| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Pluto
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| micky |
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:scqks2dv6df2uqmhbi5l8ktd2n922c3fpq@4ax.com...
Quote: On 7 Feb 2007 14:26:38 -0800, "outofthisworldlizi"
outofthisworldlizi@gmail.com> wrote:
What do you guys think about Pluto? Should it be considered a dwarf
planet?
For the moment, why not? It's a planet of the dwarf class, just as Mars
is a planet of the terrestrial class and Jupiter is a planet of the gas
giant class. We need to classify the planets as part of the process of
understanding their origins.
"Dwarf planet", however, is a bit weak. I expect a better classification
will be developed that defines it by something a little more important
than size. This particular classification wasn't very well thought out.
This won't even be properly settled util New Horizons does it thing out
thar.
We know next to nothing about Pluto. What if it is just a large icy or even
cometary
body? Why isn't Ceres referred to as a failed planet when in fact that's
what it is even though
it is intimately linked to the asteroid belt.
dwarf planet suits me fine too for Pluto irregardless of it's makeup and
avg. density. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| dogman |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 7, 6:15 pm, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
Quote: outofthisworldl...@gmail.com> wrote:
What do you guys think about Pluto? Should it be considered a dwarf
planet?
Out of sight, out of mind. I hardly ever think about Pluto.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
Does this mean the little guys not going to be taken off the main
Ephemeris tables on the night sky programs? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ed |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
As I've said before there are many facets to this problem.
Above and beyond everything else, Pluto was called a Planet for what
75 years or so because why?
Professional astronomers dillied and dallied and found all sorts of
reasons why they just could not compose a definition.
And, BTW, it doesn't take Websters 75 years to conclude that new
verbiage should be called a real word complete with it's definition.
And as new technology came on line we found out how small it was which
added support for those who wanted to change things just to change
them
And yes, I know there are all types of reasons like "clearing of the
orbit" which is truly rediculous as very few planets have truly
cleared their own orbits. Another reason is that it's orbit is too
skewed to be a planet even though it orbits the Sun and has it's own
system of satellites.
And then when a new body, larger than Pluto, was finally discovered,
these "Professional" Astronomers decide to throw the baby out with the
bathwater and claim, illogically, that this new body is not a Planet
and Pluto too is not either.
Sorry, but it's not logical but it is being Ornery.
Plus the fact that when the vote was taken, many of the attending
astronomers at that IAU meeting had left and many,many more did not
even attend and did not vote.
A few scientists do side with me and there is an ongoing discussion.
And there is the rest of humanity too that did not weigh in.
So one upshot is that those of us who are not "Professional"
Astronomers are now wondering about the sanity of this group of folks.
Don't get me wrong, I respect people but sometimes a PhD does not
always mean that along with the degree comes wisdom. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg Crinklaw |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ed wrote:
Quote: And yes, I know there are all types of reasons like "clearing of the
orbit" which is truly rediculous as very few planets have truly
cleared their own orbits.
Utter nonsense. This is not some silly thing that was made up. It is
backed by real science. The unfortunate thing is that the wording of
the definition wasn't as clear as it could have been in describing the
scientific basis. Some people have used that lack of clarity for
political purposes, intentionally confusing the issue. There is an
important distinction to be drawn between lack of clarity of the last
minute wording of the definition and a lack of a scientific basis.
One thing I have zero respect for is that certain professional
astronomers intentionally mislead people as to the basis of this
definition for their own personal and political reasons. Doing so was
childish and irrational. That is something rather unfortunate and to
tell you the truth it makes me angry.
If you want to understand the definition, here is something I wrote that
explains it, including links to the science behind it:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/dwarfs.html
For those who can't be bothered to follow a link and read the text, here
is a quote from the abstract of a scientific paper:
"Theoretical and observational measures of dynamical dominance reveal a
gap of four to five orders of magnitude separating the eight planets of
our solar system from the populations of asteroids and comets."
This dynamical criterion provides a clear distinction even between
bodies such as Mercury and Pluto, with Mercury falling way on one side
and Pluto falling far off on the other.
To sum up, please don't repeat this nonsense that few planets have
cleared their orbits. That's just sour grapes from the losers.
Greg
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Starboard |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Clearly there is a
difference between a "scientific taxonomy" which is what I said, and a
"taxonomy." In fact I thought I made that distinction myself...
I thought a taxonomy _was_ scientific...
I must have skipped out that day when we went over the taxonomy for
the taxonomies.
Errol |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
outofthisworldlizi wrote:
Quote: What do you guys think about Pluto? Should it be considered a dwarf
planet?
Actually, this particular topic was, of course, discussed to death in
this newsgroup back when the controversial decision was announced.
It's a bit late to raise the issue again.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kT |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quadibloc wrote:
Quote: outofthisworldlizi wrote:
What do you guys think about Pluto? Should it be considered a dwarf
planet?
Actually, this particular topic was, of course, discussed to death in
this newsgroup back when the controversial decision was announced.
It's a bit late to raise the issue again.
No it's not. A dwarf planet is a planet, therefore Pluto is a planet.
QED. End of discussion.
--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc |
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
kT wrote:
Quote: Quadibloc wrote:
outofthisworldlizi wrote:
What do you guys think about Pluto? Should it be considered a dwarf
planet?
Actually, this particular topic was, of course, discussed to death in
this newsgroup back when the controversial decision was announced.
It's a bit late to raise the issue again.
No it's not. A dwarf planet is a planet, therefore Pluto is a planet.
QED. End of discussion.
Therefore, a minor planet is a planet.
Hence, Chiron and Hidalgo and Vesta and Metis and Eunomia and so on
are all planets.
Oops.
Of course, *if* some textbook writers *did* subscribe to the idea that
dwarf planets were planets, and *others* took what seems to be the
consensus view, I suppose everyone could be happy.
Anyways, objectively, our solar system contains...
Four gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune)
Four lithic planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars)
One dwarf lithic planet (Ceres)
Several giant cometoids (Pluto, Eris, Quaoar, Sedna, and others)
That won't satisfy everyone. That will *confuse* everyone.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kevin M. Vernon |
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Quote:
Therefore, a minor planet is a planet.
Hence, Chiron and Hidalgo and Vesta and Metis and Eunomia and so on
are all planets.
Oops.
Of course, *if* some textbook writers *did* subscribe to the idea that
dwarf planets were planets, and *others* took what seems to be the
consensus view, I suppose everyone could be happy.
Anyways, objectively, our solar system contains...
Four gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune)
Four lithic planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars)
One dwarf lithic planet (Ceres)
Several giant cometoids (Pluto, Eris, Quaoar, Sedna, and others)
That won't satisfy everyone. That will *confuse* everyone.
John Savard
Being picky about it...... this system contains ONE planet (Jupiter)
and assorted debris. (Everything else)
Ok, done being picky.
-Kevin in INDY. Which is on Earth. Part of the Assorted Debris.
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Quadibloc |
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kevin M. Vernon wrote:
Quote: "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Anyways, objectively, our solar system contains...
Four gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune)
Four lithic planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars)
One dwarf lithic planet (Ceres)
Several giant cometoids (Pluto, Eris, Quaoar, Sedna, and others)
That won't satisfy everyone. That will *confuse* everyone.
Being picky about it...... this system contains ONE planet (Jupiter)
and assorted debris. (Everything else)
I know Isaac Asimov said that... but I don't think it's really true
that Saturn is so small, compared to Jupiter, that beside Jupiter it
would hardly be noticed.
It's after the four gas giants that a "debris" threshold could
actually be placed, if one were so inclined. But as we are inhabitants
of Earth, miniscule though it is compared to Uranus and Neptune, this
is not an inclination likely to be shared widely.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:13 pm
|
|
