|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
George quoted, in part:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting took part. Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12. "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said. He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is working on'." This raises a new factor. I had carelessly assumed that the assembled astronomers simply found the original proposal, to admit Ceres once again as a planet, and recognize several new objects in the Kuiper Belt as full-fledged planets, as simply too bold. And, thus, despite the fact that demoting Pluto would seem a bold move to the man in the street, the consensus was simply to go with traditionalism. Whether things are as bad as they seem, though, depends on other factors. Of 2,700 astronomers in Prague, I hardly think they were composed of 424 dynamicists, and 2,276 planetary geologists. A few, for example, might have been astrophysicists - which, I think, remain the most numerous specialty within astronomy, even if planetary astronomy has recovered from the desuetude that saw the planetary astronomy consisting of one and a half astronomers (two thirds of which, of course, were Gerard Kuiper). Still, admirers of Pluto can take heart that it is entirely possible that when the IAU next convenes, it just might reconsider its decision. John Savard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
wrote in message ups.com... George quoted, in part: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting took part. Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12. "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said. He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is working on'." This raises a new factor. I had carelessly assumed that the assembled astronomers simply found the original proposal, to admit Ceres once again as a planet, and recognize several new objects in the Kuiper Belt as full-fledged planets, as simply too bold. And, thus, despite the fact that demoting Pluto would seem a bold move to the man in the street, the consensus was simply to go with traditionalism. Whether things are as bad as they seem, though, depends on other factors. Of 2,700 astronomers in Prague, I hardly think they were composed of 424 dynamicists, and 2,276 planetary geologists. A few, for example, might have been astrophysicists - which, I think, remain the most numerous specialty within astronomy, even if planetary astronomy has recovered from the desuetude that saw the planetary astronomy consisting of one and a half astronomers (two thirds of which, of course, were Gerard Kuiper). Still, admirers of Pluto can take heart that it is entirely possible that when the IAU next convenes, it just might reconsider its decision. John Savard They are going to have to reconsider the definition. I've had a think about this and came up with: http://rogersplanetaryclassification...261 63909.htm Which I'm very proud of! Pluto is still a Planet - its just not a primary planet. Nathan. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
wrote in message ups.com... George quoted, in part: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting took part. Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12. "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said. He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is working on'." This raises a new factor. I had carelessly assumed that the assembled astronomers simply found the original proposal, to admit Ceres once again as a planet, and recognize several new objects in the Kuiper Belt as full-fledged planets, as simply too bold. And, thus, despite the fact that demoting Pluto would seem a bold move to the man in the street, the consensus was simply to go with traditionalism. Whether things are as bad as they seem, though, depends on other factors. Of 2,700 astronomers in Prague, I hardly think they were composed of 424 dynamicists, and 2,276 planetary geologists. A few, for example, might have been astrophysicists - which, I think, remain the most numerous specialty within astronomy, even if planetary astronomy has recovered from the desuetude that saw the planetary astronomy consisting of one and a half astronomers (two thirds of which, of course, were Gerard Kuiper). Still, admirers of Pluto can take heart that it is entirely possible that when the IAU next convenes, it just might reconsider its decision. And their leadership too I bet. Maybe they should some of their own ....lane clearing. Our local astronomer, Jack Horkheimer, was bemoaning the other day how he had just put up a new 12 planet display. "It's coming down" he said. I wonder if he put up an 8 planet display yet? He should keep them both, probably be something for the smithsonian someday. John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt | George | Astronomy Misc | 72 | August 30th 06 10:51 PM |
Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt | George | Amateur Astronomy | 64 | August 30th 06 07:20 PM |
VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, March 2006 | Double-A | Misc | 68 | April 12th 06 02:05 AM |
Fw: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, September 2005 | Double-A | Misc | 13 | October 3rd 05 04:56 AM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |