Starship Asterisk*

Well, there were some aliens on the moon almost 40 years ago

Oh boy Duck liver Pate for 50 billion?

Hi Martin,
the content of your message altered as i read it ..is this proof of alien life upon our airwaves

of course we need you ..if the Atantic is called the Pond ..just think of the size of the ducks

Linx

1776....

"We made it official that we would no longer tolerate another country corrupting and taking advantage of ours. We would much rather corrupt ourselves without the additional paperwork. Thank you very much and call us if you need us!

Hi,
with the great leaps forward that mankind have made with technology & ways to study & research surely new or better known facts about the Universe will become more & more commonplace

if other changes, such as have been made to Pluto's 'standing' in the order of the Universe when it hasn't changed in its actual substance, become regular or the norm, wont it seriously damage the ability to teach & study this wonderful subject

BMAONE 23
i'm British but i call it the Atlantic Ocean!

1776? - are you showing your age
Linx

BMAONE23 wrote:didn't the Brits refer to the Atlantic as "The Pond"???

Never cared much for that, but we showed them in 1776

And you've been stirring it up all around the world ever since then...
Mind you, so have we. We're just as bad as each other.

didn't the Brits refer to the Atlantic as "The Pond"???

Never cared much for that, but we showed them in 1776

IMO the naming of well known things in common language is a substantially social issue, not a scientific one.

Would the world stand for a group, or even a whole country, declaring that the "Atlantic Ocean" is now no longer an Ocean and is going to be called the "Atlantic Waterway"?

To completely ignore the social issue on scientific grounds indicates small-mindedness (and quite likely arrogance?) on the part of the IAU. Beyond increased publicity for the IAU (is any publicity good publicity?), what's gained? Nothing.

What will you tell the next child looking through your telescope who asks "How many planets are there?" The kid's probably going to lose interest at some point following "Nine, er, eight, er, let me explain...".

-Noel

I did read the letter you posted. There are some good points made in it, but it doesn't change my opinion on the matter as a whole. In short, I agree on the folly of the definition, but disagree on the need to follow up on it.

I'm glad you found the original amusing. That's how I intended it, but I wasn't sure if it came across as toungue-in-cheek Mark Twain style or sarcasm.

iamlucky13, thank you for your follow up. I see your point and I may agree to some extent. However, most found the IAU to be out-of-bounds to begin with.

The letter I posted explained more than the classifications error -I hope you can see the point of that

"I hope you're as entertaining when that happens." -I sincerely meant that. Your 1st post was amusing.

No. I'm not a member of the IAU. In fact, the IAU itself is divided on the issue. Frankly, I don't care too much, and I think the fuss being made on both sides is pointless. Pluto is still Pluto. That was my point. It is no less interesting simply because the catalogs list it as a dwarf planet instead of a planet. The New Horizons missions is going to be no less eye-opening for the demotion. If it is a Kuiper Belt Object, then it's even more interesting because it will tell us something about the most difficult group of objects to study in our solar system

I think the IAU decision was made without any good motivation and is only a little less arbitrary than previous definitions of planets (remember, they didn't directly reclassify Pluto, they changed the definition of the class). I also don't think it's worth fussing with trying to get them to reverse their definition because that won't clarify anything. Just call it what you want.

The fact is there is probably a nearly continuous range of objects in space from micrometeorites on up to supergiant blue stars. For the most part, the lines drawn to divy up the classes are arbitrary. There's a few less ambiguous categories, like stars have to be able to support fusion and those we know of tend to do so quite well, but for the most part the naming is out of convenience. For some people (especially grade school teachers and journalists), it's convenient to call Pluto a planet. For others, it's convenient to draw a distinction between it and the terrestrial and jovian planets.

It's just not worth getting riled up about because any new definition aren't likely to be better scientifically than the current or past definitions.


I thought I'd also point out that of the other 8 planets you mention having been explored that Neptune and Uranus haven't really been explored much either, except for the Voyager 2 flyby. After New Horizons visits Pluto, we will have more information about it than it's two closer neighbors.

Let me guess your a member of the IAU

Did you even read the post

It should have never changed in the 1st place and if the majority agrees then it should be undone. I hope your as entertaining when that happens

Oh no. Somebody had to go and resurrect it.

Look, I had a chat with Pluto last week. He said it doesn't matter much to him. He liked the title planet and the distinction of being classed with the first group of major bodies discovered in the solar system, but admits he's different than the other 8.

Frankly, he's kind of fed up with all the commotion. He just wants to be who he is: an icy body 250+ AU away from the sun, and he doesn't want people trying to spin arbitrary labels to fit him. It's his opinion that no matter how we define a planet, he'll be happy just to be remembered as one of the few bodies in the solar system named after a Roman god.

He doesn't think the publicity's changed him at all. Mr. Tambaugh always loved him for who he was, even knowing he was an out-of-plane, elliptically-orbiting misfit and wasn't the mysterious gravitational perturbation on Neptune that he was looking for. Why can't others accept that? Why do they have to try to seperate him from his thousands, perhaps 100's of thousands of brethren?

Wonderful post Martin.
Couldn't agree more.
IMO once we start enforcing limitations on things that we haven't even looked at properly yet, we impose barriers to free thought and open minds.
For myself, I will always see Pluto as planet number 9 in the list regardless of what the IAU says.

Excerpt: THIS is TRUE

"This week I got another note from Dr. Stern. He is mightily bothered
that the International Astronomical Union voted last August to adopt a
definition of "planet" to exclude Pluto. He thinks it's a mistake, and
so do I. Wednesday (March 13, the day in 1930 that the IAU announced
the discovery of Pluto by Clyde Tombaugh of New Mexico) was proposed by the State of New Mexico to be "Pluto Planet Day" to both recognize
Tombaugh's discovery and to express displeasure at the IAU's new
definition.

It's not just politicians (and the public) who disagree with the IAU;
apparently a majority of scientists do too, including Alan Stern, who
notes that if it's strictly applied, even Earth doesn't meet the IAU's
definition of "planet"! Who else disagrees? The European Geophysical
Union, which has voted to come up with its own definition at its annual
meeting next month, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "EGU and AAAS are both much larger professional organizations of scientists than the IAU," Stern told me in an e-mail. "I see this as strong empirical evidence that the IAU definition is fatally flawed and other scientific organizations are now stepping up to the plate to repair the situation IAU has created. The IAU has lost the confidence
of too many scientists in this, and science is moving on to forge a
better consensus. The IAU can chose to catch up later if it so
desires."

So why, really, does it matter? It does matter, and here's why: Pluto
is the tip of a huge iceberg, an entirely new class of objects that
make up the Kuiper Belt, where there are perhaps 100,000 planetoids,
with as many as 1,000 of those being the size of Pluto. IAU seems to be
afraid that planets will not be "special" if there are a thousand or
more bodies with the title; they're just these rocky, icy things way
out there; they're ordinary, not worthy of a second look.

Well, I'm of the opposite mind: we now know our solar system doesn't
just have nine planets, but more than 1,000, and with that comes the
realization that we've only explored EIGHT of them! We're hugely
ignorant of our surroundings even in our tiny corner of the galaxy.
Without fail, every time that we've sent probes to other planets we get
big surprises: we learn new things not just about those planets, but
about the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe in general. And
what's the point of existing if we're not exploring and learning new
things? "The cost?" you might ask. In 2002 I pointed out the Pluto
probe cost about one-quarter of what we spent that year on ...Easter
candy. Fundamental knowledge is worth far more than that.

We pompous humans NEED to understand that we occupy a minutely tiny
part of the universe. It does us good to stand in awe with our eyes
open to the vast amount and diversity of things that are not right in
front of our noses. The label "planet" should be reserved for the most
special things around us? YOU BET. Those 1,000-100,000 bodies in orbit
around our sun are a part of the neighborhood and we SHOULD understand them better. They ARE special. And we know nearly nothing about them, and shame on us for our ignorance: it's time we knew more. By taking away the label "planet" from Pluto and similar bodies, the IAU is
sending a message that these bodies are NOT special, they don't need to
be looked at, it's not important that they be understood. But the
reality is, we have no idea whatever how special they are, and the only
way to find out is to go look and learn. And I have great faith that
like every time in the past, we'll be surprised by what we find, and
understand the universe that much better. We're not talking about the
interest of a few planetary scientists, we're talking about expanding
human knowledge and expanding the understanding of our place in the
universe. That's "special" indeed, and our language needs to reflect that".

-A message to the IAU: Sorry!
Martin