Re: Soon 12 planets in the solar system !


Greg Crinklaw ha escrito:

You are wrong that the current proposal is based on science.

Where did I say that? I would never make such a fuzzy and naive
statement.

All I say is that the IAU proposal is a RATIONAL (and nothing but *just
that*!) solution to the problem of defining a planet.

It is
simply an ad hoc classification that makes arbitrary divisions. In
reality, using "roughly spherical" as a distinction is no less arbitrary
than using the orbit or mass of Pluto. It has no physical meaning
beyond being something that can be defined.

The definition of species in taxonomy is also partly arbitrary. What
counts, is that the definition is practical for science (and not for
public comprehension).

And definitions of natural objects (rather than processes) based on
mathematics (e.g. in the case of planets: perfect roundnes) are unheard
of in science. This is because mathematics assumes perfection, while
natural objects are intrinsically non-perfect.

Science is not objective, but it rather tries to reduce the natural
subjective, emotional and irrational tendencies in our thinking to a
minimum. Pure objectivity is impossible to the human ape. But this does
not mean that we should give free reign to our arbitrarieness.

And taking Pluto, i.e. the second most massive KBO known, as the lower
cutoff point for the mass of a planet is about as arbitrary as you can
get. There exists absolutely no rational justification for this.


The real problem with this proposed solution is that it causes trouble.
Real world trouble for lots of people, from educators to planetaria to
software developers.

The educators and planetaria will just have to adapt to what is,
instead of lamenting about what ought to be.

And actually, their trouble could not get worse than it is right now.
Many planetariums have started to use the term "unofficial name Xena"
for 2003UB313, since the latter term is a tongue twister impossible to
remember for a lay person. How long is this supposed to keep going on?

And as far as the software developers are concerned, they should just
get down on their lazy butts. In times where you can program artificial
intelligence, it cannot be so difficult to just change a few labels. If
they can´t, they should just look for another job (how about baking
pizza?). This is obstinate lazyness.

It also exposes the astronomical community to
ridicule.

The ridiculousness stems from the fact that astronomers have been
incapable to name a solar system object bigger than Pluto which they
have discovered more than a year ago.

We would forever be arguing about which KBO is a planet (or
not) and adding planets to an ever growing list.

We would not. Read again what I wrote in the article to which you are
responding here:
"... the simplest possible answer to the question of "how many planets
are there in our solar system?" is: "There are lots of planets in our
solar system. We don´t know exactly how many there are. We can only
estimate their number. Every year we discover new planets or candidates
for being planets. It´s just like with comets"."

When there exists only an approximate number of planets, then a change
in number of actually identified planets is of little relevance. Is
this too logical for a computer programmer to understand?

The idea of a fixed number of planets should be reserved to astrologers
and other idiots.

People are right to
say, "What? You mean the moon of Pluto is now a planet, but Ganymede
isn't? And I heard the moon would someday be a planet too!" The
laughter about the silly astronomers has already begun!

Who laughs last.....
If people wouldn´t generally be such idiots, then we wouldn´t be such
a ridiculous species. I am not ashamed for being an (amateur)
astronomer, I am ashamed for being a homo sapiens (spare me the
details, they don´t belong in this forum).

And the above comment is as silly as you would expect from ordinary
people (good guess on your side!) because it A) is based on the (non
scientific) criteria of "big" and "small" (see the article to which you
are responding here) and B) is based on ignorance, because the Sun will
blow up before the Moon has gotten away from Earth far enough to be
considered as a planet (do I have to explain what that will mean?).


That's a high price to pay.

I am willing to pay that price. But we need to get something worthwhile
in return for it. A classification scheme based on how the bodies form,
where they form, or what they are primarily composed of, would be a real
science-based model.

The criterion of how bodies form is based on theory and not on
observation. It thus stands on porcelain feet.

And "primarily composed of" is in the same leage as "roughly sperical".
Besides that, the composition of just the classical planets is vastly
divergent.

I would be willing to pay the high price for that.
I am reluctant to pay such a high price for something that amounts to
little more than an arbitrary political compromise!

In the article to which you are responding here I said that the only
political compromise I can see in the IAU proposal is the distinction
between "classical" and "dwarf planets". You should have responded to
that instead of just restating your opinion.


ph42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
This proposal fails on all counts!

I sure hope they wake up.

.....says someone who apparently insists on staying asleep. Above all,
you must remember the following (I repeat, and it seems like that I
have to do it in capital letters):

YOU CANNOT CALL PLUTO A PLANET WITHOUT CALLING 2003UB313 A PLANET AS
WELL. IT´S EITHER BOTH OR NONE.

If you know of a better way to deal with this fact than the IAU then
please let us (an above all, the IAU) know.

I have taken the time to make to propose two different solutions that I
feel are better on different threads.

This comment is as useless as a hole in the kneecap, as long as you
don´t mention the name of the thread(s) and the date(s) of your posts.


Or are you perhaps referring yourself to the definition you gave on the
18th of this month in thread "YADOP: Yet Another Definition of Planet"
("I define a planet as any non-stellar body larger than a dust grain
that orbits a star, either directly or indirectly")? As Chris Peterson
correctly mentioned at the (present) end of that thread: "Surely the
whole point of this thread was to be a little bit silly...". I sure
hope that you agree with him.

I also feel that the alternative
solution under consideration by the IAU is a better choice.

Which altenative solution? I haven´t heard of any. And please give the
source (preferrably online).

Regardless,
claiming that someone who has no better solution somehow gives up their
right to call a bad a solution a bad solution, is specious.

You are perfectly entitled to call a bad solution a bad solution. And
perhaps there doesn´t even exist a perfect solution in this case. But
a bad solution is still much better than no solution at all. So we are
obliged to be constructive in this case. I agree that the IAU proposal
might need a few patch-ups, but:

What I sure don´t want is three more years (until the next general
assembly of the IAU) of having to say "2003UB313". Can you say
"2003UB313" ten times rapidly without spitting? I have in fact been
practising it. And I would also like to get rid of that term "Kuiper
Belt Object", since it sounds so exotic that few laypersons can
remember it.


Peter

.