Help Astronomers Name Pluto’s Tiniest Moons

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ...

On 15/02/2013 12:53 PM, David Spain wrote:
On 2/14/2013 8:32 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

That rather misses the point. The English word "planet" has a meaning
that it acquired through usage over centuries. Pluto fitted that meaning
when it was discovered.

The IAU can introduce any kind of classification it likes, but what it
cannot do is change the meaning of English words. Thus the test of
whether something is a planet is whether that something fits the
everyday meaning of the English word "planet", not whether it fits some
criterion laid down by the IAU.

Sylvia.

Sorry Sylvia, but poor old Ceres got the same treatment as Pluto almost
100 years before the IAU came into existence and it's not even a Kuiper
Belt object! And yet nobody's complaining that we should have 10 planets
restored to our Solar System!

And if you're going to admit Pluto you have put in the even bigger Eris!


Thing is, the word "planet" never did have a clear cut definition. Its
meaning was always vague. Although it derives from a word meaning
"wanderer", in the context of the Solar System, planet has long meant an
object in the set Mars, Venus, Earth, ..., Neptune, Pluto. The answer the
question "Is X a planet" pretty much amounted to asking whether X is a
member of that set, particularly as no planet candidate objects were known
outside the solar system for most of that time.

One might argue that Pluto should never have been added to the set in the
first place, but it was, and for a human life-span its presence wasn't
disputed. Deeming it removed in 2006 amounted to changing the set that
constituted the meaning of the word "planet". This was not within the power
of the IAU. What the IAU should have done was define planet categories, but
left the word itself alone.


So are you going to work to get Ceres reinstated as a planet?

Or Pallas, Juno, or Vesta?
What about Astrea? Or Hebe, Iris and Flora? Or the others that were once
listed as planets?

Or are you going to insist that Ceres actually be reinstated as an asteroid
instead of a dwarf planet/

Words change over time, and unlike French, we don't have an official body
determining what words you can use or not.

If you want to call Pluto a planet, go ahead, no one will stop you. But
scientists need precise terms that they can all agree on.

And btw, what about the definition of an Atom as the most indivisible bit of
matter? Do we have to stop using it now that we know atoms are divisible?


Sylvia.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 15/02/2013 1:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Words change over time, and unlike French, we don't have an official
body determining what words you can use or not.

Yes, they do, but what does not happen that some organisation gets to
change them.


If you want to call Pluto a planet, go ahead, no one will stop you. But
scientists need precise terms that they can all agree on.

I have no objection to that - but they should define new ones, not coopt
existing words.


And btw, what about the definition of an Atom as the most indivisible
bit of matter? Do we have to stop using it now that we know atoms are
divisible?

No - that's entirely unrelated to the issue in question.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ...

On 15/02/2013 1:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Words change over time, and unlike French, we don't have an official
body determining what words you can use or not.

Yes, they do, but what does not happen that some organisation gets to
change them.

Sure it does, especially when it comes to THEIR use of them.

Like I said, just because the AUI says Pluto is not a planet doesn't mean
YOU have to stop calling it that.

And I noted you snipped the most significant part of my post. Try answering
that.




If you want to call Pluto a planet, go ahead, no one will stop you. But
scientists need precise terms that they can all agree on.

I have no objection to that - but they should define new ones, not coopt
existing words.

Ah, but they basically did. They came up with a fairly new term "dwarf
planet". So essentially you're upset that they did exactly what you want
them to do.




And btw, what about the definition of an Atom as the most indivisible
bit of matter? Do we have to stop using it now that we know atoms are
divisible?

No - that's entirely unrelated to the issue in question.

Umm, no, it's the same basic thing. Scientists took a word that had a known
meaning for millennia and changed its meaning significantly.



Sylvia.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 15/02/2013 4:43 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ...

On 15/02/2013 1:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Words change over time, and unlike French, we don't have an official
body determining what words you can use or not.

Yes, they do, but what does not happen that some organisation gets to
change them.

Sure it does, especially when it comes to THEIR use of them.

Like I said, just because the AUI says Pluto is not a planet doesn't
mean YOU have to stop calling it that.

And I noted you snipped the most significant part of my post. Try
answering that.




If you want to call Pluto a planet, go ahead, no one will stop you. But
scientists need precise terms that they can all agree on.

I have no objection to that - but they should define new ones, not
coopt existing words.

Ah, but they basically did. They came up with a fairly new term "dwarf
planet". So essentially you're upset that they did exactly what you
want them to do.




And btw, what about the definition of an Atom as the most indivisible
bit of matter? Do we have to stop using it now that we know atoms are
divisible?

No - that's entirely unrelated to the issue in question.

Umm, no, it's the same basic thing. Scientists took a word that had a
known meaning for millennia and changed its meaning significantly.

Scientists said that atoms, being the smallest amounts of an element
that can exist, have an internal structure. Previously it had been
believed that atoms were indivisible, but this turned out not to be
true. Thus scientists said something about the things referred to as
atoms. They did not change the meaning of the word itself.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:52:57 AM UTC-8, David Spain wrote:
On 2/12/2013 7:57 PM, Nun Giver wrote:





Guth and Fred or Brad and McCall



..........Trig





Save those names for subatomic particles that appear in virtual pairs.



For example; you'll never see a mono-Haller without an accompanying McCall.



;-)



Dave



Sorry Fred couldn't resist.

You have a point. Brad is out at the "dark side of moon" colony
and planning to conquer inhabitants Venus no matter that they
were turned to toasted carbon 3 billion years ago.

Trig

Sylvia Else is guilty of as of
2/15/2013 12:48:44 AM
On 15/02/2013 4:43 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ...

On 15/02/2013 1:41 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Words change over time, and unlike French, we don't have an official
body determining what words you can use or not.

Yes, they do, but what does not happen that some organisation gets to
change them.

Sure it does, especially when it comes to THEIR use of them.

Like I said, just because the AUI says Pluto is not a planet doesn't
mean YOU have to stop calling it that.

And I noted you snipped the most significant part of my post. Try
answering that.




If you want to call Pluto a planet, go ahead, no one will stop you. But
scientists need precise terms that they can all agree on.

I have no objection to that - but they should define new ones, not
coopt existing words.

Ah, but they basically did. They came up with a fairly new term "dwarf
planet". So essentially you're upset that they did exactly what you
want them to do.




And btw, what about the definition of an Atom as the most indivisible
bit of matter? Do we have to stop using it now that we know atoms are
divisible?

No - that's entirely unrelated to the issue in question.

Umm, no, it's the same basic thing. Scientists took a word that had a
known meaning for millennia and changed its meaning significantly.

Scientists said that atoms, being the smallest amounts of an element that can
exist, have an internal structure. Previously it had been believed that atoms
were indivisible, but this turned out not to be true. Thus scientists said
something about the things referred to as atoms. They did not change the
meaning of the word itself.

Look what physicist did with "work".

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain