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 |
|
|
Oct 2 2006, 05:37 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1018 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 590 |
Thanks Alan. That was great! (Except for the Snapple ad on the first page obscuring the text -- I had to copy and paste that part of the article to read it.)
You two don't actually sound all that far apart in this article. Especially at the point where you want to make a term for "planetary bodies." Is there any special reason not to push the term "planetoid" for that? I know Mike Brown has proposed it at least once. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/whatsaplanet/revolt.html I realize it's an old term for an asteroid, but surely that usage has long expired. Non-fusing bodies large enough to be in hydostatic equilibrium really deserve a sexy name -- and at the moment they've got none at all. Heck, it would even be easier to explain to kids, "Well, you know scientists usually talk about planetoids, not planets, because planet is also about location, and location doesn't really matter that much." |
|
|
Oct 2 2006, 11:53 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 532 Joined: 19-February 05 Member No.: 173 |
Thanks Alan. That was great! (Except for the Snapple ad on the first page obscuring the text -- I had to copy and paste that part of the article to read it.) You two don't actually sound all that far apart in this article. Especially at the point where you want to make a term for "planetary bodies." Is there any special reason not to push the term "planetoid" for that? I know Mike Brown has proposed it at least once. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/whatsaplanet/revolt.html I realize it's an old term for an asteroid, but surely that usage has long expired. Non-fusing bodies large enough to be in hydostatic equilibrium really deserve a sexy name -- and at the moment they've got none at all. Heck, it would even be easier to explain to kids, "Well, you know scientists usually talk about planetoids, not planets, because planet is also about location, and location doesn't really matter that much." Greg- I agree, Mike is coming around. As to your question about the term "planetoid," I'm not keen on it because it sounds like a small thing. But when I say something is a "planetary body" (PB) I include everything anywhere from a dwarf just big enough to be in hydro equilibrium to a giant like Jupiter. Some PB's orbit their stars, some orbit other planets (e.g., Titan, Triton, Io, etc.), and some are simply orbiting freely in the ISM owing to ejection from planetary systems. This naturally suggests a 3x3 matrix of PB types; I give some example assignments in the table below: Satellite Planet Unbound Planet Dwarf Triton Pluto TBD Terrestrial Titan Venus TBD Gaint None Jupiter TBD Just for ease of round numbers, I put the cutoff between Dwarfs and Terrestrials as a mass of 0.1 Mearth (just below Mars) and I put the cutoff for Giants at 10 Mearth (just shy of Uranus and Neptune). One could go further with more categories, but this is the simple system I advocate. -Alan |
|
|
Oct 2 2006, 02:09 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 8-February 04 From: Arabia Terra Member No.: 12 |
Just for ease of round numbers, I put the cutoff between Dwarfs and Terrestrials as a mass of 0.1 Mearth (just below Mars) and I put the cutoff for Giants at 10 Mearth (just shy of Uranus and Neptune). One could go further with more categories, but this is the simple system I advocate. -Alan I still like the system I came up with last year: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sfjcody2/planetarycatesmall.png |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 06:55 AM |
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. |