Re: Planet No More
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger rceeberger@ wrote: No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define planet simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called terrestrial planets and jovian planets. Heh! Those are exactly the terms used. Where you been dude? So, I guess I don't understand your objection to the new definition of planet - other than semantics. Would you be happy if the IAU had adopted a definition of planet - as being an object of sufficient mass to become nearly spherical and a definition of central planet of planetary system as a planet that had cleared its orbit? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
Robert Seeberger wrote: Like the Moon or Ganimede? The orbit question is important! Not really. Both are planets in my estimation. That Ganymede is a sattelite and the Moon is part of a double planet system is really irrelevant to how you classify a body. Our moon wouldn't even be a minor planet. But then you are misusing the term planet - historically, the Jovian moons were _not_ considered planets [it would be natural, then, to create a word that would include the 5 traditional planets, Earth, the Moon and the 4 jovian planetoids]. What you want is a word for planet-sized body. No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. Yes, they are. Rogue planet is IIRC the science-fictional term for those bodies [and Rogue Star is a star not bound to a Galaxy]. I see such a statement of the inconsistancy I am arguing against. A star is a star no matter where you find it, but a planet is a planet only if it has a regular orbit around a star? That idea is what stikes me as silly. Ah, ok. Then we must have another word for planet-sized body, and another word for star-sized planet :-P Of course, maybe we should also re-work the definition of _moon_, because there are moons that are bigger than planets, and moons that are just pieces of rock. Some moons are proper moons, and others are asteroidal moons. True. I would just use terms like planetary moon and asteroidal moon for various satellites. So we should have: - a class of words that describe the body - a class of words that describe the relative position of the body The first class would have: Galaxy, Star, Planetoid, Asteroid. The second class would have: Galaxy, Galactic Star, Rogue Star, Planetary Star, Planet, Planetary Satellite, Planetary Asteroid, Asteroidal Satellite. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
Robert Seeberger wrote: With Pluto in mind, if some disaster were to occur changing Mars' orbit so that it flew inside Earths orbit and/or outside Jupiters orbit for a portion of its year, would it cease to be a planet? (Only if it falls into the Sun, Ronn! G) If this orbit were possible - I don't know if we can have a stable irregular Martian orbit in resonance with Earth, considering Jupiter's influence - then Mars would be a planet unless there were other Mars-sized bodies in the same orbit. The problem with Pluto is that there are other objects in the 3:2 resonance with Neptune. Pluto is not big enough to clear them out. Mars is big enough to clear its orbit. Ceres is not big enough to clear the asteroid belt. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define planet simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called terrestrial planets and jovian planets. Meanwhile, there is a word for gravitationally-round objects, they are called planemos. Planets are simply a usefull subset of planemos.I see no reason to objecting with the creation of a word that defines a usefull set of objects, simply because that subset is based in part upon that objects interaction with others. It seems like objecting between the difference between a lake and a bay, because a bay is simply a lake next to an ocean. JDG P.S. Another object defined by location is asteroid, meteor, and meteorite. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
Likewise, in my house I have two mutant dwarf mountain lions. G http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Planet No More Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:05:24 - --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define planet simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called terrestrial planets and jovian planets. Meanwhile, there is a word for gravitationally-round objects, they are called planemos. Planets are simply a usefull subset of planemos.I see no reason to objecting with the creation of a word that defines a usefull set of objects, simply because that subset is based in part upon that objects interaction with others. It seems like objecting between the difference between a lake and a bay, because a bay is simply a lake next to an ocean. JDG P.S. Another object defined by location is asteroid, meteor, and meteorite. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define planet simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called terrestrial planets and jovian planets. Heh! Those are exactly the terms used. Where you been dude? Meanwhile, there is a word for gravitationally-round objects, they are called planemos. Planets are simply a usefull subset of planemos. The term Planemo is only 3 years old and is a bit of cruft that does not simplify anything. It is just a measure taken to allow people to think in the same old lazy ways. Consider: If you were to visit the only other terrestrial planet with moons you would not be very impressed with them, tiny dots moving across the sky. Our moon dominates our sky in large part because it is another planet. We are a double planet system. Consider: How is our Moon different than all the other satellites in the Sol System? I see no reason to objecting with the creation of a word that defines a usefull set of objects, simply because that subset is based in part upon that objects interaction with others. With Pluto in mind, if some disaster were to occur changing Mars' orbit so that it flew inside Earths orbit and/or outside Jupiters orbit for a portion of its year, would it cease to be a planet? (Only if it falls into the Sun, Ronn! G) It seems like objecting between the difference between a lake and a bay, because a bay is simply a lake next to an ocean. If you think about it, that is my argument!G To make a similarly silly analogy, Rhode Island is a state just as much as Texas or Alaska. JDG P.S. Another object defined by location is asteroid, meteor, and meteorite. WellI live on Clear Lake, part of Galveston Bay, part of the Gulf Of Mexico, part of the Altantic, part of the oceans. It is all a body of salty water. But you wouldn't say that a meteorite killed the dinosaurs, now would you? xponent Planetex Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 9:02 AM Subject: RE: Planet No More Robert G. Seeberger wrote: If a body has enough mass to reform itself into (roughly) a sphere then it should be considered a planet. Like the Moon or Ganimede? The orbit question is important! Not really. Both are planets in my estimation. That Ganymede is a sattelite and the Moon is part of a double planet system is really irrelevant to how you classify a body. Our moon wouldn't even be a minor planet. Let me make a prediction: (and keep in mind how *I* would prefer to define a planet) At some point in the future a body that is multiples of earth's mass will be discovered that does not orbit any other body (excepting perhaps the galactic center and even then it will not be a regular orbit), it will resemble the terrestrial planets only colder. It will be called a planet. No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. It would only be wrong if one insists on defining what a planet is by it's position and motion relative to a star rather than the properties of the body itself. I don't see a problem with a term like planetary orbit or sattelite orbit since those are terms for orbits and not bodies. Rogue planet is IIRC the science-fictional term for those bodies [and Rogue Star is a star not bound to a Galaxy]. I see such a statement of the inconsistancy I am arguing against. A star is a star no matter where you find it, but a planet is a planet only if it has a regular orbit around a star? That idea is what stikes me as silly. It is one of those exceptions one finds in science, which is ordinarily consistant in its terminology, that stands out to my mind. Electrons are always recognized as electrons. Stars are always stars. And no one denys that cosmic rays are atomic nuclei. Of course, maybe we should also re-work the definition of _moon_, because there are moons that are bigger than planets, and moons that are just pieces of rock. Some moons are proper moons, and others are asteroidal moons. True. I would just use terms like planetary moon and asteroidal moon for various satellites. xponent Planet Claire Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Planet No More
Robert G. Seeberger wrote: If a body has enough mass to reform itself into (roughly) a sphere then it should be considered a planet. Like the Moon or Ganimede? The orbit question is important! Let me make a prediction: (and keep in mind how *I* would prefer to define a planet) At some point in the future a body that is multiples of earth's mass will be discovered that does not orbit any other body (excepting perhaps the galactic center and even then it will not be a regular orbit), it will resemble the terrestrial planets only colder. It will be called a planet. No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. Rogue planet is IIRC the science-fictional term for those bodies [and Rogue Star is a star not bound to a Galaxy]. Of course, maybe we should also re-work the definition of _moon_, because there are moons that are bigger than planets, and moons that are just pieces of rock. Some moons are proper moons, and others are asteroidal moons. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
On 8/24/06, Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... What I don't understand is why they couldn't just say here are the new rules and Pluto gets grandfathered in as an exception...??? Can you imagine how some people might use that as a precedent? It's science, not democracy! Oh, wait -- they voted on this, didn't they? Well, anyway... E.g., Living things evolve, but humans were created (whatever that means in this context of no context) and are grandfathered in as an exception. Yuck. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
Nick Arnett wrote: What I don't understand is why they couldn't just say here are the new rules and Pluto gets grandfathered in as an exception...??? Can you imagine how some people might use that as a precedent? It's science, not democracy! Oh, wait -- they voted on this, didn't they? Well, anyway... E.g., Living things evolve, but humans were created (whatever that means in this context of no context) and are grandfathered in as an exception. And there's a precedent: Ceres was once a planet, then it was downgraded to a planetoid, and there were only 7 planets [it was after Uranus but before Neptune and Pluto] Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Planet No More
--- John Horn wrote: What I don't understand is why they couldn't just say here are the new rules and Pluto gets grandfathered in as an exception...??? I think the question is - why would they want to? I think that the term planet is most useful if it clearly defines some well-defined set of objects. It seems like the astronomers settled upon a definition for a distinct set of objects, and Pluto simply doesn't fit that definition.I don't know what useful purpose would be served by grandfathering, other than sentimentality... JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Planet No More
On 8/24/2006 7:33:58 PM, John D. Giorgis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: --- John Horn wrote: What I don't understand is why they couldn't just say here are the new rules and Pluto gets grandfathered in as an exception...??? I think the question is - why would they want to? I think that the term planet is most useful if it clearly defines some well-defined set of objects. It seems like the astronomers settled upon a definition for a distinct set of objects, and Pluto simply doesn't fit that definition.I don't know what useful purpose would be served by grandfathering, other than sentimentality... It all seems pretty silly to me. If a body has enough mass to reform itself into (roughly) a sphere then it should be considered a planet. I rather liked the division of major and minor worlds that was being discussed a week or two ago. It seems to me that the idea that 30 is an unwieldy number (just to create an example mind you), and that 8 or 9 is a teachable number is hogwash. I could name the planets in order from the sun when I was 4 years old, but I doubt I could find very many people during a typical day (a typical working day for me) who could do so, even though I know we were all taught this at some time or another. (I actually posed this question a few years ago and got zero correct answers) John sees one kind of sentimentality, I see a sentimentality for ones own youthful education in play. Let me make a prediction: (and keep in mind how *I* would prefer to define a planet) At some point in the future a body that is multiples of earth's mass will be discovered that does not orbit any other body (excepting perhaps the galactic center and even then it will not be a regular orbit), it will resemble the terrestrial planets only colder. It will be called a planet. And that will break this new definition. (If one reads the article, and presuming it is accurate, one will understand why it would) xponent Planet Ceres Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
On Aug 24, 2006, at 5:33 PM, John D. Giorgis wrote: --- John Horn wrote: What I don't understand is why they couldn't just say here are the new rules and Pluto gets grandfathered in as an exception...??? I think the question is - why would they want to? I think that the term planet is most useful if it clearly defines some well-defined set of objects. It seems like the astronomers settled upon a definition for a distinct set of objects, and Pluto simply doesn't fit that definition. I don't know what useful purpose would be served by grandfathering, other than sentimentality... I think you hit the nail on the head: we like our itty bitty planet way out there on the edge of nowhere. Dave Reprinting Textbooks Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
In a message dated 8/24/2006 7:56:52 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you hit the nail on the head: we like our itty bitty planet way out there on the edge of nowhere. Dave It was an itty bitty teenie weenie didn't plan it dwarfish planet, that we renamed the first time today Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
