[meteorite-list] And the winner is-- PLUTOID!

From: Jerry <grf2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:35:12 -0400
Message-ID: <B11EB7663F654A83ABD73A6B5B3B8023_at_Notebook>

OK. It will no doubt come as a great surprise to the Executive
Committee of the IAU (henceforth referred to as "Executoids")
Sterling, you never fail to charm your way into a most subtle form of humor
while elucidating the nuts and bolts of a gritty, in this case, language
dilemma.
Jerry Flaherty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] And the winner is-- PLUTOID!


> Hi, All,
>
> First, what does the suffix "-oid" MEAN?
>
> http://dictionary.die.net/-oid
> from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
> "-oid \-oid\ [Gr. ?, fr. ? form, akin to ? to see, and E. wit:
> cf.F. -o["i]de, L. -o["i]des.]
> A suffix or combining form meaning like, resembling, in the
> form of; as in anthropoid, asteroid, spheroid."
>
>>From http://www.answers.com/topic/oid-1
>
> "1. Used as in mainstream slang English to indicate
> a poor imitation, a counterfeit, or some otherwise slightly
> bogus resemblance."
>
> and
>
> "-oid is a suffix much used in the sciences and mathematics
> to indicate a 'similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else'.
> According to the Oxford English Dictionary, -oid is derived
> from the Latin suffix -oides taken from Greek and meaning
> 'having the likeness of'." (This is a re-working of the Oxford
> English Dictionary's definition by the Wikipedia.)
>
> As a result, while "Plutoid" is a possible term of definition,
> the planet Pluto itself CANNOT be a "Plutoid"! The headline:
> "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid" is a gross mis-understanding
> of the meaning of the word. Not even the IAU says that. It
> says Pluto is a prototype for a class of objects to be named
> "Plutoids." They are named "Plutoids," not Pluto itself.
>
> The term "Plutoid" defines an inclusive class of objects that
> superficially or fraudulently resemble Pluto but it excludes Pluto,
> the object a resemblance to which defines the class itself. The
> suffix indicates a similarity to something else. Pluto does not
> "resemble" Pluto -- it IS Pluto. Stars are not asteroids, for
> example, in case you need an example.
>
> Moreover, it not clear why objects that actually DO resemble
> Pluto should be called by an "-oid" suffix. This problem arises
> because an "-oid" class is composed of many essentially
> dissimilar objects that share only their superficial appearance
> to, or a single characteristic with, the out-of-class object for
> which they are named.
>
> Or if that single defining characteristic is the essential
> one, what is the defining characteristic of the Plutoids? Well,
> there's one ONE characteristic: iot is merely that they are
> "Out There"! (And round and sun-orbiting.)
>
> Resolution 6A (2006): "Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by
> the above definition and is recognized as the prototype
> of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects," or so
> the IAU website says, assuming that all TNO's are "like"
> Pluto. I guess they know a lot more about Pluto -- and
> the other TNO's! -- than we do, don't they?
>
> They voted, by the way, to name that common class
> "plutons" to the delight of geologists everywhere. That
> name is still on the IAU website.
> http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0601/
>
> Is "Plutoid" intended as a substitute for "Pluton"? I
> guess so. Plutino is already taken; sorry! "Plutonian" has
> been around for decades, but neither the geologists nor the
> Gods of the Underworld would be happy with that choice.
> "Plutan" sounds funny. "Plutoan" sounds Polynesian.
>
> Somehow, I doubt the IAU was aware of the complexities
> of an "-oid" class. I think they wanted to to lump the Outer
> Solar System together into a single-class group and dump it,
> get it out of planetary astronomy, to make it irrelevant and
> unimportant, and to get it out of the way.
>
> Let's look at the rest of that definition: "Plutoids are
> celestial bodies in orbit around the sun at a distance greater
> than that of Neptune..." This is what Space.com say is "the
> official new definition," putting it in quotes. It is in fact
> what IAU says in their own press release, proving that their
> press officers are at least as incompetent as all other press
> officers in the known Universe.
>
> OK. It will no doubt come as a great surprise to the Executive
> Committee of the IAU (henceforth referred to as "Executoids")
> that Pluto is NOT "in orbit around the sun at a distance greater
> than that of Neptune" for 8% of its orbital period. This actually
> does not matter as Pluto can't be a Plutoid at all as explained
> above, but if it WAS a Plutoid, it would only BE one 92% of
> the time, like a quantum virtual particle popping in and out.
>
> However, we can blame THIS mess on the Press, the IAU
> included, because the actual qualifications for a "Plutoid" are
> NOT those given in the news story! (As usual.) Fiurther
> down, in the fine priont, here's what the IAU actually says:
>
> "..it was decided that, for naming purposes, any Solar System
> body having (a) a semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune,
> and (b) an absolute magnitude brighter than H = +1 magnitude
> will be considered to be a plutoid, and be named by the WGPSN
> and the CSBN. Name(s) proposed by the discovery team(s) will
> be given deference. If further investigations show that the object
> is not massive enough and does not qualify as a plutoid, it will
> keep its name but change category."
> http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0804/
>
> The Devil is in the details, ALWAYS. Define things as you
> want, it's the RULES that decide. With these rules, there will
> NEVER be any other dwarf planets, no matter what (maybe).
>
> Why do I say that? Here's the deal. Mike Brown doesn't
> get to be a planet-finder for finding the planet Eris, but he gets
> two dwarf planets aznd a bag of marshmallows. Lowell
> Observatory (Pluto's "owner") loses old Pluto's planethood,
> but there will never be any other rivals called "planets." Christy,
> the discoverer of half of a double planet gets nothing -- zip,
> zilch, nada.
>
> It's that detail: a new candidate will have to have an absolute
> magnitude (H) greater than +1.0. This purely arbitrary H = +1.0
> cutoff eliminates all the other candidates because that value is
> set 'way too high.
>
> And they are all too distant for anyone to determine that they
> are round! Of course, most of them are, but you won't be able
> to prove it for another generation... or two... or five.
>
> This means that "Easterbunny" IS a dwarf planet
> (H = -0.48) and a "Plutoid". Congratulations, Easterbunny!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28136472%29_2005_FY9
>
> But the bigger, more massive and impressive "Santa" is
> not (H = +0.17):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28136108%29_2003_EL61
> and neither is Sedna nor Ouaoar nor Orcus nor Ixion nor
> Varuna nor (55565) 2002 AW197 nor (84522) 2002 TC302,
> all larger than Ceres and all most likely round as a beach ball..
> because none of these eight (dwarf) planets have got the H!
>
> Heck! Ceres doesn't have the H! Clearly beach-ball-like,
> its albedo is the same as the average TNO and its H is +3.36,
> less than all the eight PLANETS listed above... It's just damn
> lucky it was already discovered because it would never make
> it past the IAU today. Why would they not set the "H limit"
> at +3.36, as planetary evidence of a ROUND ice-rock world
> would suggest? Well...
>
> You can get rid of a helluva lot of planets that way! (It's a
> clever move...) It also reduces the number of dwarf planets
> to four (of which only three are officially recognized), so
> eventually all this planet furor will die down. They will have
> gotten rid of Pluto and nobody is going to remember all that
> stuff about laughing-stock "dwarf" planets.
>
> The committee is essentially gambling that all brightest
> objects have been discovered and is getting ready to fold
> their cards and let dwarf planets become a footnote, having
> dumped Pluto, which was what they wanted to do all along.
>
> And I've decided to go along with their definition...
>
> Is this the time and place to point out that under the 2006 IAU
> definition of "planet," there are ONLY TWO planets in the Solar
> System? They are Mercury and Venus, of course.
>
> The 2006 IAU definition has three requirements for Planethood,
> one of which is that planets have cleared their own orbit and the
> neighborhood around their orbit of all other objects, at least
> those big enough to notice.
>
> Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have all
> permitted the continuing residence of a variety of rock balls,
> ice balls, and other celestial trash very close to, actually
> entwining with, their orbits, objects constantly flirting around
> their respective barycenters like ants at a picnic, utterly failing
> the strict requirements of Uruguayan Absolutism. These bodies
> have NOT "cleared" their orbits. Those six bodies -- Earth,
> Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune -- are all, by the
> 2006 IAU definition, "dwarf planets."
>
> I know you're all familiar with the Dwarf Planet Jupiter and
> the Dwarf Planet Saturn with those cute little dwarf planet rings,
> and so forth.
>
> If you're going to have a written definition of "planet" with
> precise physical characteristics enumerated, rather than continue
> with the historical usages, then I, for one, will adhere to it AS
> WRITTEN.
>
> There is a sense in which the use of the "-oid" suffix IS
> appropriate. That is in the sense that the resemblance referred
> to is inaccurate or inappropriate. Apes at a distance resemble
> men ("anthropos"), hence anthropoid. A small solar system
> body seen at a distance with the naked eye or small telescope
> resembles a star ("aster"), hence asteroid (coined by Sir
> William Herschel in 1801 when he looked at Ceres and saw
> a point of light like a star). In other words, the "-oid" term
> refers to resemblances based on ignorance.
>
> The IAU would seem to be the authority there.
>
> Now, I'm going to sit down and drink a toast to each and
> every one of the Solar System's 23 Planets.
>
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> PS: Oddly, Mike Brown seems to think "Santa" (2003 EL61)
> will be counted as a "Plutoid" even it clearly is not bright enough
> (at H = +0.17); the IAU specifically says the H = +1.0 limit
> applies. I don't why he thinks that. He discusses the magnitude
> limit, says he finds it strange. I don't think he's figured it out yet.
> http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/06/plutoid-fever.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <lebofsky at lpl.arizona.edu>
> To: <cynapse at charter.net>
> Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] And the winner is-- Plutoid!
>
>
> Hi All:
>
> I will probably be going to the August meeting in Maryland, so it will be
> interesting to see how this new terminology goes over.
>
> So everything round and icy (maybe) is a Plutoid, which means Pluto-like.
> Since we don't know what Pluto is (at least what to define it as), this
> really makes a whole lot of sense. NOT!
>
> I predict it will go over like a lead balloon.
>
> Larry L.
>
> The previous statements are the opinion of the author and may not reflect
> the opinions of other scientists.
>
>
>
> On Wed, June 11, 2008 12:58 pm, Darren Garrison wrote:
>> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080611-plutoid-planets.html
>>
>>
>> Pluto Now Called a Plutoid
>> By Robert Roy Britt
>> Senior Science Writer
>> posted: 11 June 2008
>> 10:30 am ET
>>
>>
>> Updated 2:00 p.m. ET
>>
>>
>> Pluto's years-long identity crisis just got more complex today.
>>
>>
>> The International Astronomical Union has decided on the term "plutoid" as
>> a name for Pluto and other objects that just two years ago were redefined
>> as "dwarf planets."
>>
>> The surprise decision is unlikely to stem ongoing controversy and
>> confusion, astronomers say.
>>
>> Sidestepping concerns of many astronomers worldwide, the IAU's decision,
>> at a meeting of its Executive Committee in Oslo, comes almost two years
>> after it stripped Pluto of its planethood and introduced the term "dwarf
>> planets" for Pluto and other small round objects that often travel highly
>> elliptical paths around the sun in the far reaches of the solar system.
>>
>> "Most of the people in astronomy and planetary science community had no
>> idea this was going to come out," said Hal Weaver of the Johns Hopkins
>> University
>> Applied Physics Laboratory. Weaver called the new definition "sort of
>> outdated, outmoded, archaic."
>>
>> A meeting in August at the Applied Physics Laboratory is slated to debate
>> the entire topic of defining planets. Meanwhile, other astronomers said
>> the new definition needed more definition or that it might simply not be
>> used.
>>
>> "This seems like an unattractive term and an unnecessary one to me," said
>> David
>> Morrison, an astronomer at NASA's Ames Research Center who, in 2006, said
>> the IAU's actions on Pluto have created major rifts among astronomers.
>>
>>
>> The new definition
>>
>>
>> The name plutoid was proposed by the members of the IAU Committee on
>> Small Body
>> Nomenclature (CSBN), accepted by the Board of Division III and by the IAU
>> Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN), and approved by
>> the IAU Executive Committee at its recent meeting in Oslo, according to a
>> statement released today.
>>
>> Here's the official new definition:
>>
>>
>> "Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the sun at a distance
>> greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their
>> self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a
>> hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared
>> the neighborhood around their orbit."
>>
>> In short: small round things beyond Neptune that orbit the sun and have
>> lots of rocky neighbors.
>>
>> The two known and named plutoids are Pluto and Eris, the IAU stated. The
>> organization expects more plutoids will be found.
>>
>> "Rather than resistance to 'plutoid,' I think we'll just be hearing
>> groans," said Stephen J. Kortenkamp, senior scientist at the Planetary
>> Science Institute
>> in Tucson.
>>
>> Controversy continues
>>
>>
>> One IAU leader recognizes it is adding to an ongoing controversy.
>>
>>
>> The IAU has been responsible for naming planetary bodies and their
>> satellites since the early 1900s. Its decision in 2006 to demote Pluto
>> was
>> highly controversial, with some astronomers saying simply that they would
>> not heed it and questioning the IAU's validity as a governing body.
>>
>> "The IAU is a democratic organization, thus open to comments and
>> criticism of any kind," IAU General Secretary Karel A. van der Hucht told
>> SPACE.com by email
>> today. "Given the history of the issue, we will probably never reach a
>> complete consensus."
>>
>> Van der Hucht said the new designation is not a further demotion for the
>> once-favorite planet of grade-school children: "Pluto is now the
>> prototype
>> of a very interesting category of outer solar system bodies."
>>
>> IAU Division III President Edward L.G. Bowell of the Lowell Observatory
>> said the ruling stems from unfinished business from the forging of a
>> planet definition in 2006. Bowell said there is no agreed-upon way to
>> define "dwarf planet" yet, so "officers of the IAU thought it would be a
>> good idea to adopt alternative criteria that would at least allow those
>> large bodies to be named as though they were dwarf planets."
>>
>> It remains to be seen whether astronomers will use the new term.
>>
>>
>> "My guess is that no one is going to much use this term, though perhaps
>> I'm
>> wrong," said Caltech astronomer Mike Brown, who has led the discovery of
>> several objects in the outer solar system, including Eris. "But I don't
>> think that this will be because it is controversial, just not
>> particularly
>> necessary."
>>
>> Brown was unaware of the new definition until the IAU announced it today.
>>
>>
>> "Back when the term 'pluton' was nixed they said they would come up with
>> another one," Brown said. "So I guess they finally did."
>>
>> Reactions were not all negative, however.
>>
>>
>> "It seems like a reasonable decision to me, and given the excitement
>> generated by New Horizons [a NASA probe headed for Pluto], it's in
>> everyone's interest to favor the largest Kuiper belt objects with their
>> own categorical designation," said Gregory Laughlin, a University of
>> California, Santa Cruz extrasolar planet
>> researcher.
>>
>> "The only fly in the ointment that I can envision is if a plutoid larger,
>> than, say, Mars is detected," Laughlin points out. "In that case, I think
>> we'd see a big flare-up of the what-is-a-planet debate."
>>
>> More debate coming
>>
>>
>> The dwarf planet Ceres (which used to be called an asteroid, and before
>> that was called a planet!) is not a plutoid as it is located in the
>> asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, according to the IAU. Current
>> scientific knowledge lends credence to the belief that Ceres is the only
>> object of its kind, the IAU stated. Therefore, a separate category of
>> Ceres-like dwarf planets will not be
>> proposed at this time, the reasoning goes.
>>
>> Weaver, the Johns Hopkins researcher, has helped organized a meeting,
>> planned earlier this year for Aug. 14-16 at Johns Hopkins University
>> Applied Physics
>> Laboratory, that aims to bring astronomers of varying viewpoints together
>> to discuss the controversy.
>>
>> "We're not trying to slam the IAU, it's just that we also don't want to
>> lead people to the idea that there's a handful of people who decide where
>> science should go," Weaver said today. The meeting is designed to
>> "address
>> this question in terms of a scientific conference." He said no votes will
>> be taken at the meeting. Rather, it's a time to "sit back and take stock
>> of everything we've learned in the past couple of decades."
>>
>> The term plutoid joins a host of other odd words -- plutinos, centaurs,
>> cubewanos and EKOs -- that astronomers have conjured in recent years to
>> define objects in the outer solar system, whose appearance seems to grow
>> more complex every year.
>>
>> Kortenkamp wonders if "plutoid" isn't just one more confusing term in the
>> cosmic lexicon.
>>
>> "So Pluto is a Kuiper belt object, a plutino (the unofficial but nearly
>> universally accepted name for objects in the 2:3 resonance with Neptune),
>> a dwarf planet, and now also a plutoid?" he said. "If the IAU is trying
>> to
>> make things more clear, I think it needs to try again. This is just
>> another layer of confusion that will feed the "pluto is a planet" camp at
>> the [Johns Hopkings] meeting."
>>
>> Kortenkamp also thinks the new defiinition leaves Ceres up in the air:
>> "And this
>> "-oid" classification doesn't apply to Ceres?" he asks. "Okay, so does
>> that means we continue calling Ceres an ASTERoid?"
>>
>> Asked if Ceres remains a dwarf planet and is not an asteroid, Bowell, the
>> IAU
>> official, said: "I think so!"
>> ______________________________________________
>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>> Meteorite-list mailing list
>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Thu 12 Jun 2008 03:35:12 PM PDT