Quote:
Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
Are you trying to deflect my question? 
As I explained in my answer to you, which I linked to just above, Stern's parameter has nothing to do with whether or not the neighborhood has been cleared. |
BUT.... you still miss the obvious (IMO). The mass of an orbiting body is accumulated by
clearing the orbital neighborhood. Those expressions are two sides of the same coin. At some point, the neighborhood is cleared enough that the body is said to be "dynamically dominant" (Stern's words).
Quote:
|
It is a function only of mass and period, not the neighborhood. The Earth's parameter value is a hundred times the value for Mercury or Mars--that does not mean that Earth has cleared out its neighborhood a hundred times more.
|
The point is that the relative differences between Earth and Mercury are insignificant compared to the least-cleared planet and the most-cleared non-planet -- by five orders of magnitude. There is a qualitative jump made at that point, and that is where the IAU has drawn the line for planethood.
Quote:
|
The title of the thread is Alan Stern has definitely flipped, and you've made remarks deprecating his character in more than just the OP--and you've defended the OP throughout. I don't see the distinction.
|
He has flipped... at least on his opinion of orbital dominance. (that was the first sentence of the OP). I think I made that point about Stern clear enough. You and I are free to disagree on that, and I respect that.
And to say someone is hypocritical on a particular issue is not the grand slur you make it out to be. I think Stern is a great astronomer and I continue to have great respect for his work. I just think that his efforts to slur the IAU and petition them to change their decision is misguided and contradicts earlier positions he's held on this subject.