Night Owls

Punchcard · Punchcard, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 10:11 GMT

The mechanics remain sound, and the classroom charts will be much better off for it.

PintOfMild · PintOfMild, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 11:36 GMT

Dead right Walter! Once the charts are printed and the eight are locked in, no point crying over spilt milk. Pluto's just happily chilling with its icy mates in the Kuiper belt now. Anyway, crack is officially closed for lunch - anyone fancy popping down the Adelphi in Leeds for a swift half? Cheers

TheyKnow · TheyKnow, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 13:38 GMT

kookaburra99 wrote:

It has heaps of amazing features, atmosphere and moons, but so does Titan and nobody calls Titan a planet either.

Ask yourself why they are so eager to print those new charts overnight, folks... Titan orbits a giant planet, but Pluto orbits the Sun directly with its own system of three moons. Defining a planet by whatever debris happens to share its neighborhood is a convenient COVER story, but real field observers will never accept an arbitrary edict like that.

kookaburra99 · kookaburra99, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 16:08 GMT

TheyKnow wrote:

Defining a planet by whatever debris happens to share its neighborhood is a convenient COVER story, but real field observers will never accept an arbitrary edict like that.

sorry if this is a dumb question, but how is it a cover story?? astronomers have known about the kuiper belt since the 90s lol! if pluto gets a pass just for orbiting the sun directly, then ceres and xena have to be planets too. dynamics isn't arbitrary at all, it's basic physics!!

TheyKnow · TheyKnow, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 16:25 GMT

kookaburra99 wrote:

if pluto gets a pass just for orbiting the sun directly, then ceres and xena have to be planets too.

Ceres and Xena have their own mass and orbit the Sun on their own path too, my friend... Calling it basic physics sounds nice and neat, but putting a black sash on planetarium models before the ink is even dry shows how pushed this whole thing is. A planet should be judged by its own nature, not whether other rocks happen to drift along nearby. When you have active planetary scientists petitioning against this vote, it tells you the scientific community is far from settled on it. Real nature doesn't fit into neat little bureaucratic boxes just to save classroom printers some trouble...

Punchcard · Punchcard, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 19:32 GMT

It is quite natural for feelings to run a little high after a major vote, but calling it a cover story seems to be borrowing trouble where none exists.

Astronomers have merely sorted objects by how the solar system actually operates. A body that commands its own orbit belongs in one ledger, whilst bodies that travel within a belt belong in another. Ceres went through the very same transition in the nineteenth century without the sky falling down.

A petition or a black sash in a display case will not overturn the basic mathematics. The dynamicists have given us an orderly rule, and the textbooks will be much easier to understand for it.

TheyKnow · TheyKnow, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 19:39 GMT

Orderly ledgers are fine for an office desk, Walter, but nature doesn't run on bookkeeping... When an edict passes on the final afternoon with most people already gone, rushing to declare it final settled math is simply wishful thinking. The folks actually running deep-space missions won't just fold up their tents because a committee wanted a tidy list.

quasistatic · quasistatic, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 21:04 GMT

It is worth separating the procedural noise from the physics.

1. Attendance at the closing session of an academic conference is always lower than the opening plenary; that is standard across every discipline, not an orchestrated coup.

2. The distinction between an isolated, gravitationally dominant body and a swarm object is not bookkeeping, but orbital mechanics. If a definition ignored whether an object shares a belt, we would be obliged to admit Ceres, 2003 UB313, and dozens of comparable trans-Neptunian bodies currently on the watchlist into the primary register.

Petitions and planetarium sashes are theatrical reactions to an inevitable physical sorting. Pluto remains an exceptionally interesting Kuiper belt object, but the dynamical baseline is sound.

PintOfMild · PintOfMild, as of 25 Aug 2006 at 22:43 GMT

Hit the nail on the head there quasistatic, it is eight proper planets now and done with!

kookaburra99 · kookaburra99, as of 26 Aug 2006 at 02:34 GMT

TheyKnow wrote:

When you have active planetary scientists petitioning against this vote, it tells you the scientific community is far from settled on it.

a petition won't change the physics either, dynamical dominance is the only real scientific rule that works.

TheyKnow · TheyKnow, as of 26 Aug 2006 at 02:37 GMT

When a small handful pushes an edict through after the crowd departs, calling that routine is simply turning a blind eye, folks... Actual researchers working on real planetary missions do not take marching orders from an academic show of hands. A committee can publish all the lists it wants, but nature does not answer to a PR decree.

kookaburra99 · kookaburra99, as of 26 Aug 2006 at 03:12 GMT

TheyKnow wrote:

A committee can publish all the lists it wants, but nature does not answer to a PR decree.

nobody is giving nature marching orders. the vote just reflects what the telescopes and gravity already show. kuiper belt objects travel in a swarm, and eight major bodies don't. trying to turn an open conference vote into a sinister conspiracy won't make pluto clear its orbit.

TheyKnow · TheyKnow, as of 26 Aug 2006 at 04:15 GMT

kookaburra99 wrote:

the vote just reflects what the telescopes and gravity already show.

Telescopes reveal actual geological worlds with crusts and atmospheres, not just mathematical clearance zones... If an object has pulled itself into a sphere and maintains its own complex moon system, that is real planetary science. Those dynamics equations don't erase the physical body sitting right there in the sky, no matter what labels get handed out.

kookaburra99 · kookaburra99, as of 26 Aug 2006 at 05:45 GMT

having crusts and moons makes it a fascinating world, but it still sits in a crowded belt.

OffByOne · OffByOne, as of 26 Aug 2006 at 06:20 GMT

TheyKnow wrote:

If an object has pulled itself into a sphere and maintains its own complex moon system, that is real planetary science.

Strictly speaking, having a moon system does not make an object unique or exempt from orbital mechanics. Numerous minor bodies possess satellites, including asteroids such as Ida and several trans-Neptunian objects.

A spherical shape and an atmosphere merely indicate hydrostatic equilibrium and volatile retention. They do not alter the fundamental reality that an object orbits within an uncleared belt. Science requires a coherent taxonomical framework, not an ad hoc exception granted because an icy body happens to possess Charon.