IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

12 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"Pluto is dead" - Mike Brown, It's official
um3k
post Aug 24 2006, 03:53 PM
Post #16


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 2-May 05
Member No.: 372



QUOTE (punkboi @ Aug 24 2006, 11:46 AM) *
Look on the bright side, with only 8 planets now... Our exploration of the solar system is officially complete! USA! USA! USA! Just kidding. biggrin.gif

No, no, it's not complete until all the planets have had orbiters!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
volcanopele
post Aug 24 2006, 03:55 PM
Post #17


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3226
Joined: 11-February 04
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 23



grrr.... needless to say I am very unhappy right now. I'll live, but still mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif

I'll see if www.demoteearth.com is still available.


--------------------
&@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Aug 24 2006, 03:56 PM
Post #18


Senior Member
****

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



QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 24 2006, 08:45 AM) *
This isn't science though. We have not measured the composition of anything, nor have we found something new. We've not measured an albedo, taken a spectra, imaged an occultation......it's just administration.

And to be honest, given that 2 weeks ago we had 9 planets, 1 week ago we had 12 or more, and now we have only 8.....it's made the scientists involved looked more than a little silly.

Doug


I completely agree.

Several years ago, I stated the opinion that it is a mistake to think that doing science is hard but naming things and defining categories is easy. In this case, none of the "science" is particularly sophisticated: You could teach an intelligent person with no science background all of the relevant science in at most a few hours. This is very different from the debates around biological taxonomy, which pertain to encyclopedic arcana.

I would have put this issue to professional categorists, cognitive scientists to wit, instead of professional astronomers.

In a business, you learn that professionals in area X really are better at it than smart people who are dabbling in area X. A smart engineer should not take over a sales job. A smart marketer should not install computer hardware. I think what we've seen here is that being smart at astronomy doesn't make someone a good categorist. I think if the "facts" and position-papers supporting three to ten rival definitions had been handed to people who study categorization, they could have rendered an elegant embarassment-free definition that the scientists themselves could not. They were basically operating in an area outside their expertise: Astronomy has had an easy time of it, distinguishing between white dwarfs and neutron stars, neutron stars and black holes: distinctions that are sharp and clear. The first outing in a really tough categorization task has shown the lack of experience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Aug 24 2006, 04:05 PM
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2173
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (punkboi @ Aug 24 2006, 11:46 AM) *
USA! USA! USA! Just kidding. biggrin.gif


I read that Pluto was the only planet discovered by an American. sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Aug 24 2006, 04:16 PM
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2173
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (djellison @ Aug 24 2006, 11:45 AM) *
This isn't science though. We have not measured the composition of anything, nor have we found something new. We've not measured an albedo, taken a spectra, imaged an occultation......it's just administration.


This whole discussion has opened up precisely because of how many new things have been discovered about the solar system. Science is not just the collecting of data, it is also putting the data in context with what is already known.

Like the classification system of living things has changed with new genetic studies, the classification of solar system objects must change with new discoveries. In neither case will the changes be quick, easy, static or uncontroversial. But in both cases, the classification discussions are very much part of the science.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Toma B
post Aug 24 2006, 04:18 PM
Post #21


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Subotica
Member No.: 384



Well, I'm personaly not very happy about losing Pluto as planet but at least I can say that I have saw all 8 planets with my 4,5" telescope...
I'm just guesing what size asteroid (or whatever) has to be to be planet...because when Pluto was discovered it was thought it is 6000 km in diameter, and that would be a planet!


--------------------
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare

My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
David
post Aug 24 2006, 04:24 PM
Post #22


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 809
Joined: 11-March 04
Member No.: 56



And now I have to update my rhyme:

As for Pluto, Sir or Madam,
Fame and glory, it has had 'em
But it's gone the way of Adam --
Wasn't good enough for me!

Gimme that Old Time Solar System
Gimme that Old Time Solar System
Ceres, Pluto -- never missed 'em
They're not good enough for me!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Aug 24 2006, 04:24 PM
Post #23


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



B)-->
QUOTE(Toma B @ Aug 24 2006, 05:18 PM) *
.because when Pluto was discovered it was thought it is 6000 km in diameter, and that would be a planet! [/quote]

No it wouldn't.....it's neighbourhood would not be cleared so it wouldn't be a planet.

Unfortuantely, the same is true of almost every 'planet' in our solar system...so this definition has written of most of the planets we have. I'm unsure of how many Venus and Mercury crossing asteroids there are...but at the moment I think we've got about 3 planets by this definition.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Aug 24 2006, 04:26 PM
Post #24


Senior Member
****

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



B)-->
QUOTE(Toma B @ Aug 24 2006, 09:18 AM) *

Well, I'm personaly not very happy about losing Pluto as planet but at least I can say that I have saw all 8 planets with my 4,5" telescope...
[/quote]

Yeah! I will add that I saw all of them in one night, and I made the observations of increasing distance from the Sun, with the Moon inserted into the sequence. Had to stay up mighty late to do it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RedSky
post Aug 24 2006, 05:04 PM
Post #25


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 129
Joined: 25-March 05
Member No.: 218



QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Aug 24 2006, 12:05 PM) *
I read that Pluto was the only planet discovered by an American. sad.gif


Yep... Clyde Tombaugh discovered it in 1930 from Arizona. Throughout the 1920's, there had been a lot of hype in the U.S. public print media about "the search for Planet X". It was suspected because of supposed perturbations seen in Neptune's orbit that another outer planet should exist. Clyde knew after the discovery that it could not have been the Planet X they were looking for... it was too small to be responsible for the Neptune perturbations. (which later observations resolved away any large discrepancies in Neptune's orbit, so in fact, they were searching in vain).

Actually, the only people with any justifiable emotional connection with Pluto and its status should probably be Percival Lowell (of the infamous "canals on Mars" ordeal), Clyde Tombaugh, and perhaps, Walt Disney wink.gif ... and I doubt right now that they care. The true person who pushed for the search was Percival Lowell, who employed Clyde at his observatory near Flagstaff, AZ for the main purpose of searching for "Planet X".

If there hadn't been all the hoopla of "looking for Planet X" and the "name the new planet" hype afterward... the 1930 discovery would probably have been barely noticed except for a mention of "asteriod found on the edge of the solar system in highly inclined orbit". But, as it was, with all the hype, Percival Lowell got his claim to fame... since the selection of the winning name of Pluto officially has as its symbol an overlapping "PL"... his initials! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
David
post Aug 24 2006, 05:12 PM
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 809
Joined: 11-March 04
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (RedSky @ Aug 24 2006, 05:04 PM) *
If there hadn't been all the hoopla of "looking for Planet X" and the "name the new planet" hype afterward... the 1930 discovery would probably have been barely noticed except for a mention of "asteroid found on the edge of the solar system in highly inclined orbit".


I don't believe that's at all true. In the context of 1920s astronomy, minor planets (asteroids) were defined by their position inside Jupiter's orbit. There was no term other than "planet" available to describe Pluto at the time, as it certainly was not a comet or a meteor. Pluto was also initially (and for several decades) imagined to be at least the size of Earth. Someone who described Pluto as an "asteroid" in 1930 would have looked ridiculous. Regardless of the inclination of its orbit (which is, for most people, a pretty esoteric detail), any object beyond Neptune that was bright enough to be detected in 1930 would have been dubbed a planet.

The importance of the "Planet X" search has nothing to do with "hype", but rather the fact that without the Planet X search Pluto would not have been discovered at all in 1930, and probably not for another six decades.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_JamesFox_*
post Aug 24 2006, 05:16 PM
Post #27





Guests






Well, I don't really minf the intent to divide things into the 8 regular planets, dwarf planets, and all others, but I think the given definition is screwey. They should have used the vague, but more appropriate term 'orbital dominance'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
odave
post Aug 24 2006, 05:20 PM
Post #28


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 510
Joined: 17-March 05
From: Southeast Michigan
Member No.: 209



QUOTE (JRehling @ Aug 24 2006, 12:26 PM) *
I will add that I saw all of them in one night...


...and I'm relieved that I don't have to try for "Xena" now - can't afford that kind of equipment! wink.gif


--------------------
--O'Dave
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
punkboi
post Aug 24 2006, 05:50 PM
Post #29


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 25-October 05
From: California
Member No.: 535



QUOTE (odave @ Aug 24 2006, 10:20 AM) *
...and I'm relieved that I don't have to try for "Xena" now - can't afford that kind of equipment! wink.gif


All I can say is... The New Horizons website will have a couple of revising to do... biggrin.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paolo
post Aug 24 2006, 06:05 PM
Post #30


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1729
Joined: 3-August 06
From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E
Member No.: 1004



QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Aug 24 2006, 06:05 PM) *
I read that Pluto was the only planet discovered by an American. sad.gif


Speaking of which, the Italian television has just aired a news story about Ceres' discoverer Piazzi and his small town of birth some 100 km from here (Milan)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 03:29 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.