Hi,
The answer is: the Gang of Eight Planets like Neptune,
which is the key planet in Julio Fernandez's (the author of
the alternative definition) theory of solar system formation,
and too many or too big "Plutonians" makes his theory look,
well, WRONG, so they don't like Pluto and the KBO's, which
according to Julio were supposed to be a narrow band of
low mass trash, and turn out increasingly not to be.
He's trying to define his problem away.
Sterling K. Webb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob McCafferty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Devil's advocate
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
[email protected]
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
______________________________________________
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
