|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
wrote in message
... Mike Dworetsky writes: I have no reason to think that, if all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair sampling of the overall views of members. Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility, then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling. I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots of different accents. And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest petition? I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names, but I didn't get the impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd say that, whichever way the vote went. The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor. The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course, ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily more than a third of the total. This discussion is going way off topic. Somehow I don't think the make up of the IAU members present is in any way relevant. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
Mike Dworetsky writes:
I have no reason to think that, if all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair sampling of the overall views of members. Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility, then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling. I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots of different accents. And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest petition? I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names, On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them. but I didn't get the impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd say that, whichever way the vote went. Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there, such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU process without them, right? The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor. The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course, ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily more than a third of the total. This discussion is going way off topic. Not at all. Somehow I don't think the make up of the IAU members present is in any way relevant. On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant to the question of whether it's a fair sampling. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
wrote in message
... Mike Dworetsky writes: I have no reason to think that, if all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair sampling of the overall views of members. Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility, then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling. I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots of different accents. And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest petition? I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names, On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them. But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting. Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A? If not, then your petition is inherently biased. but I didn't get the impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd say that, whichever way the vote went. Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there, such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU process without them, right? Irrelevant. The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution. I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system. It would be far fairer to do away with that. All Americans who go to the polls and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in the "Old South" do not take place) can do so. Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote. And the ballots they receive are identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths. Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote. Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold. I suspect that many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original wording, not the final wording. The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor. The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course, ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily more than a third of the total. This discussion is going way off topic. Not at all. Somehow I don't think the make up of the IAU members present is in any way relevant. On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant to the question of whether it's a fair sampling. It was a fair sampling, certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures only from opponents of the resolution. End of argument. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail) |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
Mike Dworetsky writes:
I have no reason to think that, if all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair sampling of the overall views of members. Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility, then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling. I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots of different accents. And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest petition? I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names, On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them. But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and had taken names. Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A? Be my guest. If not, then your petition is inherently biased. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and had taken names. but I didn't get the impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd say that, whichever way the vote went. Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there, such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU process without them, right? Irrelevant. On the contrary, it's quite relevant. The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution. The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored the vote on scientific matters to the individual members. I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system. And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you. It would be far fairer to do away with that. That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man, one vote"? All Americans who go to the polls and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in the "Old South" do not take place) can do so. Quite different from the IAU. Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote. Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat. And the ballots they receive are identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths. Also irrelevant. Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote. And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun (a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider all of the consequences of an action. Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold. Then change the circumstances. I suspect that many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original wording, not the final wording. Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed? The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor. The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course, ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily more than a third of the total. This discussion is going way off topic. Not at all. Somehow I don't think the make up of the IAU members present is in any way relevant. On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant to the question of whether it's a fair sampling. It was a fair sampling, How do you know? certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures only from opponents of the resolution. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and that it had taken names. End of argument. According to whom? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mike Williams" wrote in message ... Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote: If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET. Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.? I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf planets" are not planets now. Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds. Forget them. They have no right to control what we think. We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System, If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really make a different - it's still just as fascinating. -- Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions To all musicians, appear and inspi Translated Daughter, come down and startle Composing mortals with immortal fire. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
wrote in message
... Mike Dworetsky writes: I have no reason to think that, if all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair sampling of the overall views of members. Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility, then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling. I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots of different accents. And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest petition? I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names, On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them. But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and had taken names. Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A? Be my guest. If not, then your petition is inherently biased. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and had taken names. but I didn't get the impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd say that, whichever way the vote went. Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there, such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU process without them, right? Irrelevant. On the contrary, it's quite relevant. The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution. The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored the vote on scientific matters to the individual members. I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system. And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you. It would be far fairer to do away with that. That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man, one vote"? All Americans who go to the polls and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in the "Old South" do not take place) can do so. Quite different from the IAU. Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote. Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat. And the ballots they receive are identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths. Also irrelevant. Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote. And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun (a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider all of the consequences of an action. Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold. Then change the circumstances. I suspect that many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original wording, not the final wording. Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed? The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor. The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course, ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily more than a third of the total. This discussion is going way off topic. Not at all. Somehow I don't think the make up of the IAU members present is in any way relevant. On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant to the question of whether it's a fair sampling. It was a fair sampling, How do you know? certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures only from opponents of the resolution. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and that it had taken names. End of argument. According to whom? Me. I don't really feel like going around and around and around with this any more. I've stated my position several times and if you don't like it, carry on with your petition or whatever and good luck to you. Argue with someone else. I've got work to do. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail) |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
Mike Dworetsky writes:
I have no reason to think that, if all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair sampling of the overall views of members. Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus "non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility, then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling. I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots of different accents. And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest petition? I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names, On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only 237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them. But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and had taken names. Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A? Be my guest. If not, then your petition is inherently biased. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and had taken names. but I didn't get the impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd say that, whichever way the vote went. Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there, such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU process without them, right? Irrelevant. On the contrary, it's quite relevant. The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution. The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored the vote on scientific matters to the individual members. I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system. And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you. It would be far fairer to do away with that. That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man, one vote"? All Americans who go to the polls and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in the "Old South" do not take place) can do so. Quite different from the IAU. Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote. Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat. And the ballots they receive are identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths. Also irrelevant. Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote. And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun (a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider all of the consequences of an action. Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold. Then change the circumstances. I suspect that many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original wording, not the final wording. Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed? The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor. The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course, ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a 30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily more than a third of the total. This discussion is going way off topic. Not at all. Somehow I don't think the make up of the IAU members present is in any way relevant. On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant to the question of whether it's a fair sampling. It was a fair sampling, How do you know? certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures only from opponents of the resolution. Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and that it had taken names. End of argument. According to whom? Me. Who assigned you the arbitor of when an argument is over? I don't really feel like going around and around and around with this any more. Just because you don't feel like continuing doesn't mean the argument is over. I've stated my position several times and if you don't like it, carry on with your petition or whatever and good luck to you. You're erroneously presupposing that it's my petition. Argue with someone else. Been there, done that. I've got work to do. As if I don't. It is the Labor Day weekend, however. Don't you have a holiday? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
In sci.astro Lora Crighton wrote:
If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really make a different - it's still just as fascinating. Hello, Lora, and this important point lends a bit of perspective, along with a realization that the "Is a dwarf planet best viewed as a subtype of planet?" question is partly one of taste or style. People can agree on the facts regarding the outdated nature of the "nine major planets" model, but differ on which usage consistent with a updated model is most apt or felicitous. Before explaining my own position, I would like to support Mike Dworetsky's point that people can differ in our preferred usages while respecting the IAU and those favoring the adopted Resolution 5A as the best solution. The IAU has made many contributions to promoting international peace and understanding, and I hope that efforts to improve or expand planetary taxonomy will go forward in this spirit of mutual respect and civility. Personally I like the approach that defines "planet" in the broad sense to mean either a "major planet" which does establish dynamical dominance by "clearing the neighborhood of its orbit"; or a "dwarf planet" or "belt planet" (latter term borrowed from Gibor Basri) which likewise is massive enough to constrain itself by self-gravity to a nearly spherical shape -- but is merely one main attraction among a large population of bodies sharing its orbital neighborhood and not under its gravitational dominance. This view, at least as much as the currently adopted IAU view of treating "planet" as meaning only orbit-clearing or major planets, involves updating our perspective on the Solar System. It says, basically, that Giuseppe Piazzi in 1801 and Clyde Tombaugh in 1930 both discovered bodies (Ceres in the asteroid belt and Pluto in the Kuiper Belt) which were correctly considered new planets -- but not yet recognized as indeed representing a new kind of planet, a "dwarf" or "belt" planet -- with likely a score or more of such planets still to be found! By the way, while "dwarf planet" (by analogy with dwarf star) is fine, the term "belt planet" has the advantage of focusing specifically on orbital "ecology" rather than size. If, say, a dwarf or belt planet were found in the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud which happened to be more massive than our smallest orbit-clearing or major planet Mercury, the special aptness of the latter term would be clearer. Given that informed and reasonable people can and do differ in their preferences as to whether "planet" should be taken to include both "major planet" and "dwarf planet" or "belt planet," the best way to achieve some consensus may be for the IAU at its next General Assembly in 2009 to grant official recognition to both usages. Taking a leaf from the biological sciences, as I've written in another thread, astronomy should recognize the definition of a planet either "strictly speaking" (_sensu stricto_) to mean a major planet only, or "broadly speaking" (_sensu lato_) to mean either a major planet or dwarf planet. Especially in matters of usage or taste, sometimes "agreeing to differ" can be the wisest policy. Both usages are logical and consistent with the new scientific perspective on our Solar System -- and recognizing both might make for a richer and more diverse planet Earth. Most appreciatively, Margo Schulter |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
"MD" == Mike Dworetsky writes:
MD I was there, voting. There was only a record of the count, not of MD the names of the voters. Do you think I could get something for MD my historic yellow voting card, signed and dated, if I put it on MD e-Bay? Could I get double the amount if I record on it which way MD I voted? I talked to another IAU Member who had the foresight to get his yellow voting card signed by Jocelyn Bell-Burnell (the chair of the session). After he told me that, I was kicking myself for not doing it, too. OTOH, maybe it would make more sense to have Virginia Trimble (the person in charge of the voting) sign the card. -- Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/ sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto is out from planet dictionary
"Margo Schulter" wrote in message ... In sci.astro Lora Crighton wrote: If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really make a different - it's still just as fascinating. I think Lora's view is by far the most sensible. We aren't going to tell New Horizons to come back! Hello, Lora, and this important point lends a bit of perspective, along with a realization that the "Is a dwarf planet best viewed as a subtype of planet?" question is partly one of taste or style. Actually it is a question of language and I think this is precisely what the pro-planet lobby were trying to achieve is proposal 5B, to reinstate Pluto by the back door by creating a subtype by the addition of the word "classical" to the definition of "planet". We should note that this was specifically rejected by the vote so, as you correctly note below, the current IAU definition does not includes sub-types of "planet" but provides two mutually exclusive groups called "planets" and "dwarf planets". People can agree on the facts regarding the outdated nature of the "nine major planets" model, but differ on which usage consistent with a updated model is most apt or felicitous. Before explaining my own position, I would like to support Mike Dworetsky's point that people can differ in our preferred usages while respecting the IAU and those favoring the adopted Resolution 5A as the best solution. .. Certainly people will continue to describe Pluto in the way they want, and to a high degree the definition of language springs from common usage. In that sense the definition decreed by the IAU may in the end turn out to be academic. It will be interesting to see how quickly any major dictionaries revise their entries. Personally I like the approach that defines "planet" in the broad sense to mean either a "major planet" which does establish dynamical dominance by "clearing the neighborhood of its orbit"; or a "dwarf planet" or "belt planet" (latter term borrowed from Gibor Basri) which likewise is massive enough to constrain itself by self-gravity to a nearly spherical shape -- but is merely one main attraction among a large population of bodies sharing its orbital neighborhood and not under its gravitational dominance. That is the option presented in Resolution 5B with your choice of "major" replacing the proposed "classical". That proposal was not carried hence as you make clear next, the IAU definition now recognises on those you describe as "orbit-clearing" as true planets. I suspect this question may crop up regularly in the future so I have written a brief page to avoid having to repeat my views. It is a bit rough at the moment and not checked so may have some errors. Comments welcome. http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/planet.html George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Removing Pluto as a planet is abrupt psychosis | [email protected] | Research | 7 | September 6th 06 07:39 PM |
Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt | George | Amateur Astronomy | 64 | August 30th 06 07:20 PM |
[sci.astro] Solar System (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (5/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 3rd 06 12:34 PM |
New Solar System Model that explains DW 2004 / Quaoar / Kuiper Belt and Pluto | hermesnines | Misc | 0 | February 24th 04 08:49 PM |
Hubble Helps Confirm Oldest Known Planet | Ron Baalke | Misc | 8 | July 13th 03 08:34 PM |