I think the distinction between dwarf planets and major planets makes perfect sense. And why all the focus on Pluto, specifically? If Pluto is a major planet, why isn't Ceres? Indeed, if you reject the distinction than the solar system already has 13 named major planets with more to follow in short order.
It's a silly distinction. What's wrong with thirteen? You can set up classifications any way you want. How 'bout defining a planet with a certain minimum diameter? So, then you could arbitrarily define that our solar system contains four planets, or three, or tow or one...or none. You could arbitrarily define that to be classed as a planet a body must have companion bodies at the leading and trailing trojan points, by which definition our system would include one planet. You could arbitrarily define that a planet was a body with at least one satellite or ring. By that definition Mercury and Venus would be disqualified.
The point is, the change to Pluto's status was motivated by politics, namely the views of Neil Degrasse Tyson, and it was made after most of the conference participants had left to go home. It was rammed through in a shabby and underhanded manner. That's what's so upsetting about it.
Well, yes, you could define "planet" in any way you want. As I said, I find the way the distinction between major and dwarf planets is drawn makes perfect sense. Apparently you don't. And as I said before, I don't understand why you talk only about Pluto when the same definition also reclassified Ceres.
But I really don't understand your last paragraph. To my certain knowledge the major/dwarf planet distinction had been debated for several years before it was adopted. One reason I am particularly aware of this is that my first con party had the theme "Bye, bye Pluto." That was because it took place on the day Pluto once more became the most distant known planetary body in the solar system, but some attendees took it to refer to the reclassification that actually took place a couple of years later.
AND BTW, I don't think Jupiter is the only planet with Trojan bodies. In fact, I believe Earth does, although they are so small nobody pays attention to them.
I don't watch the US TV news, but Trump is a near-constant concern on the NHK (Japanese public TV) news. I saw a "film" clip of him there yesterday, and he did NOT look like a happy camper. The presidency is a wo/man-killing job; how much more so for a boy grown tall?
I continue to be very concerned by Trump's fatuous ranting about how China has done "nothing" to control North Korea and how he will settle NK's hash if no one else will. Controlling NK is a team sport, and China is the only country to put the screws to NK lately; halting imports of coal from NK pretty much eliminates their income.
From a fundraising letter just received from the Midwest High Speed Rail Association:
What should the advocacy community's response be when the president tells airline and airport executives he wants high speed rail one week and blocks the CalTrain electrification project the next?
How do we react to the president's call for a $1-trillion infrastructure program, including modern railways, while he proposes to eliminate commuter-rail investment and Amtrak operation funds?
Been getting most of my news from Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert, with contributions from Auntie Beeb. Can't take anything stronger. The sound of Trump's voice, even in brief soundbites, makes me sick.
https://futurism.com/pluto-reclassified-as-a-major-planet/
ReplyDeleteAh, rats! And here I was looking for truth, not thruthiness. :(
DeleteDanny, Darn Darn! And Double Drat!! I think poor ol' Pluto got shortchanged.
DeleteI think the distinction between dwarf planets and major planets makes perfect sense. And why all the focus on Pluto, specifically? If Pluto is a major planet, why isn't Ceres? Indeed, if you reject the distinction than the solar system already has 13 named major planets with more to follow in short order.
Delete
DeleteIt's a silly distinction. What's wrong with thirteen? You can set up classifications any way you want. How 'bout defining a planet with a certain minimum diameter? So, then you could arbitrarily define that our solar system contains four planets, or three, or tow or one...or none. You could arbitrarily define that to be classed as a planet a body must have companion bodies at the leading and trailing trojan points, by which definition our system would include one planet. You could arbitrarily define that a planet was a body with at least one satellite or ring. By that definition Mercury and Venus would be disqualified.
The point is, the change to Pluto's status was motivated by politics, namely the views of Neil Degrasse Tyson, and it was made after most of the conference participants had left to go home. It was rammed through in a shabby and underhanded manner. That's what's so upsetting about it.
Well, yes, you could define "planet" in any way you want. As I said, I find the way the distinction between major and dwarf planets is drawn makes perfect sense. Apparently you don't. And as I said before, I don't understand why you talk only about Pluto when the same definition also reclassified Ceres.
DeleteBut I really don't understand your last paragraph. To my certain knowledge the major/dwarf planet distinction had been debated for several years before it was adopted. One reason I am particularly aware of this is that my first con party had the theme "Bye, bye Pluto." That was because it took place on the day Pluto once more became the most distant known planetary body in the solar system, but some attendees took it to refer to the reclassification that actually took place a couple of years later.
AND BTW, I don't think Jupiter is the only planet with Trojan bodies. In fact, I believe Earth does, although they are so small nobody pays attention to them.
I just set the blog through the start of May. I hope you'll enjoy the progression. We can't do with too much more snow and wet and cold, eh, puddle?
ReplyDeleteI don't watch the US TV news, but Trump is a near-constant concern on the NHK (Japanese public TV) news. I saw a "film" clip of him there yesterday, and he did NOT look like a happy camper. The presidency is a wo/man-killing job; how much more so for a boy grown tall?
ReplyDeleteI continue to be very concerned by Trump's fatuous ranting about how China has done "nothing" to control North Korea and how he will settle NK's hash if no one else will. Controlling NK is a team sport, and China is the only country to put the screws to NK lately; halting imports of coal from NK pretty much eliminates their income.
Alan
Why Flip Burgers When You Can Sling Weed? Denver's Pot Boom Puts the Hurt on Local Restaurant Hiring[Click]
ReplyDelete—Alan
From a fundraising letter just received from the Midwest High Speed Rail Association:
ReplyDeleteWhat should the advocacy community's response be when the president tells airline and airport executives he wants high speed rail one week and blocks the CalTrain electrification project the next?
How do we react to the president's call for a $1-trillion infrastructure program, including modern railways, while he proposes to eliminate commuter-rail investment and Amtrak operation funds?
Do they provide an answer?
DeleteImpeachment sounds pretty good as an all purpose anodyne.
As implied, their answer was, "Give us more money so we can advocate for trains more effectively."
DeleteI guess a blue cow would be a red shifted purple cow.
ReplyDeleteBeen getting most of my news from Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert, with contributions from Auntie Beeb. Can't take anything stronger. The sound of Trump's voice, even in brief soundbites, makes me sick.
ReplyDeleteI guess I am fortunate I can still read online, so I can get my news (Chicago Tribune, Huffington Post, Quartz) without any voice input whatsoever.
DeleteWe seem to be on the same wavelength, Bill.
DeleteAlan
Sorry! I wouldn't have linked that if I'd followed through and realized it was an April Fool's "joke"--again: apologies.
ReplyDelete