Fight for Pluto !, A Campaign to Reverse the Unjust Demotion |
Fight for Pluto !, A Campaign to Reverse the Unjust Demotion |
Aug 24 2006, 08:24 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 548 Joined: 19-March 05 From: Princeton, NJ, USA Member No.: 212 |
Dear Friends,
Today I am extremely dissapointed that the Pluto Demoters have triumphed. I respect their opinion, but disagree with it. I strongly agree with Alan Stern's statement calling it "absurd" that only 424 astronomers were allowed to vote, out of some 10,000 professional astronomers around the globe. This tiny group is clearly not at all representative by mathematics alone. I believe we should formulate a plan to overturn this unjust decision and return Pluto to full planetary status, and as the first member of a third catagory of planets, Xena being number two. Thus a total of 10 Planets in our Solar System Please respond if you agree that Pluto should be restored as a planet. ken Ken Kremer Amateur Astronomers Association of Princeton Program Chairman |
|
|
Aug 24 2006, 08:49 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
I believe we should formulate a plan to overturn this unjust decision and return Pluto to full planetary status, and as the first member of a third catagory of planets, Xena being number two. Thus a total of 10 Planets in our Solar System You might want to carefully consider what, if any, counterproposal you make axiomatic to your movement. You might find that a majority support Pluto's planethood, but split with you on other subissues. Or, maybe you have already carefully considered the politics of it. Cheers, in any case. |
|
|
Aug 25 2006, 09:22 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 307 Joined: 16-March 05 Member No.: 198 |
You might want to carefully consider what, if any, counterproposal you make axiomatic to your movement. You might find that a majority support Pluto's planethood, but split with you on other subissues. Or, maybe you have already carefully considered the politics of it. Which begs the question I have yet to get a straight answer to: why are so many astronomers (and maybe layfolk too) so keen to restrict the number of planets to a select few and what is the rationale behind it? Even those in favour of including Pluto seem less than keen to widen the definition too far. Astronomers at the conference might have quibbled over whether there should be eight, nine or a dozen, but most if not all seemed to want some kind of cap. Yet these same astronomers seem quite happy to accept that the terms "moon", "star", and "galaxy" should have no such limit. If there can be dozens of moons in the Solar System why can't that same solar system have dozens of planets? What is the rationale for restricting the number of planets? ====== Stephen |
|
|
Aug 25 2006, 11:10 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 147 Joined: 30-June 05 From: Bristol, UK Member No.: 423 |
Yet these same astronomers seem quite happy to accept that the terms "moon", "star", and "galaxy" should have no such limit. If there can be dozens of moons in the Solar System why can't that same solar system have dozens of planets? What is the rationale for restricting the number of planets? ====== Stephen Ok then, for "Star" there is: Brown Dwarfs White Dwarfs Main Sequence Sub Giants Giants Bright Giants Super Giants Along with spectral class {O,B,A,F,G,K,M} And its worse for Galaxies!! so "Dwarf Planet" is fine. Nick |
|
|
Aug 25 2006, 11:50 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 307 Joined: 16-March 05 Member No.: 198 |
Ok then, for "Star" there is: Brown Dwarfs White Dwarfs Main Sequence Sub Giants Giants Bright Giants Super Giants Along with spectral class {O,B,A,F,G,K,M} And its worse for Galaxies!! so "Dwarf Planet" is fine. Nick OK, from the top. 1) "Brown dwarfs" Brown dwarfs are (at best) seen as failed stars, not stars per se. They are not massive enough for their thermonuclear furnaces to have ignited. (See this Wikipedia page, which dubs them "sub-stellar objects".) 2) "White Dwarfs" "Main Sequence", "Sub Giants", "Giants", "Bright Giants", "Super Giants". Not mention all those spectral classes. All these are subcategories of stars. That is, subsets of the objects termed "stars". By contrast, under the IAU's definition a "dwarf planet" is not a kind of "planet". Under the IAU's definition "dwarf planet" and "planet" are different species of astronomical object. 3) Ditto for galaxies. Spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies, for example, are all classed as galaxies, rather than as objects different to galaxies. ****** IMHO the IAU is going to rue the day it dubbed it's second-best category "dwarf planet". Too many of us lay people are going to mistakenly think that "dwarf planet" is a kind of "planet" rather than a different category of object. Presumably the term was a bone tossed to the Pluto crowd to keep them quiet. ====== Stephen |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 04:41 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |