Congratulations...you won. I don't know exactly "what" you think you have won...anyway...

If you really want to be involved in a "scientific victory", then you can start by answering the NUMEROUS questions asked of you in other threads. After all, now that you have "won" your victory, you should have plenty of spare time to devote to those questions.

Please don't be silly...there are no "scientific proofs" involved here...

Just a group of astronomers who felt it necessary to re-define the "labels" used when describing the objects in our solar system...

They are LABELS...that's all...

If I choose to call all the objects that orbit the Sun Spleegals, then my usage of that descriptive word is no better/no worse than any other "label"...

What we call something does not change what that something is...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

The problem was that Pluto was always a weird one. Astronomers were uncomfortable and looked askance at it, with its diminuitive size and strange orbit. It just didn't fit in. It had to go.

__________________
The Heavens Declare the Glory of Mathematics

That's not totally correct. There is the 28 February 2001 position statement on the definition of a planet from the IAU Working Group on Extrasolar Planets (link):

"1) Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our Solar System.

2) Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed nor where they are located.

3) Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate)."

This is consistent with the IAU definition for Solar System planets, which I anticipate will be used for extra-solar planets by analogy.

Who came up with the term 'dwarf planet'? Whatever happened to the much more elegant sounding 'planetoid?'
As they discover more I'm sure the usual joke names will be proposed. Sneezey, Dopey, Bashful....Gimli.

The irony of H_C claiming victory due to logic and clear thinking is simply astonishing.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

That occured to me too. I liked the term Plutino!

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

H_C, youir claim of logic is so misplaced. If you honestly think that the New Horizons mission shouldn't be going to Pluto, then your own horizons are very narrow indeed. If you knew anything at all about science or astronomy, then you'd understand that the quest to explore is an integral part of it.

We know very little about Pluto and far less about the other Kuiper Belt objects. This is a massive area to explore and the secrets to our own Solar System formation may lie therein.

What is abundantly clear is that you have no desire to explore. You see this as being some competition and know very VERY little about any of the science involved with the exploration of the Kuiper Belt. Many people on this thread and others are waiting for some answers, rather than your pointless trumpet blowing at a decision which has very little impact on science.

Whatever Pluto is called (I think 'Dwarf Planet' means that the word 'Planet' is still in there, so where exactly is your 'victory' for logic?) it has nothing to do with what Pluto looks like, how it behaves or its what its surface temperature is etc. I for one can't wait to see its surface. Try and get involved in the science or go somewhere else with your boasts.

__________________
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most!

I'm sure this is going to be a stupid question, but is the barycentre of the earth luna system inside or outside the earth?

clop

inside

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers!

But FYI, it's inside the earth.

__________________
As above, so below

Yes, the term "dwarf planet" is misleading. I would have liked if they had selected the venerable "planetoid" instead.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

I think it was a bone tossed to the "Pluto is a planet" crowd. The important thing is not the nomenclature, but the classification scheme. Pluto is now classified with other trans-Neptunian objects which is has a lot more commonalities with. It doesn't matter to me if they are called KBOs, TNOs, Plutonians, Plutinos, or dwarf planets. They are rightfully classifying them as a class of objects different from the 8 "classical" planets. In addition, there is a lot of empirical data to support the notion of "clearing the orbital neighborhood", so I think this scheme is standing on solid, scientific legs.

__________________
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph" -- Conan

It is also classified with one, and possibly more, non-trans-Neptunian objects, which it doesn't have a lot of commonalities with - namely, Ceres and possibly some of the other largest asteroids.

Also, is Pluto still a Trans-Neptunian object when it is inside the orbit of Neptune?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

["dwarf planets"]
I basically subscribe to David Jewitt's comments on the resolution. His comment on 5A(2) hits the nail quite well, I think.

After resultion 6B failing 6A remains as a funny accident. Pluto is the prototype of KBOs and the prototype of plutinos. Well, I didn't need an IAU resolution to know this.

As the taxonomical brawl unfolded I found all of David's view on the several proposals quite entertaining.

That is true. I think that Ceres is physically very similar to Pluto, but orbitally it is completely different.

Before, Pluto was the "oddball" planet. Now, Ceres will be the oddball dwarf planet! LOL

__________________
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph" -- Conan

If there is empiricism behind the idea of clearing the neighborhood then they have failed to present it. That seems to be the reason for giving special exemption to the classical planets... because they don't fit their own criteria.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Wasn't the Gingerich committee an attempt at this? They screwed up completely and will remain in my memory as those who, after two years of preparation, were unable two write down four bloody paragraphs in a remotely coherent fashion. But at least they had their proposal stuffed with a lot of meaningless gibberish.

And then we are presented this gem of irony:
Now, that's bold! While his critique is certainly not too far off the mark he and his group did as bad themselves. There are seven people who should refrain from talking about appropriate language for a while.

Other than the term "pluton" I think the first definition was the best. It was based on inherent properties --what an object is. THe one that god passed is based on sytemic properties, or how an object relates to other objects --where an object is.

And then they leave us without a definition of the criteria they want to use. How is "cleared the neighborhood" more scientific when they have not defined it empirically? Now, some people are trying to argue that "clear" means "dominant" or resonant. They still have not defined the range... so they would limit the range to .1AU for one object and 10s of AUs for other objects.

The first definition was confusing because it was new. If they had dropped the idea of "pluton" and listed subclasses then it would have been much better. Despite working with experts from other fields, they didn't present it well.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

The eight planets fit the criteria perfectly. The supporting data has been presented in this forum in great detail, by me, along with many responses to your questions about it.

I don't expect an IAU ruling to include the reams of scientific data used to support it. If you know much about astronomy, you already know of it and know how to find it.

__________________
"Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph" -- Conan

What, are you claiming to BE the IAU now? Just because you think you have data does not mean it's been peer reviewed and accepted by the IAU as a basis for their definition. The same thing goes for Soter. No where does the IAU say that orbital dominance is synonymous for clearing the neighborhood.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Resolution 6A was about a new category of dwarf planets consisiting of Pluto and other giant TNOs. Plutino is an unoffical term referring to objects that are in 2:3 resonance with Neptune.

__________________
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
-- Richard Feynman

No, it was confusing because, first of all, it was extremely ill written.
"8 planets discovered before 1900" anyone? Ceres with hysterical reasons?
Agreed.
I don't know about the presentation. Or do you mean the text? That's the amazing thing. I wouldn't expect such a bag of garbled phrases from people with presumably decades of experience in writing. I wouldn't even accept it from a PhD student, and PhD students sometimes show very creative ways of "structuring" a presentation or even a thesis.

Hmm, I have only the quote on David's site handy:
There is nothing about the new category consisting only of dwarf planets i.e. gravispheres, just TNOs. They didn't bother to specify what the "new category" actually is, what it consists of. Of course it is possible they refer to spherical TNOs (Including Sedna? Oort cloud?). Well, it doesn't matter much for resolution 6, but this is a general problem with those attempts at definition, like the messed up (well beyond recognition) dominance criterion: If they mean it, why the heck don't they write it? Yes, Czech beer is great, but can't you finish your work before plundering the Staropramen store?
I know what a plutino is, thank you.

What really puzzles me is the use of the adjective "dwarf" which I understand is used as meaning "small". If the discrimination between classic planets and the new class of objects is to be made according to the orbital clearing issue why then to use a term that suggests the difference is a matter of size?

Maybe the term "dwarf planet" was already chosen at an early stage when an arbitrary size was supposed to make the difference and the IAU were not keen enough to make up a new term more in agreement with the resolution?

It may be that at some future point the current definition for Solar planets will be extended to extra-solar planets, with the additional requirements beyond just mass. It is also true, however, that the resolutions are explicit in stating that they only specify the rules for those bodies in orbit around the Sun.

It looks like the fight back has begun

We need to fix this before some one gets it into their head to revisit NH

(I do want NH to report back from Pluto)

Thinking about this, I think I preferred the original one where we got new planets

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Great point. I guess once Pluto's atmosphere freezes and condenses onto the surface, we should rename it Snow White.

Or maybe Sleepy.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Re neighborhood clearing, I propose that the next real planet discovered be named HOOVER!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Ceres has several times the mass of Vesta, is much closer to spheroidal and likely has cleared it's obit better than Vesta has cleared it's orbit. Vesta, Juno, Pallis and a zillion sub atomic particals in solar orbit are "other solar system objects". How humiliating. I suppose we should try our best to make the new definitions work for the next three years, perhaps much longer, as I suspect the chair will squelch any discussion at the next conference. Other science disaplines have been tilting the playing field for a century to discourage the generalist and favor the specialist. CPS = cyles per second is Hertz. Condencer is capacitor. Worse some number of magnetic lines of force is a Maxwell which = some number of Teslas in the cgs system which has been replaced by the MKS system. My 1976 Handbook of Physics and Chemistry has about 10,000 conversion factors. We may be aproaching a million. Some of the changes are good science, but most are eletism. Neil