Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Hi Sterling: I am so far behind in reading emails that I am now reading the most recent and going backwards. Hence my response to your email from Wednesday. First, with only about 425 scientists voting on the porposal Thursday, there is now a petition for the planetary (and astronomy?) community in support of somthing closer to the original proposal (properties of the object, not where it is located). A more general one may follow (I will let you all know). I agree with you (almost) completely. Except with the composition of Ceres. With a density of just over 2.0, there is a lot of water in Ceres. It is assumed to be all below the surface (as water ice is not stable on its surface), but it is a good match to CI and CM meteorites and so has a good deal of water in it. So, it is most likely a very wet rock. From the HST images, which show white spots, it may even have some water ice on its surface. I would be thrilled with that since I predicted ice on Ceres and then showed that it could not have any since it is too warm. More recent work has show that my observational analysis may not have been too far off (Dawn will give us the answer). Larry Quoting Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Doug and All, 1. Since it seems only right to declare your personal biases first, I am a 12+ proponent and a firm believer (on the basis of faith and a few numerical approximations) that an object beyond Pluto and bigger than the planet Mercury exists and will be discovered. (Then, the Clasical Eight become the Big Seven and Mercury is a solar asteroid!) 2. I firmly agree with Ron Baalke (who's a Pro-Eight) that the cultural component of this dispute is a major, maybe THE major, consideration. This a great opportunity to make science look silly to the populace, something we really don't need right now. Once formed, public perception is hard to change. What we have to decide is what makes science look sillier, or less silly. 3. While I may have made snide remarks about the IAU as preferring to dally and postpone, this may well be a time when that is the best idea. Declare a cooling off period; send it to another committee. The whole vote issue popped up too quickly, and it may well be that there just hasn't been time (or calm) enough for everybody to think it through. 4. While you are undoubtedly correct, Doug, about Latinate terms being appropriate, the Latinate term for cold has unfortunate associations in American-English slang, where frig is used as a not-too-polite euphemism for an old Anglo-Saxon verb with a similar sound. It would be the source of as much (more) classroom giggling as the pronunciation of Uranus. But cryo- and cryonic have widespread usage, popularly and scientifically (for that very reason, I suspect). 5. Even the guy who declared his love of Pluto in the New York Times (Susan's post) says of Pluto: It's mostly ice. Everybody calls the Plutonians ICEBALLS when this is obviously and unequivocally WRONG. People on this List do it all the time; scientists who don't like Pluonians as planets do it (and they should know better). The density of Pluto is 2.08. Ice has a density of 0.92. Because water-ice is compressible and then converts to a number of polymorphic crystalline structures of higher density, depending on the size of the body. (IceIII is the most likely, with a density of 1.14.) But the pressures required are very great. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html But basically, a body with a density of 2.08 (Pluto) is best explained as containing 70% to 75% rock of density 2.7 and a mantle of mixed ices that is only the outer 10% to 13% of the planetary radius deep. (A shallow ice mantle limits the density of the ice.) That's a mantle if it's differentiated, but if it's just mixed, the compositional averages are the same. The density of Ceres (2.03) is the same as Pluto. Lots of the Plutonians have similar densities. 2003EL61's shape sets a density range limited to 2.6 to 3.3 (like the Earth's Moon, a well-known rockball). It's 100% rockball -- no ice at all (except for the surface dusting). Pluto's a rockball. Ceres is a rockball. Can you say ROCKBALL, boys and girls? If a body is 70%+ rock, why keep calling it an iceball? Wassup with that? Because it's cold? Calling Pluto an iceball is like calling the Earth a dirtball. I look at Earth's surface and it's mostly dirt, so the planet Earth is mostly made of dirt, right? Please, enough with the iceball! Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: MexicoDoug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; Sterling_K_Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets Hello Sterling, why not throw Pluto a bone
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Thumbing through my (signed) copy of The Grand Tour by Miller and Hartmann, I see an interesting comment regarding pluto: At first Classified as a planet, Ceres was later downgraded because it was so small, and because it is accompanied by numerous smaller objects in nearby orbits. Pluto may undergo the same fate. Copyright dates are 1993 and 1981. Seem to have been prohpetic. -Walter Branch __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Yes, Sterling, as Larry mentions, carbonaceous chondrites have been proposed as questionable yet decent matches for Ceres, though others add that primitive achondrites are where it is at and that the biggest inner minor planet is somewhat differentiated. Looks like there aren't any especially prominent silicate signatures in Ceres' spectrum, and I do see that the literature has shown heating has a big effect the interpretation of the artifacts that characterize the spectra. I.e., the match gets a little better if you cook the hell out of Murchison CM2 meteorite powder (up to 1000 C) and then compare it to Ceres, formerly known as a G-class anomalous asteroid. But we need more information to be sure and that is in the pipeline with NASA's Dawn mission.So, silicate composition for Ceres are not a given, nor a prominent feature on Ceres reflectance spectrum, and while I haven't looked into it, I suspect that might be a modified but similar case for KBOs like Pluto, though I confess not reading anything on the current state of knowledge there. Refs: Hiroi, T., Searching for the parent bodies of meteorites through reflectance spectroscopy: Current state. Evolution of Solar System Materials: A New Perspective from Antarctic Meteorites, 38-39 (2003). T. Hiroi, C. M. Pieters, M. E. Zolensky, and M. E. Lipschutz, Evidence of thermal metamorphism on the C, G, B, and F asteroids. Science 261, 1016-1018, (1993). You can download these articles here: http://www.planetary.brown.edu/~hiroi/Publicat.htm Oh and don't miss these early abstracts, maybe someone could give us a hand with them: Freierberg, M.E. and L. Lebofsky, Icarus v. 63 p. 183 (1985). Jones, T. Lebofsky, L., Lewis, J., and M. Marley, Icarus v. 88 p. 172 (1990). Best wishes, Doug Larry wrote: With a density of just over 2.0, there is a lot of water in Ceres. It is assumed to be all below the surface (as water ice is not stable on its surface), but it is a good match to CI and CM meteorites and so has a good deal of water in it. So, it is most likely a very wet rock. From the HST images, which show white spots, it may even have some water ice on its surface. I would be thrilled with that since I predicted ice on Ceres and then showed that it could not have any since it is too warm. More recent work has show that my observational analysis may not have been too far off (Dawn will give us the answer). Larry Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
--- Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I look at Earth's surface and it's mostly dirt, so the planet Earth is mostly made of dirt, right? I know it's pedantic but waterball would be a better analogy. ~70% surface is water (not dirt) but there really isn't much of it on earth as a whole. I agree with your sentiments Sterling. I particularly thought Hmm, they're NEVER gonna call them frigospheres. titter. Although I am pro 8 I agree that suddenly demoting Pluto may end up making everyone look silly. As someone else pointed out, in 100 years, nobody's going to cae what we call them. I suspect that in 100 years I won't care either. Somehow I doubt that science can make me live to 140 when it cannot properly decide what a planet is! Can't we just ignore the problem? Maybe it'll go away! __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
i before e except after c, and when sounded like a as in neighbor and weigh. a body is a planet, when [fill in the approved definition], except for Pluto . . . there are exceptions to every other rule ever conceived, seems like we could throw Pluto a bone and let it stay on the team without disrupting the order of the universe too much. just a half a cuppa coffee thought . . . take care susan - Original Message - From: Rob McCafferty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets --- Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I look at Earth's surface and it's mostly dirt, so the planet Earth is mostly made of dirt, right? I know it's pedantic but waterball would be a better analogy. ~70% surface is water (not dirt) but there really isn't much of it on earth as a whole. I agree with your sentiments Sterling. I particularly thought Hmm, they're NEVER gonna call them frigospheres. titter. Although I am pro 8 I agree that suddenly demoting Pluto may end up making everyone look silly. As someone else pointed out, in 100 years, nobody's going to cae what we call them. I suspect that in 100 years I won't care either. Somehow I doubt that science can make me live to 140 when it cannot properly decide what a planet is! Can't we just ignore the problem? Maybe it'll go away! __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Hello List, It appears that the only reason for dropping poor Pluto from the list of planets is an Americancultural bias in that SIZE COUNTS. Pluto, as do the rest of the planets, orbits the Sun in a somewhat regular manneras a planet; therefore leave its classification alone. Science may change the status of Pluto; but Pluto will still exist as it has without any concern of Man`s (new-school-biased? Astronomer`s) scheme of things. Sincerely, Pluto fan making 9.Dirk Ross...Tokyo__ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
I love that word. I can't wait to try and get it into casual conversation. Cheeri Rob McC --- Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most correct technical term would be the jawbreaker CRYOSILICATE object. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Hello List, It appears that the only reason for dropping poor Pluto from the list of planets is an Americancultural bias in that SIZE COUNTS. Pluto, as do the rest of the planets, orbits the Sun in a somewhat regular manneras a planet; therefore leave its classification alone. Science may change the status of Pluto; but Pluto will still exist as it has without any concern of Man`s (new-school-biased? Astronomer`s) scheme of things. Sincerely, Pluto fan making 9.Dirk Ross...Tokyo__ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Hello Sterling, why not throw Pluto a bone like they are trying to do? On the other hand, nice word - but we've seen that nothing is most correct in this business. Cryo- is Greek, by the way. What ever happened to TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects). My correct latinized preference, with nice alliterations for poetic use, would be: FRIGOPHILE Scientifically, this world captures the accepted hypotheses that these planets thrive like rabbits out there and if brought in closer to the Sun would croak. Other possibilities are: Frigoliths Frigolithospheres Best wishes, Doug The most correct technical term would be the jawbreaker CRYOSILICATE object. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Hi, Doug and All, 1. Since it seems only right to declare your personal biases first, I am a 12+ proponent and a firm believer (on the basis of faith and a few numerical approximations) that an object beyond Pluto and bigger than the planet Mercury exists and will be discovered. (Then, the Clasical Eight become the Big Seven and Mercury is a solar asteroid!) 2. I firmly agree with Ron Baalke (who's a Pro-Eight) that the cultural component of this dispute is a major, maybe THE major, consideration. This a great opportunity to make science look silly to the populace, something we really don't need right now. Once formed, public perception is hard to change. What we have to decide is what makes science look sillier, or less silly. 3. While I may have made snide remarks about the IAU as preferring to dally and postpone, this may well be a time when that is the best idea. Declare a cooling off period; send it to another committee. The whole vote issue popped up too quickly, and it may well be that there just hasn't been time (or calm) enough for everybody to think it through. 4. While you are undoubtedly correct, Doug, about Latinate terms being appropriate, the Latinate term for cold has unfortunate associations in American-English slang, where frig is used as a not-too-polite euphemism for an old Anglo-Saxon verb with a similar sound. It would be the source of as much (more) classroom giggling as the pronunciation of Uranus. But cryo- and cryonic have widespread usage, popularly and scientifically (for that very reason, I suspect). 5. Even the guy who declared his love of Pluto in the New York Times (Susan's post) says of Pluto: It's mostly ice. Everybody calls the Plutonians ICEBALLS when this is obviously and unequivocally WRONG. People on this List do it all the time; scientists who don't like Pluonians as planets do it (and they should know better). The density of Pluto is 2.08. Ice has a density of 0.92. Because water-ice is compressible and then converts to a number of polymorphic crystalline structures of higher density, depending on the size of the body. (IceIII is the most likely, with a density of 1.14.) But the pressures required are very great. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html But basically, a body with a density of 2.08 (Pluto) is best explained as containing 70% to 75% rock of density 2.7 and a mantle of mixed ices that is only the outer 10% to 13% of the planetary radius deep. (A shallow ice mantle limits the density of the ice.) That's a mantle if it's differentiated, but if it's just mixed, the compositional averages are the same. The density of Ceres (2.03) is the same as Pluto. Lots of the Plutonians have similar densities. 2003EL61's shape sets a density range limited to 2.6 to 3.3 (like the Earth's Moon, a well-known rockball). It's 100% rockball -- no ice at all (except for the surface dusting). Pluto's a rockball. Ceres is a rockball. Can you say ROCKBALL, boys and girls? If a body is 70%+ rock, why keep calling it an iceball? Wassup with that? Because it's cold? Calling Pluto an iceball is like calling the Earth a dirtball. I look at Earth's surface and it's mostly dirt, so the planet Earth is mostly made of dirt, right? Please, enough with the iceball! Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: MexicoDoug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; Sterling_K_Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets Hello Sterling, why not throw Pluto a bone like they are trying to do? On the other hand, nice word - but we've seen that nothing is most correct in this business. Cryo- is Greek, by the way. What ever happened to TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects). My correct latinized preference, with nice alliterations for poetic use, would be: FRIGOPHILE Scientifically, this world captures the accepted hypotheses that these planets thrive like rabbits out there and if brought in closer to the Sun would croak. Other possibilities are: Frigoliths Frigolithospheres Best wishes, Doug The most correct technical term would be the jawbreaker CRYOSILICATE object. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Whoever originally came up with the title Astronomers Lean Towards Eight Planets really should hang their head in shame for not coming up with Astronoers Gravitate Towards Eight Planets. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
In a message dated 8/23/2006 4:38:36 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2. I firmly agree with Ron Baalke (who's a Pro-Eight) that the cultural component of this dispute is a major, maybe THE major, consideration. This a great opportunity to make science look silly to the populace, something we really don't need right now. Once formed, public perception is hard to change. What we have to decide is what makes science look sillier, or less silly. -- I have been reading all those posts about the 8 - 9 - 12 - 10 planets, and trying to make sense out of it. Yes, the cultural component is a major consideration. From the time I was a little girl going to the Planetarium in Paris, I was taught that a Planet was a sphere orbiting the Sun. And that there were 9 of them. There could be more, we simply didn't know enough to tell one way or the other. And the masses that weren't round? they were Asteroids. Period. And that covered the whole thing. No discussion as to composition, angle of the orbit, number of moons, or distance from the Sun. To me that still covers it. And that makes perfect sense. Regardless of numbers. Now why can't the members of the IAU see it that way? aren't they simply lacking Common Sense? Vox Populi. Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] President, I.M.C.A. Inc. www.IMCA.cc __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Hi all - plutonians? I think not - pluton has a well defined geological (planetary) usage. plutos, with Pluto being the first of the class, and no new word to remember, just add s and make the P a p - easy enough, and clyde'ss friends can't be too upset with it - Hopefully this will all be over by thursday, for the time being... and we can get back to the formation of meteorite parent bodies, hunting, dealing, pricing... damn, I'm almost ready for another add from Chicago... and whatever happened to Michael Casper, who liquidated his holdings right before the torrent from NWA flooded the market, while telling us all he was going out of the dealing business for personal reasons? cagey, wasn't he? good hunting, Ed --- Sterling K. Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Doug and All, 1. Since it seems only right to declare your personal biases first, I am a 12+ proponent and a firm believer (on the basis of faith and a few numerical approximations) that an object beyond Pluto and bigger than the planet Mercury exists and will be discovered. (Then, the Clasical Eight become the Big Seven and Mercury is a solar asteroid!) 2. I firmly agree with Ron Baalke (who's a Pro-Eight) that the cultural component of this dispute is a major, maybe THE major, consideration. This a great opportunity to make science look silly to the populace, something we really don't need right now. Once formed, public perception is hard to change. What we have to decide is what makes science look sillier, or less silly. 3. While I may have made snide remarks about the IAU as preferring to dally and postpone, this may well be a time when that is the best idea. Declare a cooling off period; send it to another committee. The whole vote issue popped up too quickly, and it may well be that there just hasn't been time (or calm) enough for everybody to think it through. 4. While you are undoubtedly correct, Doug, about Latinate terms being appropriate, the Latinate term for cold has unfortunate associations in American-English slang, where frig is used as a not-too-polite euphemism for an old Anglo-Saxon verb with a similar sound. It would be the source of as much (more) classroom giggling as the pronunciation of Uranus. But cryo- and cryonic have widespread usage, popularly and scientifically (for that very reason, I suspect). 5. Even the guy who declared his love of Pluto in the New York Times (Susan's post) says of Pluto: It's mostly ice. Everybody calls the Plutonians ICEBALLS when this is obviously and unequivocally WRONG. People on this List do it all the time; scientists who don't like Pluonians as planets do it (and they should know better). The density of Pluto is 2.08. Ice has a density of 0.92. Because water-ice is compressible and then converts to a number of polymorphic crystalline structures of higher density, depending on the size of the body. (IceIII is the most likely, with a density of 1.14.) But the pressures required are very great. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html But basically, a body with a density of 2.08 (Pluto) is best explained as containing 70% to 75% rock of density 2.7 and a mantle of mixed ices that is only the outer 10% to 13% of the planetary radius deep. (A shallow ice mantle limits the density of the ice.) That's a mantle if it's differentiated, but if it's just mixed, the compositional averages are the same. The density of Ceres (2.03) is the same as Pluto. Lots of the Plutonians have similar densities. 2003EL61's shape sets a density range limited to 2.6 to 3.3 (like the Earth's Moon, a well-known rockball). It's 100% rockball -- no ice at all (except for the surface dusting). Pluto's a rockball. Ceres is a rockball. Can you say ROCKBALL, boys and girls? If a body is 70%+ rock, why keep calling it an iceball? Wassup with that? Because it's cold? Calling Pluto an iceball is like calling the Earth a dirtball. I look at Earth's surface and it's mostly dirt, so the planet Earth is mostly made of dirt, right? Please, enough with the iceball! Sterling K. Webb - - Original Message - From: MexicoDoug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com; Sterling_K_Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:47 AM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets Hello Sterling, why not throw Pluto a bone like they are trying to do? On the other hand, nice word - but we've seen that nothing is most correct in this business. Cryo- is Greek, by the way. What ever happened to TNOs (Trans-Neptunian Objects). My correct latinized preference, with nice alliterations for poetic use, would be: FRIGOPHILE Scientifically, this world captures the accepted hypotheses
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Hi Anne: Please remember that many scientists [not me :0)] have something to make up for their common sense ... their big EGOS. If you have any doubt about this, ask Nancy. It is the old my theory is better (bigger) than your theory. There are lots of ways to define a planet (we have seen many of them over the past few days) and some are better than others and none of them is perfect. But, you must remember, from the perspective of many scientists, there is no question that their theory is better than anyone elses. Larry __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Suspend Jugement. Hold the Count. Let's await the technology to allow us to count #'s in Other Solar, errr, Star Systems. Jerry Flaherty - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets In a message dated 8/23/2006 4:38:36 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2. I firmly agree with Ron Baalke (who's a Pro-Eight) that the cultural component of this dispute is a major, maybe THE major, consideration. This a great opportunity to make science look silly to the populace, something we really don't need right now. Once formed, public perception is hard to change. What we have to decide is what makes science look sillier, or less silly. -- I have been reading all those posts about the 8 - 9 - 12 - 10 planets, and trying to make sense out of it. Yes, the cultural component is a major consideration. From the time I was a little girl going to the Planetarium in Paris, I was taught that a Planet was a sphere orbiting the Sun. And that there were 9 of them. There could be more, we simply didn't know enough to tell one way or the other. And the masses that weren't round? they were Asteroids. Period. And that covered the whole thing. No discussion as to composition, angle of the orbit, number of moons, or distance from the Sun. To me that still covers it. And that makes perfect sense. Regardless of numbers. Now why can't the members of the IAU see it that way? aren't they simply lacking Common Sense? Vox Populi. Anne M. Black www.IMPACTIKA.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] President, I.M.C.A. Inc. www.IMCA.cc __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
That's agrivating Jerry Flaherty - Original Message - From: Darren Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets Whoever originally came up with the title Astronomers Lean Towards Eight Planets really should hang their head in shame for not coming up with Astronoers Gravitate Towards Eight Planets. __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
The newest issue of Time magazine has quoted Michael Brown as saying, It's a 'No Ice Ball Left Behind' policy, referring to the possibility of many more solar system bodies suddenly gaining planetary status. Who says astronomers don't have a since of humor. Personally, I think the IAU is premature in attempting to define just what planet is. We need to gather more data on just what the objects are that are out there, both solar and (especially) extra-solar. -Walter Branch __ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets
Hi, All, Give credit (here on the List anyway) to Darren, who pointed out the confusion of terms days before the geologists started squawking about having their word stolen to settle somebody else's quarrel. Plutonian object was the least unpopular choice. I've been using the term Plutonian for worlds which are largely a combination of two materials: silicates (rock) and crystal-phase mineral volatiles (ice) here on the List for a year and a half, but the geologists also use that term, as in plutonian process, and have been using the term plutonian for almost two centuries to refer to any geological process taking place or object formed at great depths in the Earth, a usage so general and widespread that they are not likely to be willing to give it up to the IAU and astronomers just because they need a word and it was handy. The most correct technical term would be the jawbreaker CRYOSILICATE object. It would apply to Pluto, Xena, and Company, to the large satellites (Ganymede, Europa, Callisto, Triton, Titan), and to the PLANET Ceres. Io and 2003EL61 would be altered Cryosilicate worlds that have lost their volatiles by heating. Sterling K. Webb - Original Message - From: Ron Baalke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Meteorite Mailing List meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:27 PM Subject: [meteorite-list] Astronomers Lean Toward Eight Planets 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
