[meteorite-list] Devil's advocate

From: Rob McCafferty <rob_mccafferty_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Aug 22 20:07:13 2006
Message-ID: <20060822224331.11970.qmail_at_web50905.mail.yahoo.com>

If Pluto crosses the orbit of Neptune (which it does)
then one has to ask if Neptune is a planet since it
hasn't cleared its orbit of debris. Surely Pluto
counts as pretty significant debris if we're stll
asking whether it's a planet or not!?

Why does humanity insist on discernable boundaries
when nature is obviously adverse to the concept?

"planet" is a concept which predates our current
understanding. I really feel that it's definition is
irrelevant to modern science and new defintions should
be found to describe the way things are!

But then, since when did life run according to what is
sensible?

Rob McC


--- Ron Baalke <baalke_at_zagami.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

>
>
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9818-astronomers-lean-towards-eight-planets.html
>
> Astronomers lean toward eight planets
> Stephen Battersby, Prague
> New Scientist
> 22 August 2006
>
> Finally, astronomers could be homing in on a
> definition of the word
> planet. After a day of public bickering in Prague,
> followed by
> negotiation behind closed doors, the latest draft
> resolution was greeted
> with a broadly friendly reception.
>
> If accepted on Thursday, it would be bad news for
> Pluto, which would no
> longer be a full-fledged planet.
>
> The crucial change in "draft c" is that a planet
> must be the dominant
> body in its orbital zone, clearing out any little
> neighbours. Pluto does
> not qualify because its orbit crosses that of the
> vastly larger Neptune.
>
> The planet definition committee is also stepping
> back from trying to
> define all planets in the universe, and sticking to
> our solar system - a
> slightly easier task.
>
> It is still a work in progress, however, and the
> wording will change by
> Thursday in part to simplify it and make the final
> result more palatable
> to the public.
>
> Least unpopular
>
> Terminology is still controversial. Objects that do
> not quite qualify as
> planets - because they are big enough to be round
> but not big enough to
> dominate their neighbourhoods - might become
> "dwarf-planets" or planetoids.
>
> These would include Pluto and Ceres, the largest
> asteroid. And the small
> fry of the solar system, such as asteroids, might be
> called small solar
> system bodies, or retain their current designation
> as minor planets.
>
> But a supplementary resolution would at least make
> Pluto the prototype
> of a class of icy outer worlds beyond Neptune. "The
> purpose of this is
> to give a nod to those people who are great Pluto
> fans," said Owen
> Gingerich of Harvard University in Massachusetts,
> US, who is chairman of
> the committee.
>
> It is not clear what they would be called, however -
> most early
> suggestions were rejected by an informal show of
> hands. Pluton, plutoid,
> plutonoid and plutid seem to be out of the running,
> as are "Tombaugh
> object" and "Tombaugh planet", which had been
> proposed in honour of
> Pluto's discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh. "Plutonian
> object" was the least
> unpopular choice.
>
> Multiple drafts
>
> The planet definition committee's first draft
> definition, released last
> Wednesday, had admitted Pluto, Ceres and probably
> dozens more objects to
> planethood by virtue of being round objects orbiting
> the Sun (see Planet
> debate: Proposed new definitions
> <http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9762>).
>
> Then another group of astronomers, many of whom
> study the dynamics of
> the solar system, responded on Friday by insisting
> that a planet must
> dominate its neighbourhood, which would admit only
> the eight fully
> formed planets (see Pluto may yet lose planet status
>
<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9797-pluto-may-yet-lose-planet-status.html>).
>
> At a fractious lunchtime meeting on Tuesday, the
> committee's first
> attempt at a compromise met a hostile response.
> "They have presented
> practically the same resolution as before," said
> Julio Fernandez of the
> University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay,
> lead author of
> Friday's proposal.
>
> Secret negotiations
>
> He was cut off when he tried to read his proposal
> aloud. When more
> questions were prevented, there was a cry of: "If
> there is democracy,
> listen to the questions. Let the people speak!"
>
> Now, although all is not quite sweetness and light,
> the main sticking
> point may have been removed, and there is now hope
> for a positive result
> at Thursday's vote.
>
> Andrea Milani of the University of Pisa in Italy had
> fiercely opposed
> the planet definition committee at the first meeting
> on Tuesday. But
> after participating in the secret negotiations that
> afternoon, he told
> New Scientist: "I'm very satisfied."
>
> ______________________________________________
> 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 Tue 22 Aug 2006 06:43:31 PM PDT