You don't get strong by being weak.
bIsh
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Wither Pluto?
Ah Pluto, the least loved of the planets, or dwarf planets, or orbiting spacial objects, or whatever they're calling it today. Pluto, for over 80 years included with the nine in the pantheon of planets; now demoted in status, outcast, no longer part of the gang. Pluto, now the father of a new class of orbiting spheres - dwarf planets (or Trans-Neptunian Objects). Is it the end of an era or the beginning? And does it really matter?
Certainly, Pluto isn't affected by what we call it, and neither is the rest of the universe. In fact, life on Earth will not change at all. Sure, textbooks will have to be revised, and certain mnemonic devices will have to be rethought, but that's about it. And there may be a few arguments and debates, but nothing too serious. No wars will be fought, no one will resort to fisticuffs. Angry mobs will not rise up against the cruel oppressors of astronomy. Telescopes and observatories will not be burned or looted. In fact, I'd wager that in 10 years this will not be given a second thought.
After all, the classification of heavenly bodies is just a human convention. We like to classify and categorize and sort and name. Look at the animal kingdom. We have names and classes and orders and families and species and phylums and genuses, but the animals don't care. It doesn't really matter how we class them from the animals' point of view. Look at life, too. When I was in high school there were 5 kingdoms of life - Plant, Animal, Protist, Bacteria, Fungi - and now there are 6 or 7 recognized kingdoms of life - depending on whom one asks. So it is with celestial things. Where there was officially (or unofficially, as there was never a formal definition of planet) one class of things called planet, now there are at least two, and there may be more in the future. So be it.
The thing I don't understand is why some, or maybe many, astronomers are opposed to including Pluto with the planets and possibly classifying more things as planets. There's enough room in the solar system for a few more planets, right? So why are so many in the astronomic community so opposed? I don't know.
The key disqualifier for Pluto's planethood is that it does not "clear its orbit"; that is, it crosses the orbit of another planet - Neptune. Of course, if this definition is consistently applied Neptune must also be demoted from planethood because it crosses Pluto's orbit. On the other hand, one could now argue that since Pluto is not a true planet anymore, Neptune does not cross the path of another true planet. But this is splitting hairs, and could lead to splitting headaches.
Bottom line - it doesn't matter. I shall continue to think of Pluto as one of the planets, regardless of the official classification. It is big and round and it orbits the sun and no other bodies. It was orbiting the sun long before man discovered it, and it will keep on orbiting until the Lord declares otherwise.
Just don't ask Mickey to rename his dog.
bIsh
Certainly, Pluto isn't affected by what we call it, and neither is the rest of the universe. In fact, life on Earth will not change at all. Sure, textbooks will have to be revised, and certain mnemonic devices will have to be rethought, but that's about it. And there may be a few arguments and debates, but nothing too serious. No wars will be fought, no one will resort to fisticuffs. Angry mobs will not rise up against the cruel oppressors of astronomy. Telescopes and observatories will not be burned or looted. In fact, I'd wager that in 10 years this will not be given a second thought.
After all, the classification of heavenly bodies is just a human convention. We like to classify and categorize and sort and name. Look at the animal kingdom. We have names and classes and orders and families and species and phylums and genuses, but the animals don't care. It doesn't really matter how we class them from the animals' point of view. Look at life, too. When I was in high school there were 5 kingdoms of life - Plant, Animal, Protist, Bacteria, Fungi - and now there are 6 or 7 recognized kingdoms of life - depending on whom one asks. So it is with celestial things. Where there was officially (or unofficially, as there was never a formal definition of planet) one class of things called planet, now there are at least two, and there may be more in the future. So be it.
The thing I don't understand is why some, or maybe many, astronomers are opposed to including Pluto with the planets and possibly classifying more things as planets. There's enough room in the solar system for a few more planets, right? So why are so many in the astronomic community so opposed? I don't know.
The key disqualifier for Pluto's planethood is that it does not "clear its orbit"; that is, it crosses the orbit of another planet - Neptune. Of course, if this definition is consistently applied Neptune must also be demoted from planethood because it crosses Pluto's orbit. On the other hand, one could now argue that since Pluto is not a true planet anymore, Neptune does not cross the path of another true planet. But this is splitting hairs, and could lead to splitting headaches.
Bottom line - it doesn't matter. I shall continue to think of Pluto as one of the planets, regardless of the official classification. It is big and round and it orbits the sun and no other bodies. It was orbiting the sun long before man discovered it, and it will keep on orbiting until the Lord declares otherwise.
Just don't ask Mickey to rename his dog.
bIsh
Voices part 2
A quick update to my last post. I called out to the voice, and it has called back to me. Fellowship has been restored. I have learned much, and I will be wiser in response to this voice. The voice is friendly now, and I think it will likely be for some time. If things start to turn otherwise, I will know better how to respond.
Hear ya later.
bIsh
Hear ya later.
bIsh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)