[meteorite-list] Definition
Hello All, Will someone please define what a "competing organization" means with regard to the GMA? John L __ Visit our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/meteoritecentral and the Archives at http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com https://pairlist3.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Definition of meteorite dealer
Hi all I greatly enjoyed the definition of meteorite collector. So how does one define a meteorite dealer? How about a meteorite collector who needs more money to add to his collection? good hunting, and hopefully a better year ahead for all of us, E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas __ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Definition of Hammer
I read somewhere that a Hammer in the meteorite world came from a meteorite striking: H = Human A = Animal M = Man- M = Made E = ? R = ? Or did I just make that up? If it's true, does anyone know what the E and R stand for? Anita __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] Definition of 'Planet' Expected in September
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060608_planet_definition.html Definition of 'Planet' Expected in September By Robert Roy Britt space.com 08 June 2006 Historians and educators have joined astronomers in an effort to break a deadlock on contentious discussions over a definition for the word planet. A decision is expected in September, but history suggests rewriting the textbooks could be more challenging than finding tiny new worlds at the edge of the solar system. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is expected to propose wording to delineate planets from other small, round objects at its 12-day General Assembly meeting in Prague this August. The proposal will be based on recommendations from a newly formed committee that includes experts outside the realm of astronomy tasked to break a deadlock in earlier committee discussions. Depending on the outcome of a separate controversial procedural issue - whether IAU members should be allowed to vote on such things - astronomers might then have the chance to weigh in on the definition later in the same meeting, SPACE.com has learned. If approved, the definition would then be announced in September. Rewrite the textbooks... Some might think it ironic that the world's governing body for astronomy does not have a definition for planet. The problem stretches back to the late 1990s, when astronomers began discovering Pluto-like objects in the distant reaches of our solar system. All the newfound worlds - there are several known now - were until recently smaller than Pluto, but they are round and orbit the Sun, two characteristics that had for centuries been sufficient for the implicit definition of planet. The hitch: These small objects are typically on wild, elongated orbits that stretch well above and below the main plane of the solar system where eight of the traditional planets travel (Pluto has a wild orbit, too, which is one reason many astronomers do not consider it a planet anymore). So what to call them? Astronomers have been arguing about it in earnest since 1999. The controversy came to a head with the July 2005 announcement of 2003 UB313, an object roughly the size of Pluto that orbits the Sun beyond Neptune. The object's discoverer, Mike Brown of Caltech, has argued it should be called a planet. But other astronomers say that if planethood is bestowed upon 2003 UB313, then several similar way-out bodies should gain the same status, and the number of planets in our solar system could ultimately climb into the thousands as search technology improves. Still waiting... The IAU had deferred judgment until it could come up with a definition. That process was debated in an IAU committee for more than a year. But the dozen or so astronomers on the committee could not agree whether to define planet strictly by mass, or to consider orbital characteristics as well as how and where a planet formed, among other things. Last fall they argued over possibly putting adjectives in front of planet, such as gas giant, terrestrial, asteroidal and perhaps even traditional or historic to grandfather Pluto into the family of regular worlds. Those talks broke down, however. Recently, the issue was handed off to a new committee that includes historians and educators, said Alan Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington who was on the first committee. They wanted a different perspective from that of planetary scientists, said Edward Bowell, an astronomer at Lowell Observatory who is also vice president of the IAU's Division III-Planetary Systems Sciences group. Uncertain future Neither Bowell nor Boss knows what exactly might happen next, however. Nor does Brian Marsden, leader of the Minor Planet Center where newfound objects are catalogued. Marsden was also on the first definition committee. The new committee is supposed to recommend what 'should be done' about Pluto, 2003 UB313 and other 'largish' small bodies, but it is not clear that what they decide will depend on mass, Marsden told SPACE.com. Marsden said it's also unclear how the IAU will reach an ultimate resolution. The IAU made the interesting policy decision in 2003 to disenfranchise its members, and they were therefore not allowed to vote on 'scientific matters' (such as what a planet is) at the last plenary General Assembly session at the Sydney meeting [in 2003], Marsden said. There are rumors that there may be an administrative decision to re-enfranchise us at the first of the upcoming plenary sessions this August in Prague - so that suggested vote might be possible at the second. That is indeed the plan, IAU General Secretary Oddbjorn Engvold explained yesterday. The advisory Committee is scheduled to meet June 30, Engvold said by email. Their proposal and advice will be forwarded to the IAU Executive Committee, who will present the matter for decision at the IAU General Assembly in Prague, Engvold said. Assuming that the
[meteorite-list] Definition Debate: Planets May Soon Get Adjectives
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050921_planet_definition.html Definition Debate: Planets May Soon Get Adjectives By Robert Roy Britt space.com 21 September 2005 An international group of astronomers trying to define the term planet may be finally nearing a decision, but a consensus is unlikely. If a decision is soon rendered as expected, with or without consensus, the result will be less of a definition, however, and more a string of qualifying adjectives. The upshot: Astronomers will likely continue using the term planet, or they might switch to planetary mass object. And either way, they will put other terms in front of it to define each type, such as gas giant, terrestrial, asteroidal and perhaps even traditional or historic. In the end, the phrase nine planets will almost surely be relegated to the history books. The challenge The effort has been ongoing for several years, as new sorts of objects in the solar system and beyond have rendered the traditional idea of planet useless to astronomers and confusing for the public. The announcement in July of a world larger than Pluto orbiting our Sun out beyond Neptune brought discussions to a head. A 19-member working group within the International Astronomical Union has been scrambling ever since to reach consensus, but to no avail. The main sticking point: If Pluto is a planet, then so is 2003 UB313, the object discovered in July. But by that logic, there are several other round objects nearly as big as Pluto that should be considered planets, some astronomers say. The compromise currently being floated by the working group is to add an adjective in front of the term planet for each different type of non-stellar round object. Pluto and 2003 UB313 could be called Trans-Neptunian objects. Earth would be called either a terrestrial planet or perhaps a cisjovian planet, meaning it's inside Jupiter. Further complicating the matter are extrasolar planets much more massive then Jupiter, planet-like objects orbiting dead stars called pulsars, and possibly even free-floating worlds that don't orbit stars. No consensus Today, a news article in the journal Nature states that the working group has come up with the adjective-adding solution and may forward the final proposal to the IAU Executive Committee within two weeks. If that's to be the case, then the group's chairman, Iwan Williams of Queen Mary, University of London, will likely have to act without consensus. Every time we think some of us are reaching a consensus, then somebody says something to show very clearly that we're not, said Brian Marsden, a member of the group and leader of the Minor Planet Center where newfound objects are catalogued. Today Marsden told SPACE.com that it's not clear if a consensus will be reached soon. I thought maybe we were close, he said, but just yesterday somebody [in the group] insisted we define planet. That's the very effort that's gone mostly in circles for many months, however. Nonetheless, a subcommittee within the working group was formed and is supposed to report back Friday. Marsden calls the effort not helpful because it's quite clear we weren't going to agree on a meaning for the word planet. Adjective problems, too Even the sorts of adjectives that might be used is not totally agreed upon. The terms Trans-Neptunian and cisjovian are based on location, not composition. I don't believe we should classify planetary objects by location, committee member Alan Stern of the Southwest Research Institute told Nature. We should use properties of the objects as a guide. Group member Alan Boss said there is a majority that agrees with the adjective plan and a minority that's still upset. Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, sees the whole affair as a positive one for science. We know so much more now about the types of objects that are out there, Boss said in a telephone interview today, that even though a consensus is unlikely, the act of expanding the classification system is a healthy one. Even if the proposal is soon forwarded to the IAU Executive Council, that body might then conduct its own debate, Boss said. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
