. But Pluto
> has emotional partisans who resent anyone picking on the
> puniest planet, so efforts to demote it invariably meet resistance.
>
> Now a panel of astronomers and historians has come up
> with a new definition of the word "planet" that will keep
> Pluto in the club. Under the new definition, a planet would
> be any celestial body that orbits around a star and is large
> enough for its own gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.
> That definition would produce an ugly porridge of 12 old
> and new planets, with dozens more on the way.
>
> Ceres, heretofore considered the largest of the asteroids,
> would qualify. The panel suggests that people might
> want to call it a "dwarf planet," raising the question of
> why bother to call it a planet at all.
>
> Pluto would still count as a planet but would be shunted
> into a new category called "Plutons," which would include
> any object that meets the definition and has an orbit beyond
> Neptune's. Two other bodies already qualify as plutons,
> namely Charon, which had been considered a moon of
> Pluto, and a recently discovered ice ball somewhat bigger
> than Pluto. Many dozens of distant ice balls may ultimately
> qualify for planethood.
>
> All this just to keep Pluto as a planet. Whatever merit the
> new definition may have scientifically, it is an abomination
> culturally. When the astronomical union votes on the matter
> next week, it ought to reject the new definition and summon
> the courage to scratch Pluto from the list of planets.
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sat 19 Aug 2006 07:06:34 PM PDT