Planetary System Arbitrarily and Needlessly Changed By Bush Administration: Pluto Demoted

Pluto has been a planet for thousands of years....it was a perfectly
good and usable determination for everyone.

It took the Bush administration to suddenly change that. Why? For some
godforsaken political strategy masterminded Karl Rove, no doubt.

Bush's reach into scientific affairs is his latest blundering effort to
remake the world in his image.

We really do need to impeach him as quickly as possible.

Before he takes us back to an earth-centric cosmology...

Ryd



Going 'round and 'round on defining Pluto
By Chet Raymo | August 28, 2006

SPARKS FLEW LIKE a meteor shower as the International Astronomical
Union, meeting in Prague, wrestled with the definition of a planet.

Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts The word is
in. And Pluto is out.

At first it looked like the number of planets might be increased to 12,
with the familiar nine joined by Pluto's moon Charon (classified as
part of a double planet); by Ceres, an object about half the size of
Pluto between Mars and Jupiter; and by a newly discovered object beyond
Pluto, UB313. Howls of indignation! Almost no one liked the proposal,
including many astronomers. The idea of a potentially endless stream of
distant, tiny planets waiting to be discovered was politically
untenable.

So the IAU backtracked. Ceres and UB313 reverted to minor planet status
and, to be consistent, Pluto was demoted, too. The number of planets in
the solar system would henceforth be eight, Mercury to Neptune, with no
more likely surprises.

What's going on? Why can't the IAU leave well enough alone? Why did we
waste all that time as kids memorizing the nine planets only to have
our cosmic merry-go-round thrown into chaos?

A tempest in a teapot?

Not really. It's a matter of making language more precise.

Pluto is half the size of Mercury. Ceres is half the size of Pluto. Why
call Pluto a planet and not Ceres? The choice is arbitrary. And what
about new objects beyond Pluto that have been and will be discovered?
Are they planets? Where do we draw a line that is not arbitrary?

A planet, according to the first definition proposed by the IAU, is an
object that orbits a star and is large enough for its own gravity to
give it a spherical shape. That brings Ceres and UB313 into the fold,
and perhaps other yet undiscovered objects in the far, dark corners of
the solar system.

When this definition proved unacceptable, the astronomers needed a
standard that weeds out Ceres and UB313 and closes the door to future
additions. So the IAU's final definition adds the condition that an
object be large enough to have cleared its neighborhood of other major
debris. This denies Ceres planethood -- it is embedded in the asteroid
belt -- and presumably also rules out UB313, out there in the dusty,
cluttered attic of the solar system. But it chops Pluto from the ranks
of planets, too; its orbit swings wildly inside the orbit of Neptune.
And if Pluto goes, so goes Charon.

The great 18th-century botanist Carl von Linné, better known by his
Latinized name Carolus Linnaeus , taught us that nothing is well
described unless well named, and that nothing is well named until well
described. Naming and exact description go hand and hand, and, if
carefully done, reveal patterns implicit in nature itself.

Does a dolphin have more in common with a shark or a Chihuahua? Is a
mouse more closely related to a gecko or an elephant? Common names tell
us nothing about biological relationships. The scientific naming system
pioneered by Linnaeus -- kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus,
species -- makes kinship manifest, and paved the way for Darwin's
theory of evolution.

After Linnaeus proposed his new nomenclature for biology, the Frenchman
Antoine Lavoisier set out to do much the same for chemistry. In the
preface to his great work ``Elements of Chemistry," Lavoisier tells us:
``Thus, while I thought myself employed only in forming a nomenclature,
and while I proposed to myself nothing more than to improve the
chemical language, my work transformed itself by degrees, without my
being able to prevent it, into a treatise upon the Elements of
Chemistry."

Lavoisier quotes the philosopher Etienne Condillac : ``We think only
through the medium of words. . . . The art of reasoning is nothing more
than a language well arranged."

That's what's going on with the IAU. Astronomers are trying to get
their language well arranged, trying to settle on definitions that will
facilitate the study of our solar system and planetary systems around
other stars. Exact language has proved itself a royal road to
discovery. Those of us who have become attached to Pluto as a planet
will just have to adjust.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...efining_pluto/

Ryd wrote :

Pluto has been a planet for thousands of years....it was a perfectly
good and usable determination for everyone.

It took the Bush administration to suddenly change that. Why? For some
godforsaken political strategy masterminded Karl Rove, no doubt.

Nope. It is undoubtebly the result of pressures from Al-Qaeda, which
couldn't tolerate an american discovered planet...



Going 'round and 'round on defining Pluto
By Chet Raymo | August 28, 2006

SPARKS FLEW LIKE a meteor shower as the International Astronomical
Union, meeting in Prague, wrestled with the definition of a planet.

At first it looked like the number of planets might be increased to 12,
with the familiar nine joined by Pluto's moon Charon (classified as
part of a double planet); by Ceres, an object about half the size of
Pluto between Mars and Jupiter; and by a newly discovered object beyond
Pluto, UB313. Howls of indignation! Almost no one liked the proposal,
including many astronomers. The idea of a potentially endless stream of
distant, tiny planets waiting to be discovered was politically
untenable.

So the IAU backtracked. Ceres and UB313 reverted to minor planet status
and, to be consistent, Pluto was demoted, too. The number of planets in
the solar system would henceforth be eight, Mercury to Neptune, with no
more likely surprises.

What's going on? Why can't the IAU leave well enough alone? Why did we
waste all that time as kids memorizing the nine planets only to have
our cosmic merry-go-round thrown into chaos?

A tempest in a teapot?

Not really. It's a matter of making language more precise.

Pluto is half the size of Mercury. Ceres is half the size of Pluto. Why
call Pluto a planet and not Ceres? The choice is arbitrary. And what
about new objects beyond Pluto that have been and will be discovered?
Are they planets? Where do we draw a line that is not arbitrary?

A planet, according to the first definition proposed by the IAU, is an
object that orbits a star and is large enough for its own gravity to
give it a spherical shape. That brings Ceres and UB313 into the fold,
and perhaps other yet undiscovered objects in the far, dark corners of
the solar system.

When this definition proved unacceptable, the astronomers needed a
standard that weeds out Ceres and UB313 and closes the door to future
additions. So the IAU's final definition adds the condition that an
object be large enough to have cleared its neighborhood of other major
debris. This denies Ceres planethood -- it is embedded in the asteroid
belt -- and presumably also rules out UB313, out there in the dusty,
cluttered attic of the solar system. But it chops Pluto from the ranks
of planets, too; its orbit swings wildly inside the orbit of Neptune.
And if Pluto goes, so goes Charon.

The great 18th-century botanist Carl von Linné, better known by his
Latinized name Carolus Linnaeus , taught us that nothing is well
described unless well named, and that nothing is well named until well
described. Naming and exact description go hand and hand, and, if
carefully done, reveal patterns implicit in nature itself.

Does a dolphin have more in common with a shark or a Chihuahua? Is a
mouse more closely related to a gecko or an elephant? Common names tell
us nothing about biological relationships. The scientific naming system
pioneered by Linnaeus -- kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus,
species -- makes kinship manifest, and paved the way for Darwin's
theory of evolution.

After Linnaeus proposed his new nomenclature for biology, the Frenchman
Antoine Lavoisier set out to do much the same for chemistry. In the
preface to his great work ``Elements of Chemistry," Lavoisier tells us:
``Thus, while I thought myself employed only in forming a nomenclature,
and while I proposed to myself nothing more than to improve the
chemical language, my work transformed itself by degrees, without my
being able to prevent it, into a treatise upon the Elements of
Chemistry."

Lavoisier quotes the philosopher Etienne Condillac : ``We think only
through the medium of words. . . . The art of reasoning is nothing more
than a language well arranged."

That's what's going on with the IAU. Astronomers are trying to get
their language well arranged, trying to settle on definitions that will
facilitate the study of our solar system and planetary systems around
other stars. Exact language has proved itself a royal road to
discovery. Those of us who have become attached to Pluto as a planet
will just have to adjust.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...efining_pluto/

This post makes more sence than the former post.
wrote:
Ryd wrote :

Pluto has been a planet for thousands of years....it was a perfectly
good and usable determination for everyone.

It took the Bush administration to suddenly change that. Why? For some
godforsaken political strategy masterminded Karl Rove, no doubt.

Nope. It is undoubtebly the result of pressures from Al-Qaeda, which
couldn't tolerate an american discovered planet...



Going 'round and 'round on defining Pluto
By Chet Raymo | August 28, 2006

SPARKS FLEW LIKE a meteor shower as the International Astronomical
Union, meeting in Prague, wrestled with the definition of a planet.

At first it looked like the number of planets might be increased to 12,
with the familiar nine joined by Pluto's moon Charon (classified as
part of a double planet); by Ceres, an object about half the size of
Pluto between Mars and Jupiter; and by a newly discovered object beyond
Pluto, UB313. Howls of indignation! Almost no one liked the proposal,
including many astronomers. The idea of a potentially endless stream of
distant, tiny planets waiting to be discovered was politically
untenable.

So the IAU backtracked. Ceres and UB313 reverted to minor planet status
and, to be consistent, Pluto was demoted, too. The number of planets in
the solar system would henceforth be eight, Mercury to Neptune, with no
more likely surprises.

What's going on? Why can't the IAU leave well enough alone? Why did we
waste all that time as kids memorizing the nine planets only to have
our cosmic merry-go-round thrown into chaos?

A tempest in a teapot?

Not really. It's a matter of making language more precise.

Pluto is half the size of Mercury. Ceres is half the size of Pluto. Why
call Pluto a planet and not Ceres? The choice is arbitrary. And what
about new objects beyond Pluto that have been and will be discovered?
Are they planets? Where do we draw a line that is not arbitrary?

A planet, according to the first definition proposed by the IAU, is an
object that orbits a star and is large enough for its own gravity to
give it a spherical shape. That brings Ceres and UB313 into the fold,
and perhaps other yet undiscovered objects in the far, dark corners of
the solar system.

When this definition proved unacceptable, the astronomers needed a
standard that weeds out Ceres and UB313 and closes the door to future
additions. So the IAU's final definition adds the condition that an
object be large enough to have cleared its neighborhood of other major
debris. This denies Ceres planethood -- it is embedded in the asteroid
belt -- and presumably also rules out UB313, out there in the dusty,
cluttered attic of the solar system. But it chops Pluto from the ranks
of planets, too; its orbit swings wildly inside the orbit of Neptune.
And if Pluto goes, so goes Charon.

The great 18th-century botanist Carl von Linné, better known by his
Latinized name Carolus Linnaeus , taught us that nothing is well
described unless well named, and that nothing is well named until well
described. Naming and exact description go hand and hand, and, if
carefully done, reveal patterns implicit in nature itself.

Does a dolphin have more in common with a shark or a Chihuahua? Is a
mouse more closely related to a gecko or an elephant? Common names tell
us nothing about biological relationships. The scientific naming system
pioneered by Linnaeus -- kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus,
species -- makes kinship manifest, and paved the way for Darwin's
theory of evolution.

After Linnaeus proposed his new nomenclature for biology, the Frenchman
Antoine Lavoisier set out to do much the same for chemistry. In the
preface to his great work ``Elements of Chemistry," Lavoisier tells us:
``Thus, while I thought myself employed only in forming a nomenclature,
and while I proposed to myself nothing more than to improve the
chemical language, my work transformed itself by degrees, without my
being able to prevent it, into a treatise upon the Elements of
Chemistry."

Lavoisier quotes the philosopher Etienne Condillac : ``We think only
through the medium of words. . . . The art of reasoning is nothing more
than a language well arranged."

That's what's going on with the IAU. Astronomers are trying to get
their language well arranged, trying to settle on definitions that will
facilitate the study of our solar system and planetary systems around
other stars. Exact language has proved itself a royal road to
discovery. Those of us who have become attached to Pluto as a planet
will just have to adjust.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...efining_pluto/

On 28 Aug 2006 04:53:51 -0700, wrote:

Ryd wrote :

Pluto has been a planet for thousands of years....it was a perfectly
good and usable determination for everyone.

It took the Bush administration to suddenly change that. Why? For some
godforsaken political strategy masterminded Karl Rove, no doubt.

Nope. It is undoubtebly the result of pressures from Al-Qaeda, which
couldn't tolerate an american discovered planet...

Well, all planets that can't be seen with the
unaided eye are obviously DECEPTIONS created
by SATAN to undermine faith. Those demon-infested
'scientists' just made 'em up - and we all know
that telescopes are unnatural devices that produce
devil-spawned illusions of objects orbiting things
other than the earth, as gawd intended.

B1ackwater wrote:

- Well, all planets that can't be seen with the
- unaided eye are obviously DECEPTIONS created
- by SATAN to undermine faith. Those demon-infested
- 'scientists' just made 'em up - and we all know
- that telescopes are unnatural devices that produce
- devil-spawned illusions of objects orbiting things
- other than the earth, as gawd intended.

Those 'scientists' are witches. As witches, they must be burned at the
stake immediately. They could prove her innocence only through trial by
water. They will be bound and then thrown into the nearest river. If
they float, they will immediately be burned.
Otherwise, if they sink to the bottom, they'll be deemed innocent.

TRUE science is a wonderful thing.

Ryd

On 28 Aug 2006 09:06:44 -0700, "Ryd" wrote:

B1ackwater wrote:

- Well, all planets that can't be seen with the
- unaided eye are obviously DECEPTIONS created
- by SATAN to undermine faith. Those demon-infested
- 'scientists' just made 'em up - and we all know
- that telescopes are unnatural devices that produce
- devil-spawned illusions of objects orbiting things
- other than the earth, as gawd intended.

Those 'scientists' are witches. As witches, they must be burned at the
stake immediately.

The GOOD popes from the old days used to do just that.
Giordano Bruno made a fine bonfire - all his heresy
about extra planets and spacemen went up in a pillar
of purifying holy flame. The modern popes are obviously
WIMPS - lured by the devil into wasting time with altar
boys when they SHOULD be out burning heretics the way
Jesus wants them to !!!

They could prove her innocence only through trial by
water. They will be bound and then thrown into the nearest river. If
they float, they will immediately be burned.
Otherwise, if they sink to the bottom, they'll be deemed innocent.

TRUE science is a wonderful thing.

Well, wood floats, as do ducks ... so if we just put
the witch and a duck on a scale ... big time-saver !

My concern is that Disney named that stupid dog after the planet. If
Pluto is no longer a planet, what will happen to the dog? Fire him?
Rename him? Or did he just simply disappear in a cloud of cosmic dust
at the precise moment the pinheads voting on Pluto's reclassification
voted "yea".

Personally I hope Disney just renamed him "stupid dumbass dog".

B1ackwater wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 04:53:51 -0700, wrote:

Ryd wrote :

Pluto has been a planet for thousands of years....it was a
perfectly
good and usable determination for everyone.

It took the Bush administration to suddenly change that. Why? For
some godforsaken political strategy masterminded Karl Rove, no
doubt.

Nope. It is undoubtebly the result of pressures from Al-Qaeda,
which
couldn't tolerate an american discovered planet...

Well, all planets that can't be seen with the
unaided eye are obviously DECEPTIONS created
by SATAN to undermine faith. Those demon-infested
'scientists' just made 'em up - and we all know
that telescopes are unnatural devices that produce
devil-spawned illusions of objects orbiting things
other than the earth, as gawd intended.

Pizen wrote:
My concern is that Disney named that stupid dog after the planet. If
Pluto is no longer a planet, what will happen to the dog? Fire him?
Rename him?
It becomes a dwarf Pluto.
Or a miniPluto.
Or a Plutmin.
Or a MicroPluto.
Or a pupPluto(Plutopup).

Feel free to add some.