Post reply

Search and Replace

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:13 am

    #657568

    I thought it was too obvious...

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:15 am

    #657571

    In response to several other posts, there seems to be a misconception that the reclassification was based on size.  In this case, size has nothing to do with it.  The resolution deliberately avoided size because a definition based on such a criteria would require placing arbitrary limits on exactly how big a planet should be.  The only way in which size is remotely a factor in this classification is that a planet must be sufficiently massive to have pulled itself into a roughly spherical shape (achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, to use the astronomical term).  Note that this is an OBSERVABLE measure of size.  This also means, contrary to the implications of some of the posts above, that the definition also applies to any other solar system.

    Moons don't qualify because they orbit planets, as opposed to the sun - NOT because of their size.

    The dwarf planets (up to four so far and counting) belong in a different class because they formed in a fundamentally different way - they were not part of the contracting disk of gas and dust which eventually formed both the sun and the eight planets, they were instead objects from the Kuiper Belt which were later pulled in and captured into fairly stable orbits by the sun.

    -----------------

    C8H10N4O2

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:28 am

    #657581

    And also, YES, THIS _IS_ IMPORTANT!

    It is vital to agree on definitions of anything in a scientific field.  Imagine how confusing it would be in medicine to lump veins, arteries and capillaries together in one group, "blood vessels".  I mean, hey, they're all little tubes that carry blood, right?  What's the big deal?  The big deal is that it would be a massive hindrance to progress in any field of research, scientific or philosophical, if the participants could not clearly describe what they were talking about.  For an example more close to home in an IT forum, imagine if there was no distinction between:

    • Servers and desktops
    • semiconductors and conductors
    • web-based applications and machine-based applications
    • etc...

    Confusion would abound.  You couldn't even have a forum called SQLServerCentral, because the term "server" wouldn't exist - it would just be described as a "computer", as it was historically.  But as systems became more complex and machines more specialised, it became necessary to classify the machines into easily understood sub-groups based on common characteristics.

    In the case of the planets, the system has not become any more complex, but our understanding of it has, and thus a more sophisticated system of classification is needed.

    -----------------

    C8H10N4O2

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:29 am

    #657583

    Thanks, Michael (and some others) for your insightful posts.

    I'm glad they chose to reclassify Pluto if for no other reason than this very discussion. Our universe and our planet are chock full of fascinating subjects about which we continue to discover/learn/discuss.

    I pulled Pluto down from my son's solar system mobile, tossed it at him and said, "throw this thing away, son", to which he replied, "Dad, it's still out there." I was mildly comforted.

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:29 am

    #657582

    Someone else's car is still a car.  Whether it was borrowed from another solar system or local to ours.  or if someone parked it there accidently.

    Further, "they were not part of the contracting disk of gas and dust" is not a fact currently.... its conjecture... maybe best guess conjecture but not proven.

    googles definitions of planets do not include any reference to your above reference...

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-19,GGLG:en&q=define%3Aplanet

    and just becuase you say thats what it means... does not mean its a fact... that goes for google as well....

    I like this one :"A major body (not a comet or asteroid) orbiting around a star."

    or this one : "An astronomical body too small to make its own energy. Planets are seen by light reflected from the Sun. The largest planet, Jupiter, is only one one-thousandth as big as the Sun; but it is huge compared to the Earth (a thousand Earths could fit into it)."

    the greek got it from the word wanderer.... and the Romans thought they were Gods...

     

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:34 am

    #657588

    They just downgraded Pluto not killed it.  Pluto is one thing but it's a good thing that they letft Goofy alone.  "Gorsh!"

    ATBCharles Kincaid

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:37 am

    #657591

    which way would you prefer it to be described

    http://pluto.dwarf.planet.solarsystem.universe

    http://universe.solarsystem.planet.dwarf.pluto/

    http://pluto.dwarfplanet.solarsystem.univerise

    for some easy examples... there ... naming convention from rfc2616...

    http://pluto.dwarf.planet.solarsystem.universe.dimension

    http://earth.mostlyharmless.planet.solarsystem.universe.dimension

     

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:44 am

    #657595

    "Further, "they were not part of the contracting disk of gas and dust" is not a fact currently.... its conjecture... maybe best guess conjecture but not proven."

    ...ah, but you see, that's the whole point! Science is the system of continually refining your best guess, and getting closer to the truth.  It is as well to say that it's not a "fact" that atoms exist.  We've never seen them, but it's the explanation which overwhelmingly fits the data available.  So, scientifically, we accept it to be valid until proven otherwise.

    "A major body (not a comet or asteroid) orbiting around a star."

    ...would you care to define "major body"?  That is the purpose of having such things defined by the collective opinions of the best scentific understanding available, rather than by popular vote.  Hence the reason that the decision was made by a group of the world's best-informed experts in astronomy, rather than an internet poll...

     

    -----------------

    C8H10N4O2

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:44 am

    #657594

    I agree in general with your points.

    But if the goal is to avoid confusion in the case of planets, they need to not use the word "planet" in describing Pluto ("dwarf planet").

    Notice that the terms are not "server" and "desktop server" or "artery" and "blue artery."

    I think part of the objection to reclassifying Pluto is sentimental (it ruins the Schoolhouse Rock song, for example 🙂 ), but part of it is legitimate. It will cause more confusion to use the term "dwarf planet" than to call the category something completely different.

    -------------------
    A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
    Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:54 am

    #657605

    We can't see atoms but we can split atoms ..... but you are just splitting hairs. Please, come up with a naming convention...

    I chose http ver 1.1... I'll run with it...

    Those quotes are from googles search... of the best definitions on the planet... the company is worth googles of money (they are not without fault) ... but let me guess they are making up the current prevailing defintions....

    Astronomers are only people as far as I know, not giant robots who can travel there to directly observe these objects.  How is there understanding allow them to make such dogmatic decisions, we are well past the druidic circle builders and romulus and reamus days.

    Hell, I'd take Buzz Aldrin's opinion what they are over, some undergrad who gets time down at SETI...

    Damn its a shame Carl Sagan ain't around anymore....

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:54 am

    #657603

    ok... that's it... string theory time...

    Dimension doesn't fit ... I'm thinking earth.mostlyharmless.planet.solarsystem.universe.multiverse.fnord...

    The problem being that universe encompases either 4 or 9? (I forget what string theory indicates) either way, multiverse only explains what we can begin to comprehend (5 dimensions) once we block off into a 6th dimension things just start getting painful to imagine...

    I think I preferred doctor.timelord.galifrey.dimension to this string theory stuff...

    (ok, this discussion has now officially collapsed into in upon itself)

  • August 30, 2006 at 9:57 am

    #657608

    And "truth" is overrated... IMTO

  • August 30, 2006 at 10:00 am

    #657610

    oops... we both missed an obvious link...

    earth.mostlyharmless.planet.solarsystem.milkyway.galaxy.cluster.universe.multiverst.fnord

  • August 30, 2006 at 10:04 am

    #657613

    "earth.mostlyharmless.planet.solarsystem.milkyway.galaxy.cluster.universe.multiverst.fnord"

    AMEN. 

    There its done....

    High five kevin.

    now where would the moon fit?

    "'moon.earth.mostlyharmless.planet.solarsystem.milkyway.galaxy.cluster.universe.multiverst.fnord"

    "moon.smallsolarobject.earth.mostlyharmless.planet.solarsystem.milkyway.galaxy.cluster.universe.multiverst.fnord"

    "moon.smallsolarobject.solarsystem.milkyway.galaxy.cluster.universe.multiverst.fnord"

    for examples...

  • August 30, 2006 at 10:07 am

    #657614

    "Got to respectfully disagree here. Imagine we didn't correct the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe, that the earth is flat, that the theory of relativity doesn't always work... need I go on. " -- Bad Dog

    This argument doesn't hold water because all we are talking about is nomenclature that is being determined pretty much arbitrarily.  In your examples you are discussing actual physical laws. 

    It is the similar to the difference between classifying a tomato as a fruit vs. saying a tomato is flat... 

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 67 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply