Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"

K_h wrote:
"Bryan Derksen" <bryan.derksen@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:IE5fk.5767$nD.3059@xxxxxxxxxxxx
K_h wrote:
"Bryan Derksen" <bryan.derksen@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
If Stern is correct then your argument on this point is invalid.
Funny thing is both sides of this particular point are based on Stern's arguments. However, the side that says "it can clear its orbit" is from a scientific journal article backed with detailed physics and rigorous analysis, and the side that says "it can't clear its orbit" is just something he said to some MSNBC reporter. I think he needs to support the second point a bit better. :)

I cannot speak for Stern, so your disagreement with him should not involve people like myself.

You've been pretty free with "speaking for Stern" to this point so long as he was saying things that supported your position. For example, you're simply parroting the following statement Stern made in that MSNBC article, apparently without really understanding it:

A world with 70% Earth mass will not have cleared the Kuiper belt and so will be orbiting within the Kuiper belt.

This is false. Stern's own methods show it to be false. Have you even opened up the paper my calculation was based on yet? Show me where I made an error and maybe you'll have something to base an argument on, otherwise it's just meaningless repetition.

Of course, one can say that any world within the Kuiper belt will have "cleared" its immediate path around the sun since they seldom collide with each other. That raises the question as to how much "clearing" is needed before a world can be said to have "cleared" its orbit. Pluto orbits the sun without hitting anything so, in a sense, it's orbit is "clear". This is part of the problem with the IAU's definition, it is not defined how wide the "clear" zone has to be. With this ambiguity an Earth sized world, in the Kuiper belt, has not cleared out the Kuiper belt.

This is all stuff that I've been pointing out ways of quantifying right from the start of this subthread. And when you chart the numbers for various solar system objects you'll find that there is no ambiguity; there's a huge gap between planets and non-planets as defined by the IAU.

Are you actually interested in learning about any of that, though? You seem to be more intent on arguing for argument's sake, refusing to yield any objection to the IAU's definition no matter how absurd a position it devolves into (e.g. Saturn not being "round"). Since the Stern-Levison paper potentially addresses your concern about this aspect of the IAU's definition I expect you're likely to just continue ignoring it.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
    ... If Stern is correct then your argument on this point is invalid. ... the side that says "it can clear its orbit" is from ... as the Earth orbiting within the Kuiper belt. ... needs to be part of the definition of a "planet" under the IAU's incomplete ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
    ... If Stern is correct then your argument on this point is invalid. ... To say that a planet must have "cleared its orbit" presumes ... world has not cleared out its orbit, far out in the Kuiper Belt, as Stern ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Discovery of a Large Kuiper belt object with an Unusual Orbit (Forwarded)
    ... Discovery of a Large Kuiper belt object with an Unusual Orbit ... the formation of the outer Solar System. ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Discovery of a Large Kuiper belt object with an Unusual Orbit (Forwarded)
    ... A team of astronomers working in Canada, ... The body's highly unusual orbit is difficult to explain using previous ... theories of the formation of the outer Solar System. ... Almost all Kuiper belt objects discovered beyond Neptune are between 30 ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
    ... The dynamics of "clearing" is still somehwat in its infancy. ... If Stern wants to jump in on this thread that would be entirely welcome. ... However, the side that says "it can clear its orbit" is from a scientific journal article backed with detailed physics and rigorous analysis, and the side that says "it can't clear its orbit" is just something he said to some MSNBC reporter. ... To say that a planet must have "cleared its orbit" presumes that there was material there to be cleared. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)