Re: Pluto's Last Gasp! Was: Re: Orbital dominance

In article <1156354895.780754.323210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

James Nicoll wrote:
In article <1156354441.341798.221560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

James Nicoll wrote:
In article <1156352540.709537.31610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

James Nicoll wrote:
In article <1156302069.843001.56040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If Pluto is not a planet because it has failed to clear Neptune out of
its zone of dominance, then Neptune is not a planet because it has
failed to clear out Pluto.

Pluto and Neptune never get as close as we do to Saturn, you
know.

I'm aware, but my reasoning stands and makes the proposal an absurdity.

I'm sure you think so but the reason Neptune hasn't cleared
out Pluto and vice versa is because they never get close.

Why tell *me* that? Why not tell it to the people who claim Pluto is
not a planet since it hasn't cleared out Neptune?

Because so far, you're the only one I've seen make that claim.

Did you bother to read the NYT article which started this thread?

"So the newest resolution includes the requirement for orbital
dominance as a condition for full-fledged planethood, Dr. Gingerich
said. That knocks out Pluto, which crosses the orbit of Neptune, and
Xena, which orbits among the icy wrecks of the Kuiper Belt, and Ceres,
which is in the asteroid belt.

"Vociferous objectors have said they could accept this," Dr.
Gingerich said.

Take your condescension elsewhere, where it is needed.

The _reporter_ is misinformed or at least probably is, because
any astronomer who cared enough to have an opinion on this would know
that Pluto and Neptune are only related in the negative sense.

The third draft defintion is:

A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for
its self-gravity to overcome rigid-body forces so that it assumes a
hydrostatic-equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (b) is the dominant object
in its local population zone, and (c) is in orbit around the Sun.

That is a stupid definition, with a vague term like "dominant
object" and needless heliocentrism, given how many extra-solar worlds
there are but since Pluto and Neptune are never near each other, ever,
they cannot be said to be in each other's "local population zone"
and therefore cannot have any bearing on whether Neptune or Pluto
is a planet. Pluto's problem is the increasingly large population
of big Trans-Neptunian Objects like 2003 EL61 and 2003 UB313.

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
.

Relevant Pages
Loading