IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Fight for Pluto !, A Campaign to Reverse the Unjust Demotion
mars loon
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
laurele
post Sep 26 2006, 09:25 PM
Post #2


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 26-September 06
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 1183



[font=Times New Roman][size=4]

I strongly object to the demotion of Pluto by a small group of scientists voting based on very narrow criteria. There is no way I will accept this decision. If children I know are taught in school that there are eight planets in our solar system, I will correct this misinformation and teach them that there are nine (at least). This is revisionist history that would make George Orwell proud. Pluto orbits the sun and has three moons. The requirement that its orbit be on the same plane as Earth's is just one more example of human arrogance. In the long run, I believe this decision will be overturned. In the meantime, please count me in as an advocate who will do whatever I can to restore Pluto's rightful place in our solar system. You can also view my blog posting "In Defense of Pluto" at http://laurele.livejournal.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Sep 26 2006, 09:36 PM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3652
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 26 2006, 10:25 PM) *
to restore Pluto's rightful place in our solar system.

It's not like anyone actually kicked Pluto out of our solar system or anything. Why don't you stand in defense of Ceres being reinstated as a planet, too? The decision to demote it could have also been considered "revisionist history". Why stop at Pluto? Why is it so special?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laurele
post Sep 26 2006, 09:53 PM
Post #4


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 26-September 06
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 1183



QUOTE (ugordan @ Sep 26 2006, 05:36 PM) *
It's not like anyone actually kicked Pluto out of our solar system or anything. Why don't you stand in defense of Ceres being reinstated as a planet, too? The decision to demote it could have also been considered "revisionist history". Why stop at Pluto? Why is it so special?


I have no problem with Ceres being reinstated as a planet. In fact, I think the 12-planet scheme originally considered by the IAU is much more appropriate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Sep 26 2006, 09:55 PM
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3652
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 26 2006, 10:53 PM) *
I have no problem with Ceres being reinstated as a planet. In fact, I think the 12-planet scheme originally considered by the IAU is much more appropriate.

Then why aren't you pushing for that, instead of demanding that only Pluto be reinstated?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laurele
post Sep 27 2006, 04:12 AM
Post #6


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 26-September 06
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 1183



QUOTE (ugordan @ Sep 26 2006, 05:55 PM) *
Then why aren't you pushing for that, instead of demanding that only Pluto be reinstated?


First, I would like to see this travesty of a decision by the IAU overturned, as I see it as a giant step backwards. I do and will advocate for the 12-planet alternative. Dr. Alan Stern is convening a conference of over 1,000 astronomers next summer to address this issue, and I'm pretty certain this scheme will be considered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Sep 27 2006, 06:58 AM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3652
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



The way I see it you're pushing for a petition to reinstate Pluto, not demanding the IAU to make a better definition. If the petition was for a better, less sloppy definiton of a planet, I'd gladly sign it. This merely looks like someone god pi**ed about their favourite pet planet not being a planet anymore. How's that for "human arrogance"?

IMO, the time of a nine-planet solar system has passed. Either we have 8, hack it down even more to 4 or we have 12 or more. Pushing for Pluto only is wrong and IMO shows you're not interested as much in a good planet definition, but are interested in Pluto only.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Sedna_*
post Sep 29 2006, 11:53 PM
Post #8





Guests






QUOTE (ugordan @ Sep 27 2006, 08:58 AM) *
The way I see it you're pushing for a petition to reinstate Pluto, not demanding the IAU to make a better definition. If the petition was for a better, less sloppy definiton of a planet, I'd gladly sign it. This merely looks like someone god pi**ed about their favourite pet planet not being a planet anymore. How's that for "human arrogance"?

IMO, the time of a nine-planet solar system has passed. Either we have 8, hack it down even more to 4 or we have 12 or more. Pushing for Pluto only is wrong and IMO shows you're not interested as much in a good planet definition, but are interested in Pluto only.


Good reasonement. What is Pluto? A dwarf planet, for humans of planet Earth (or for IAU, the AUTHORITY, though it may hurt to somebody...). Does it really matter what it is for us? Not really... I think it's not a planet. I'm not really in agreement in the new definition of "dwarf planet", I would set apart just planets and minor planets (or KBO's and Asteroid Belt big bodies with another name, maybe...), not intermediate bodies. Anyway, Pluto is Pluto, regardless of what we, just humans, say about such a body, or bodies like Pluto. It was doubted that Pluto was a planet when discovered, and it has been ruled out as such. An historical error has been corrected. New Horizons will now visit a new kind of body never (not even by Voyagers...) visited before. I find out that this is even more interesting that before, not the opposite.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laurele
post Sep 30 2006, 12:40 AM
Post #9


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 26-September 06
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 1183



QUOTE (Sedna @ Sep 29 2006, 07:53 PM) *
Good reasonement. What is Pluto? A dwarf planet, for humans of planet Earth (or for IAU, the AUTHORITY, though it may hurt to somebody...). Does it really matter what it is for us? Not really... I think it's not a planet. I'm not really in agreement in the new definition of "dwarf planet", I would set apart just planets and minor planets (or KBO's and Asteroid Belt big bodies with another name, maybe...), not intermediate bodies. Anyway, Pluto is Pluto, regardless of what we, just humans, say about such a body, or bodies like Pluto. It was doubted that Pluto was a planet when discovered, and it has been ruled out as such. An historical error has been corrected. New Horizons will now visit a new kind of body never (not even by Voyagers...) visited before. I find out that this is even more interesting that before, not the opposite.


I have already stated that I want a better definition of the word "planet," and this is not just about Pluto. As for the IAU, I question who made them the "authority" on this? What about the equal number of planetary scientists who signed the dissenting petition? The process the IAU conducted was highly unprofessional and represents a very small portion of its entire membership. The way they went about making this decision detracts from their credibility. It's not a matter of anyone being personally hurt, but a matter of the havoc the IAU has created by going about its decision so poorly. Dr. Alan Stern described it as "sloppy science that would never pass peer review" and "an embarrassment to astronomy."

I'm glad you see the flaws with this "dwarf planet" definition and agree with the obvious statement that our perceptions and labeling do not change what Pluto is. At the same time, I have a serious problem with the IAU's designating it a number as just another asteroid, which it clearly is not.

Again, I repeat, Pluto has not been ruled out as being a planet. This debate will continue at Dr. Stern's conference next year, the IAU conference in 2009, and the New Horizons visit in 2015. I just think it's premature to assume this is a "done deal" when it clearly is not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Sedna_*
post Sep 30 2006, 01:16 AM
Post #10





Guests






QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 30 2006, 02:40 AM) *
I have already stated that I want a better definition of the word "planet," and this is not just about Pluto.


So do I, as a minor planet or such maybe...

QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 30 2006, 02:40 AM) *
As for the IAU, I question who made them the "authority" on this? What about the equal number of planetary scientists who signed the dissenting petition? The process the IAU conducted was highly unprofessional and represents a very small portion of its entire membership.


The authority made itself. Who made the President of the United Stated, or UK, or Spain such a President? People did. With IAU, astronomers did, one year ago, or 100 years ago...

QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 30 2006, 02:40 AM) *
The way they went about making this decision detracts from their credibility. It's not a matter of anyone being personally hurt, but a matter of the havoc the IAU has created by going about its decision so poorly. Dr. Alan Stern described it as "sloppy science that would never pass peer review" and "an embarrassment to astronomy."


Maybe you are pertaining to IAU, or you were in the Assembly... I wasn't yet, unfortunately... and, from my first news, I was decided to accept IAU's decision, even the first one of 12 planets... though I was eager to find out Pluto to be ruled out as a planet (why not Ceres if the opposite)? We all know that this Assembly was not decided to promote Ceres to planet status, but the opposite for Pluto, or to decide Pluto's status, not Ceres'. Is Ceres a planet? Maybe, but I stick to IAU's resolution, and neither Ceres nor Pluto are planets... A pity... Not, probably, but if the IAU decides to promote Ceres and Pluto (both of them, not just Pluto!) to the status of planet, I will have to accept it, regardless of my personal opinion. "Some people" can not be in agreement, but it's their business... Regarding IAU, will you accept "Eris" for 2003UB313, or will you find a better alternative name?... IAU is the authority, not decided by me, of course, but by most of astronomers... And, finally, Pluto was assigned a MP number. It was offered "10000" as a honour, but was not accepted... now they/we have to accept this second one, no other chance...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
laurele
post Sep 30 2006, 05:00 AM
Post #11


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 26-September 06
From: New Jersey, USA
Member No.: 1183



So do I, as a minor planet or such maybe...
The authority made itself. Who made the President of the United Stated, or UK, or Spain such a President? People did. With IAU, astronomers did, one year ago, or 100 years ago...
Maybe you are pertaining to IAU, or you were in the Assembly... I wasn't yet, unfortunately... and, from my first news, I was decided to accept IAU's decision, even the first one of 12 planets... though I was eager to find out Pluto to be ruled out as a planet (why not Ceres if the opposite)? We all know that this Assembly was not decided to promote Ceres to planet status, but the opposite for Pluto, or to decide Pluto's status, not Ceres'. Is Ceres a planet? Maybe, but I stick to IAU's resolution, and neither Ceres nor Pluto are planets... A pity... Not, probably, but if the IAU decides to promote Ceres and Pluto (both of them, not just Pluto!) to the status of planet, I will have to accept it, regardless of my personal opinion. "Some people" can not be in agreement, but it's their business... Regarding IAU, will you accept "Eris" for 2003UB313, or will you find a better alternative name?... IAU is the authority, not decided by me, of course, but by most of astronomers... And, finally, Pluto was assigned a MP number. It was offered "10000" as a honour, but was not accepted... now they/we have to accept this second one, no other chance...


The IAU made itself an authority? So what is to stop an alternative group from making itself an equal authority, as is likely to happen with Dr. Stern's conference of 1,000 astronomers next summer? What happens if the IAU is itself divided? The comparison with the president of the US doesn't hold because the president was elected in a very specific process laid out in the US Constitution. If that process were conducted in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, the election would be voided and a new one held.

I was not present at the Assembly, but I do not choose to blindly accept whatever the IAU or any other organization or individual, for that matter, decides upon at any given time simply because they are considered an "authority." It's not even clear the group who voted represent a consensus within the IAU. We're talking 424 out of 10,000! It's not just individuals' business if they are not in agreement. We are talking about definitions and classifications that impact the entire world. If two groups of scientists are equally qualified to make the determination, why should one group's view take precedence over the other's? As far as Eris, I am more interested in it obtaining planet status than what its name is. Like I said, I think the 12-planet scheme is far more accurate.

I will admit I'm unfamiliar with the issue of Pluto being offered "10,000" as a number. Who made such an offer; who rejected it, and why does Pluto need a number at all? Why can't it simply be known as Pluto? And why do you say there is "no other chance" regarding this? There is always a chance to revisit an issue if the first decision was flawed. I'm curious; if next year Dr. Stern's group of 1,000 decides on a different definition of planet and adopts the 12-planet scheme, how will you decide which view to accept?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Sedna_*
post Oct 1 2006, 02:19 AM
Post #12





Guests






QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 30 2006, 07:00 AM) *
The IAU made itself an authority? So what is to stop an alternative group from making itself an equal authority, as is likely to happen with Dr. Stern's conference of 1,000 astronomers next summer? What happens if the IAU is itself divided? The comparison with the president of the US doesn't hold because the president was elected in a very specific process laid out in the US Constitution. If that process were conducted in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, the election would be voided and a new one held.


IAU made itself in the sense that, when it was constituted, astronomers arround the world accepted this association as the ruling one in astronomical affairs, such as definitions or naming issues. Will Dr. Stern constitute an alternate association? I don't know... A star could be, for instance, be named in two different ways or weird things like this... I think that this also "applies" somehow to the president of any country. Of course a big law baggage is set behind, but where you asked if you even wanted a president to be elected? Maybe you don't want ANY president, but you are told to elect one... IAU should be respected in the decisions it takes, even if those are not in agreement with our thoughts... Is a "coup d'etat" the solution for an unpopular decision of a goverment?

QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 30 2006, 07:00 AM) *
I was not present at the Assembly, but I do not choose to blindly accept whatever the IAU or any other organization or individual, for that matter, decides upon at any given time simply because they are considered an "authority." It's not even clear the group who voted represent a consensus within the IAU. We're talking 424 out of 10,000! It's not just individuals' business if they are not in agreement. We are talking about definitions and classifications that impact the entire world. If two groups of scientists are equally qualified to make the determination, why should one group's view take precedence over the other's? As far as Eris, I am more interested in it obtaining planet status than what its name is. Like I said, I think the 12-planet scheme is far more accurate.


424 members voted. Why not all of them?, it's their business, ask them... I think Pluto is not a planet, but if IAU had taken the decision to establish the 12-planet scheme, I would have accepted it... BTW, Eris seems to be a good name, doesn't it?

QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 30 2006, 07:00 AM) *
I will admit I'm unfamiliar with the issue of Pluto being offered "10,000" as a number. Who made such an offer; who rejected it, and why does Pluto need a number at all? Why can't it simply be known as Pluto? And why do you say there is "no other chance" regarding this? There is always a chance to revisit an issue if the first decision was flawed. I'm curious; if next year Dr. Stern's group of 1,000 decides on a different definition of planet and adopts the 12-planet scheme, how will you decide which view to accept?


I will accept, IAU's, for the time being. This is a serious thing, this is science and an authority is needed, like IUPAP in Physics or IUPAC in Chemistry. Why to give Pluto a number? Well, why do the asteroids "Pizarro" (4609) or "Valencia" (5941) need a number? Science needs to clasificate things, among many other things. Now Pluto, or 2003UB313 are "Minor Planets" and, as such, they have been given their numbers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Oct 1 2006, 05:04 AM
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



QUOTE (Sedna @ Sep 30 2006, 07:19 PM) *
A star could be, for instance, be named in two different ways or weird things like this...


If you mean "defined" when you say "named", this is already true of the word "star" (in a celestial sense, even, not counting the Hollywood/sports senses or the pointy-shape sense, etc.).

From the Random House dictionary:

1. any of the heavenly bodies, except the moon, appearing as fixed luminous points in the sky at night.
2. Astronomy. any of the large, self-luminous, heavenly bodies, as the sun, Polaris, etc.
3. any heavenly body.

Note the word "Astronomy" qualifying the 2nd definition. #1 and #3 also refer to bodies in the sky; #2 is "scientific". But #1 would be the sense used when someone at a campground points to Jupiter and asks a friend, "What's that bright star?" This kind of situation begs pedants to deny definition #1 and unilaterally enforce definition #2 and tell the person, wrongly, that it isn't a star. Jupiter is a star... of the kind definition #1 designates.

Here's what's so terrible about what happened in 2006. It's not that Pluto was demoted. It's that a terribly boneheaded approach to definition has been held up as a standard. It is taken for granted that planet, unlike "star", unlike "work", unlike "set", unlike most of the words in any language, should henceforth have just ONE definition. (Note to committee: WRONG.) And that it should be decided by committee (Note to committee: WRONG.)

"Planet" should get no worse than the treatment Random House gave to "star". There is an inalienable sense in which Pluto is most certainly a planet, and committees don't touch that definition; they don't have the authority to. And the reason why Pluto qualifies by that standard is precisely the same reason why Europe is a continent and a starfish is a "fish" (Random House's definition #2 of "fish", not the scientific one at #1): because people call it one.

A committee may have the right to lay down ONE of the definitions of "planet"... if there's one that is useful and makes sense. The IAU's definition of 2006 (both of the proposed ones, actually) fail on both counts. Unlike definition #2 of "star", this definition of "planet" is NOT scientifically useful. That, it has become clear, would be true of any attempted definition. It also makes poor sense, whereas a definition that laid out an objective standard like a minimum diameter of 2000 km would at least make sense, and would only have two glaring problems with it (not scientifically useful; not for a committee to dictate as the only definition of "planet").

In whatever small way it matters, I call Pluto a planet. I won't stop doing so. I call Eris a planet. I won't stop doing so. I make no bones about having any standard other than "I know it when I see it" -- exactly the way I handle "mountain", "boulder", and "river". Every now and then I'll call something a mountain and someone else will call it a hill. Oh, well. I'm not going to be the only one calling Pluto a planet, and the committee is not going to own the term. They might get to own one of several definitions of "planet". That's all the power over this they deserve. Pluto will remain a planet according to other definitions and it will finally hit people over the head that, like "river", that's the kind of concept that "planet" is.

"Prime number" has a fixed, rigorous definition. The facts around the matter support that. "Planet" never will because the facts around it don't support that.

When New Horizons flies past Pluto, I guarantee that the rejection of the "planetness" of Pluto will be significantly crumbled. Whether this re-planetization has an in-committee component or just a grassroots component is hard to say. But the demotion is not going to stick.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- mars loon   Fight for Pluto !   Aug 24 2006, 08:24 PM
- - Holder of the Two Leashes   I'm in.   Aug 24 2006, 08:37 PM
- - volcanopele   So am I.   Aug 24 2006, 08:48 PM
- - JRehling   QUOTE (mars loon @ Aug 24 2006, 01:24 PM)...   Aug 24 2006, 08:49 PM
|- - David   QUOTE (JRehling @ Aug 24 2006, 08:49 PM) ...   Aug 24 2006, 09:00 PM
|- - Stephen   QUOTE (JRehling @ Aug 24 2006, 08:49 PM) ...   Aug 25 2006, 09:22 AM
|- - Ames   QUOTE (Stephen @ Aug 25 2006, 10:22 AM) Y...   Aug 25 2006, 11:10 AM
|- - Stephen   QUOTE (Ames @ Aug 25 2006, 11:10 AM) Ok t...   Aug 25 2006, 11:50 AM
- - DonPMitchell   I agree, this is an arbitrary ruling by a small su...   Aug 24 2006, 09:05 PM
|- - Planet X   At any rate, I'm in! What if it turns out...   Aug 24 2006, 09:19 PM
||- - mars loon   QUOTE (Planet X @ Aug 24 2006, 09:19 PM) ...   Aug 24 2006, 10:18 PM
|||- - Jyril   QUOTE (mars loon @ Aug 25 2006, 01:18 AM)...   Aug 24 2006, 10:58 PM
||- - tedstryk   This could really get messy if they find a Pluto-t...   Aug 24 2006, 10:20 PM
||- - Alan Stern   Poll at chicagotribune.com... Do you agree with t...   Aug 24 2006, 10:32 PM
||- - Jyril   QUOTE (Alan Stern @ Aug 25 2006, 01:32 AM...   Aug 24 2006, 11:03 PM
||- - mars loon   QUOTE (Alan Stern @ Aug 24 2006, 10:32 PM...   Aug 24 2006, 11:48 PM
||- - dilo   I fully understand Alan is hungry, but, apart hist...   Aug 25 2006, 08:16 AM
||- - chris   QUOTE (dilo @ Aug 25 2006, 09:16 AM) I fu...   Aug 25 2006, 08:35 AM
|||- - dilo   QUOTE (chris @ Aug 25 2006, 09:35 AM) Did...   Aug 25 2006, 10:00 AM
||- - djellison   QUOTE (dilo @ Aug 25 2006, 09:16 AM) NEO ...   Aug 25 2006, 08:49 AM
||- - JRehling   QUOTE (dilo @ Aug 25 2006, 01:16 AM) I fu...   Aug 25 2006, 03:32 PM
||- - David   QUOTE (JRehling @ Aug 25 2006, 03:32 PM) ...   Aug 25 2006, 03:58 PM
|- - David   QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ Aug 24 2006, 09:05 ...   Aug 24 2006, 09:44 PM
- - Jyril   If you don't like Pluto's demotion, consid...   Aug 24 2006, 09:10 PM
- - Decepticon   I for one cheered when I heard the news! I su...   Aug 25 2006, 12:30 AM
- - David   If it had been up to me, personally, to make a dec...   Aug 25 2006, 03:10 AM
- - alan   I would have been happy with either of the possibi...   Aug 25 2006, 03:28 AM
- - Myran   Science isnt something that you can start a politi...   Aug 25 2006, 03:42 AM
|- - tedstryk   QUOTE (Myran @ Aug 25 2006, 03:42 AM) Sci...   Aug 25 2006, 04:18 AM
- - Betelgeuze   Im in! I dont mind if Pluto is a dwarf planet...   Aug 25 2006, 05:09 AM
|- - JRehling   C - ommittee to R - einstate A - stronomy's P ...   Aug 25 2006, 05:45 AM
- - djellison   The classification of Pluto as non-planetary doesn...   Aug 25 2006, 08:11 AM
- - djellison   Truth be told - I think we should be fighting for ...   Aug 25 2006, 10:12 AM
|- - Jyril   QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 25 2006, 01:12 PM)...   Aug 25 2006, 12:00 PM
|- - djellison   QUOTE (Jyril @ Aug 25 2006, 01:00 PM) Acc...   Aug 25 2006, 12:11 PM
|- - David   QUOTE (Jyril @ Aug 25 2006, 12:00 PM) The...   Aug 25 2006, 12:26 PM
- - Patteroast   The two results I was hoping for were either a def...   Aug 25 2006, 11:09 AM
- - Stephen   Too many of the elements in the IAU's definiti...   Aug 25 2006, 11:23 AM
|- - dilo   advice: this post is OT here! sorry for this.....   Aug 25 2006, 08:26 PM
- - Jyril   I have no problems with the "orbital dominanc...   Aug 25 2006, 12:28 PM
- - odave   Jupiter: "Dangit, I was just about to become...   Aug 25 2006, 04:00 PM
- - David   Radicalized pro-Plutonians may find this site amus...   Aug 26 2006, 05:15 PM
|- - mars loon   QUOTE (David @ Aug 26 2006, 05:15 PM) Rad...   Aug 26 2006, 08:50 PM
|- - volcanopele   QUOTE (David @ Aug 26 2006, 10:15 AM) Rad...   Aug 26 2006, 09:44 PM
|- - vexgizmo   QUOTE (David @ Aug 26 2006, 10:15 AM) Rad...   Aug 29 2006, 05:53 AM
|- - karolp   QUOTE (vexgizmo @ Aug 29 2006, 07:53 AM) ...   Aug 30 2006, 01:46 PM
|- - mars loon   QUOTE (karolp @ Aug 30 2006, 01:46 PM) Th...   Sep 2 2006, 01:42 PM
|- - karolp   If I were a US scientist I would put forward a pet...   Sep 2 2006, 02:40 PM
|- - tedstryk   QUOTE (mars loon @ Sep 2 2006, 01:42 PM) ...   Sep 13 2006, 09:45 PM
- - marsman   Here is a news article from CNN about an actual pr...   Sep 2 2006, 04:21 PM
- - volcanopele   Even the California Legislature is now weighing in...   Sep 7 2006, 08:12 PM
- - odave   Now that is an excellent example of government in ...   Sep 8 2006, 12:17 PM
- - Greg Hullender   volcanopele: Aren't you worried that it suppor...   Sep 9 2006, 04:05 AM
- - DonPMitchell   The last issue of Nature has an article about the ...   Sep 9 2006, 05:15 AM
|- - gpurcell   Absolutely, it was a political hatchet job from st...   Sep 13 2006, 06:58 AM
- - Sedna   Even when discovered, it was doubted that Pluto wa...   Sep 14 2006, 10:48 PM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (Sedna @ Sep 14 2006, 03:48 PM) Eve...   Sep 15 2006, 04:41 AM
|- - Rob Pinnegar   QUOTE (JRehling @ Sep 14 2006, 10:41 PM) ...   Sep 15 2006, 06:00 AM
|- - dilo   QUOTE (JRehling @ Sep 15 2006, 04:41 AM) ...   Sep 15 2006, 09:22 AM
|- - ngunn   Nice diagram, but what is the object that appears ...   Sep 15 2006, 10:28 AM
|- - dilo   QUOTE (ngunn @ Sep 15 2006, 10:28 AM) Nic...   Sep 15 2006, 11:20 AM
|- - ljk4-1   What is really amazing is that - as far as 2000 OO...   Sep 15 2006, 01:44 PM
|- - ngunn   QUOTE (dilo @ Sep 15 2006, 12:20 PM) Good...   Sep 15 2006, 02:18 PM
|- - dilo   I have same suspect, ngunn... considerng also the ...   Sep 17 2006, 03:59 PM
- - Jyril   Based on various comments on blogs and such, I got...   Sep 14 2006, 11:21 PM
|- - dvandorn   QUOTE (Jyril @ Sep 14 2006, 06:21 PM) But...   Sep 15 2006, 02:05 AM
- - laurele   [font=Times New Roman][size=4] I strongly object ...   Sep 26 2006, 09:25 PM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 26 2006, 10:25 PM) t...   Sep 26 2006, 09:36 PM
|- - laurele   QUOTE (ugordan @ Sep 26 2006, 05:36 PM) I...   Sep 26 2006, 09:53 PM
|- - ugordan   QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 26 2006, 10:53 PM) I...   Sep 26 2006, 09:55 PM
|- - laurele   QUOTE (ugordan @ Sep 26 2006, 05:55 PM) T...   Sep 27 2006, 04:12 AM
|- - ugordan   The way I see it you're pushing for a petition...   Sep 27 2006, 06:58 AM
|- - laurele   I did not create this petition, and I am not pushi...   Sep 27 2006, 03:47 PM
||- - Kevin Heider   QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 27 2006, 08:47 AM) I...   Sep 27 2006, 07:09 PM
||- - laurele   [quote name='Kevin Heider' post='70120...   Sep 27 2006, 07:29 PM
||- - Kevin Heider   laurele: Why can't there be a subcategory of p...   Sep 27 2006, 10:19 PM
||- - laurele   If we find only one object (as large as Mars) in t...   Sep 29 2006, 11:19 PM
|- - Sedna   QUOTE (ugordan @ Sep 27 2006, 08:58 AM) T...   Sep 29 2006, 11:53 PM
|- - laurele   QUOTE (Sedna @ Sep 29 2006, 07:53 PM) Goo...   Sep 30 2006, 12:40 AM
|- - Sedna   QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 30 2006, 02:40 AM) I...   Sep 30 2006, 01:16 AM
|- - laurele   So do I, as a minor planet or such maybe... The au...   Sep 30 2006, 05:00 AM
|- - Sedna   QUOTE (laurele @ Sep 30 2006, 07:00 AM) T...   Oct 1 2006, 02:19 AM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (Sedna @ Sep 30 2006, 07:19 PM) A s...   Oct 1 2006, 05:04 AM
- - Sedna   Teens and children here, Spain, are fortunately be...   Sep 26 2006, 09:37 PM
- - djellison   This thread is getting overly heated ( as it was o...   Oct 1 2006, 07:20 AM
- - Greg Hullender   Since Mike Brown, discoverer of the erstwhile ...   Oct 1 2006, 08:29 PM
|- - Alan Stern   QUOTE (Greg Hullender @ Oct 1 2006, 08:29...   Oct 1 2006, 08:57 PM
|- - Kevin Heider   QUOTE (Alan Stern @ Oct 1 2006, 01:57 PM)...   Oct 3 2006, 08:51 AM
- - Greg Hullender   Thanks Alan. That was great! (Except for the...   Oct 2 2006, 05:37 AM
|- - MahFL   Well I still think of Pluto as a planet, small, co...   Oct 2 2006, 11:12 AM
|- - Alan Stern   QUOTE (Greg Hullender @ Oct 2 2006, 05:37...   Oct 2 2006, 11:53 AM
|- - SFJCody   QUOTE (Alan Stern @ Oct 2 2006, 12:53 PM)...   Oct 2 2006, 02:09 PM
- - Greg Hullender   What is the boundary on the ability of a planet to...   Oct 2 2006, 02:23 PM
|- - JRehling   QUOTE (Greg Hullender @ Oct 2 2006, 07:23...   Oct 2 2006, 09:08 PM
|- - Kevin Heider   What would happen if we took Jupiter (as it is tod...   Oct 2 2006, 09:12 PM
|- - Bart   QUOTE (Kevin Heider @ Oct 2 2006, 02:12 P...   Oct 3 2006, 12:11 AM
- - Superstring   QUOTE Heider: Mars in orbit around Jupiter. Titan ...   Oct 3 2006, 02:17 PM
- - JRehling   To one and (almost) all: This planet definition i...   Oct 3 2006, 03:24 PM
2 Pages V   1 2 >


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 10:56 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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.