Hi, All,
Mexico Doug said:
The IAU Committee has utterly failed
by not including... Historians...
but how about including someone
with real experience and credentials
And I've got to disagree. They appointed Owen Gingerich
to head this committee for that very reason. There is no more
knowledgeable historian of astronomy than he. It's like they got
somebody who had lunch with Kepler yesterday...
I'm not going to write his press release here; Google him.
I will point out that another sound "political" reason for
appointing him: his own specialty as an astronomer is...
The Sun, so he has no biases for any particular population
of planets.
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. 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, 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...
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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ron Baalke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Meteorite Mailing List"
<[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
