Monday, August 28, 2006

Government Study Reveals BEAR Genital Facts!!

Gas prices: UP!!! Polar Bear Genital Size: DOWN!!!

Leave it to FOX News to report this story!

Study: Polar Bear Genitals Are Shrinking
Friday, August 25, 2006

The polar ice cap may not be the only thing shrinking in the Arctic.

The genitals of polar bears in eastern Greenland are apparently dwindling in size due to industrial pollutants, a new study finds.

Read the Full FOX News story here
Another report is published here from the Alaska Report

Thanks to Doug Marsh for bringing this to our attention!!!

...And you thought bears were "genital Giants"

Hairy Women are Revolting Around the World!

Kinda' makes the hairs under your arms stand on end huh?
...hairy legs and all!


Friday, August 25, 2006

The things I post to satisfy your need for originality!

You guys really seem to have a need to see this kinda' stuff huh?

Bearded Navy Brides

Yes indeed, beards have a long history and tradition in the Navy, but did you know that extended to the wives as well? No wait! This must be a crewperson during "halfway night" going "halfway"
Actually, these gals probably have more facial hair then some guys trying to grow beards!

Thursday, August 24, 2006

BREAKING NEWS: Pluto Demoted, No Longer a Planet


By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago

PRAGUE, Czech Republic - Leading astronomers declared Thursday that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.

After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930. The new definition of what is — and isn't — a planet fills a centuries-old black hole for scientists who have labored since Copernicus without one.

Although astronomers applauded after the vote, Jocelyn Bell Burnell — a specialist in neutron stars from Northern Ireland who oversaw the proceedings — urged those who might be "quite disappointed" to look on the bright side.

"It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called 'planet' under which the dwarf planets exist," she said, drawing laughter by waving a stuffed Pluto of Walt Disney fame beneath a real umbrella.

"Many more Plutos wait to be discovered," added Richard Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The decision by the prestigious international group spells out the basic tests that celestial objects will have to meet before they can be considered for admission to the elite cosmic club.

For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."

Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.

Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets," similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun — "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other natural satellites.

Experts said there could be dozens of dwarf planets catalogued across the solar system in the next few years.
NASA said Thursday that Pluto's demotion would not affect its US$700 million New Horizons spacecraft mission, which earlier this year began a 9 1/2-year journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets.

"We will continue pursuing exploration of the most scientifically interesting objects in the solar system, regardless of how they are categorized," Paul Hertz, chief scientist for the science mission directorate, said in a statement.

The decision on Pluto at a conference of 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries was a dramatic shift from just a week ago, when the group's leaders floated a proposal that would have reaffirmed Pluto's planetary status and made planets of its largest moon and two other objects.

That plan proved highly unpopular, splitting astronomers into factions and triggering days of sometimes combative debate that led to Pluto's undoing. In the end, only about 300 astronomers cast ballots.

Now, two of the objects that at one point were cruising toward possible full-fledged planethood will join Pluto as dwarfs: the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s before it got demoted, and 2003 UB313, an icy object slightly larger than Pluto whose discoverer, Michael Brown of the California Institute of Technology, has nicknamed Xena.

Charon, the largest of Pluto's three moons, is no longer under consideration for any special designation.

Brown, who watched the proceedings from Cal Tech, took Thursday's vote in stride — even though his discovery won't be christened a planet.

"UB313 is the largest dwarf planet. That's kind of cool," he said.

___

Pluto Demoted: No Longer a Planet in Highly Controversial Definition

Author Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
SPACE.com 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

UPDATED 11:17 a.m.

Capping years of intense debate, astronomers resolved today to demote Pluto in a wholesale redefinition of planethood that is being billed as a victory of scientific reasoning over historic and cultural influences. But already the decision is being hotly debated.

Officially, Pluto is no longer a planet.

"Pluto is dead," said Caltech researcher Mike Brown, who spoke with reporters via a teleconference while monitoring the vote. The decision also means a Pluto-sized object that Brown discovered will not be called a planet.

"Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, eight planets in the solar system."

The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.

"I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted."

"This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. He expects the astronomy community to overturn the decision. Other astronomers criticized the definition as ambiguous.

The resolution

The decision establishes three main categories of objects in our solar system.

* Planets: The eight worlds from
* Mercury to Neptune.Dwarf Planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."
* Small Solar System Bodies: All other objects orbiting the
Sun.

Pluto and its moon Charon, which would both have been planets under the initial definition proposed Aug. 16, now get demoted because they are part of a sea of other objects that occupy the same region of space. Earth and the other eight large planets have, on the other hand, cleared broad swaths of space of any other large objects.

"Pluto is a dwarf planet by the ... definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects," states the approved resolution.

Dwarf planets are not planets under the definition, however.

"There will be hundreds of dwarf planets," Brown predicted. He has already found dozens that fit the category.

Contentious logic

The vote came after eight days of contentious debate that involved four separate proposals at the group's meeting in Prague.

The initial proposal, hammered out by a group of seven astronomers, historians and authors, attempted to preserve Pluto as a planet but was widely criticized for diluting the meaning of the word. It would also have made planets out of the asteroid Ceres and Pluto's moon Charon. But not now.

"Ceres is a dwarf planet. it's the only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt," Brown said. "Charon is a satellite."

The category of "dwarf planet" is expected to include dozens of round objects already discovered beyond Neptune. Ultimately, hundreds will probably be found, astronomers say.

The word "planet" originally described wanderers of the sky that moved against the relatively fixed background of star. Pluto, discovered in 1930, was at first thought to be larger than it is. It has an eccentric orbit that crosses the path of Neptune and also takes it well above and below the main plane of the solar system.

Recent discoveries of other round, icy object in Pluto's realm have led most astronomers to agree that the diminutive world should never have been termed a planet.

'A farce'

Stern, in charge of the robotic probe on its way to Pluto, said the language of the resolution is flawed. It requires that a planet "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit." But Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune all have asteroids as neighbors.

"It's patently clear that Earth's zone is not cleared," Stern told SPACE.com. "Jupiter has 50,000 trojan asteroids," which orbit in lockstep with the planet.

Stern called it "absurd" that only 424 astronomers were allowed to vote, out of some 10,000 professional astronomers around the globe.

"It won't stand," he said. "It's a farce."

Stern said astronomers are already circulating a petition that would try to overturn the IAU decision.

Owen Gingerich, historian and astronomer emeritus at Harvard who led the committee that proposed the initial definition, called the new definition "confusing and unfortunate" and said he was "not at all pleased" with the language about clearing the neighborhood.

Gingerich also did not like the term "dwarf" planet.

"I thought that it made a curious linguistic contradiction," Gingerich said in a telephone interview from Boston (where he could not vote). "A dwarf planet is not a planet. I thought that was very awkward."

Gingerich added: "In the future one would hope the IAU could do electronic balloting."

Years of debate

Astronomers have argued since the late 1990s, however, on whether to demote Pluto. Public support for Pluto has weighed heavily on the debate. Today's vote comes after a two-year effort by the IAU to develop a definition. An initial committee of astronomers failed for a year to do so, leading to the formation of the second committee whose proposed definition was then redefined for today's vote.

Astronomers at the IAU meeting debated the proposals right up to the moment of the vote.

Caltech's Mike Brown loses out in one sense. The Pluto-sized object his team found, called 2003 UB313, will now be termed a dwarf planet.

"As of today I have no longer discovered a planet," he said. But Brown called the result scientifically a good decision.

"The public is not going to be excited by the fact that Pluto has been kicked out," Brown said. "But it's the right thing to do."

Textbooks will of course have to be rewritten.

"For astronomers this doesn't matter one bit. We'll go out and do exactly what we did," Brown said. "For teaching this is a very interesting moment. I think you can describe science much better now" by explaining why Pluto was once thought to be a planet and why it isn't now. "I'm actually very excited."
------------

Pluto’s Demotion is Well Deserved and Long Overdue
Posted on August 24, 2006 @ 08:06:54 EDT
Author Robert Roy Britt

You might love Pluto, but since 1930 it has been a glaring (if hard to see) error in astronomical decision-making.

The vote today to boot Pluto off the list of planets gives the word “planet” some scientific meaning.

Astronomers stared down public opinion and made the right decision. Now they have a big job: to stay the course in the face of immediate and future outcry from the public or from any astronomers would would revise the main points of the decision.


-----

BC-Pluto Demoted, 6th Ld-Writethru,0929
Pluto demoted as astronomers approve new definition for planets
Eds: SUBS grafs 13-14 pvs to UPDATE with quote from teacher,
NASA saying no effect on mission.
AP Photos LA101-102
AP Graphic
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer


PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) … For decades, it's been
confused with a cartoon dog and ridiculed as a puny poser. Now
Pluto, the solar system's consummate cling-on, has suffered
its worst humiliation: It's not even a planet anymore.

After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the
cosmos, leading astronomers Thursday stripped Pluto of the
planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930. The
new definition of what is … and isn't … a planet fills a
centuries-old black hole for scientists who have labored since
Copernicus without one.

The historic vote by the International Astronomical Union
officially shrinks Earth's neighborhood from the traditional
nine planets to eight.

But the scientists made clear they're as sentimental as
anyone else about the ninth rock from the sun.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell … a specialist in neutron stars from
Northern Ireland who oversaw the proceedings in Prague … urged
those who might be quite disappointed‘ to look on the bright
side.

It could be argued that we are creating an umbrella called
'planet' under which the dwarf planets exist,‘ she said,
drawing laughter by waving a stuffed Pluto of Walt Disney fame
beneath a real umbrella. Later, she hugged the doll as she
stood at the dais.

Many more Plutos wait to be discovered,‘ added Richard
Binzel, a professor of planetary science at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

The decision by the prestigious international group spells
out the basic tests that celestial objects will have to meet
before they can be considered for admission to the elite
cosmic club.

For now, membership will be restricted to the eight
classical‘ planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus,
Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Much-maligned Pluto … named for the God of the underworld …
doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: a
celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient
mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so
that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the
neighborhood around its orbit.‘

Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong
orbit overlaps with Neptune's.

Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of
dwarf planets,‘ similar to what long have been termed minor
planets.‘ The definition also lays out a third class of lesser
objects that orbit the sun … small solar system bodies,‘ a
term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other
natural satellites.

Experts said there could be dozens of dwarf planets
catalogued across the solar system in the next few years …
handing the world's school teachers a challenge.

Neil Crumpton, a science teacher at Mountfitchet High
School in Stansted Mountfitchet, north of London, called the
announcement very exciting.‘

To be honest, this has been brewing for a while. Pluto has
always been a bone of contention among astronomers because of
the odd way it orbits the sun,‘ Crumpton said. For a start,
we'll have to change all the mnemonics we use to teach
children the lineup of the planets. But Pluto has not
disappeared and it doesn't hurt children to know about it.‘

NASA said Thursday that Pluto's demotion would not affect
its $700 million New Horizons spacecraft mission, which
earlier this year began a 9•-year journey to the oddball
object to unearth more of its secrets.

We will continue pursuing exploration of the most
scientifically interesting objects in the solar system,
regardless of how they are categorized,‘ Paul Hertz, chief
scientist for the science mission directorate, said in a
statement.

The decision at a conference of 2,500 astronomers from 75
countries was a dramatic shift from just a week ago, when the
group's leaders floated a proposal that would have reaffirmed
Pluto's planetary status and made planets of its largest moon
and two other objects.

That plan proved highly unpopular, splitting astronomers
into factions and triggering days of sometimes combative
debate that led to Pluto's undoing. In the end, only about 300
astronomers cast ballots.

Now, two of the objects that at one point were cruising
toward possible full-fledged planethood will join Pluto as
dwarfs: the asteroid Ceres, which was a planet in the 1800s
before it got demoted, and 2003 UB313, an icy object slightly
larger than Pluto whose discoverer, Michael Brown of the
California Institute of Technology, has nicknamed Xena.‘

Charon, the largest of Pluto's three moons, is no longer
under consideration for any special designation.

Brown was pleased by the decision. He had argued that Pluto
and similar bodies didn't deserve planet status, saying that
would take the magic out of the solar system.‘

UB313 is the largest dwarf planet. That's kind of cool,‘
he said.

But as it all sank in, he added: Deep down inside, I know
this is the right thing to do. It's sad. As of today, I have
no longer discovered a planet.‘

………

AP Science Writer Alicia Chang in Los Angeles contributed
to this story.

………

On the Net:

International Astronomical Union, www.iau.org

AP-ES-08-24-06 1158EDT

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Relax, take a seat! Buckle-up and take a ride in my Charger!

I know, the seat is not as cushy, but it's a ride that will get you juices flowing. What's that you say? You want to munch on a handful of raisins? ...Well, we don't have any raisins, but how about some "currants". Take a seat, this is a ride the will leave you a bit "fried", but it's also the only chair that will leave you "well done" too!

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Now is your chance to pick-up some PRIME Real Estate!

Prime Martian Real Estate For Sale!!!

Acres of prime expanse are just waiting for YOU to claim!

Do you like sunshine! ...No problem!

Do you treasure your privacy? ...No problem!

Do you like to talk to rocks? ...No problem!

Lots of cloudless day, low humidity and lots of sunshine await you!

Mars is a Mere 186 Light-Seconds journey away from Earth!

Thus, convient from most shopping locations in earth, privacy is only about 35 million miles away from this RED HOT vacation get-a-way spot!

Monday, August 21, 2006

The Orignal "Siamese-Twins" ENG & CHANG BUNKER

ENG & CHANG BUNKER (1811-1874)

Born in Siam (now Thailand) in 1811, Eng and Chang Bunker were connected at the chest by a five-inch-wide band of flesh. The location of this connection suggested to some doctors and other observers that the brothers shared a heart or some respiratory functions. These medical assumptions would be proven wrong. According to their biography, the twins shared relatively "normal" boyhoods in Siam, running and playing with other children, doing chores, and helping to support their parents and siblings by gathering and selling duck eggs in their small village. Later, as teenagers, the twins left Siam and began a career traveling with two agents, Robert Hunter and Abel Coffin. Eng and Chang earned money by giving lectures and demonstrations throughout the United States, Canada, South America, and Europe. In fact, entries in their travel-expense journal, documents that they visited the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in October, 1834. In their far-flung travels, Eng and Chang became such popular celebrities during the 1830s that their promotion as "Siamese twins" were terms that were universally employed to describe connected or conjoined twins.

By the late 1830s, Eng and Chang tired of all their traveling, opting then to settle in North Carolina. There the brothers married two sisters, Adelaide and Sarah Yates of Wilkes County. The sisters were of European ancestry and were neither twins nor connected themselves. The couples were married in 1843 and would ultimately produce 21 children between the two families. Eng and Chang died in January, 1874, at the age of 63. Chang preceded Eng in death by about two and a half hours. An autopsy indicated that Chang died of a blood clot in the brain; and at the time Eng's demise was attributed, understandably, to shock.

Concerning the "Dawn of Recorded Sound"


Thomas Edison's 1877 Cylinder Recorder / Player

Thomas Alva Edison, that ever lazy lad who, when he had nothing better to do went out and applied for and was awarded a meager 1,368 separate and distinct patents during his lifetime, one of which was the Cylinder machine pictured above.

Come on now, how many of you have a few cylinder machines hanging around the house? I must have about fifteen or more myself! Anyway, out of all those patents only one was attributed to being a purely "scientific nature" of discovery and that was his "Edison Effect"

What was the "Edison Effect"? No, it wasn't the the reaction- effect of the Patent Office employees when he walked in each time to apply for another patent, it was much more important then that. In fact, Thomas Edison himself had no idea what it was he had observed, so he decided to patent it!!

The "Edison Effect" had to do with thermionic emission, which is the
flow of electrons from a metal or metal oxide surface, caused by thermal vibrational energy overcoming the electrostatic forces holding electrons to the surface. The effect increases dramatically with increasing temperature (1000–3000 K), but is always present at temperatures above absolute zero.

Simply stated, while trying to discover the reason for breakage of lamp filaments and uneven blackening (darkest near one terminal of the filament) of the bulbs in his incandescent lamps.

Edison built a bulb with the inside surface covered with metal foil. He connected the foil to the lamp filament through a galvanometer, (...another useful tool we all should keep around the house!) When the foil was given a more negative charge than the filament, no current flowed between the foil and the filament because the cool foil emitted few electrons. However, when the foil was given a more positive charge than the filament, the many electrons emitted from the hot filament were attracted to the foil, causing current to flow. This one-way flow of current was called the Edison effect (although the term is occasionally used to refer to thermionic emission itself). Edison saw no use for this effect, and although he patented it in 1883, he did not study it any further.

Thus, the principle of the Vaccuum Tube was discovered and patented, but Thomas Edison just didn't realize it!! ...What a slacker!

Does this make Edison the "Father of Electronics" too? Maybe the grandfather, but not the "Father of Electronics"

Here's a list of some of his inventions when he had nothing better to do:

1868

  • Invented the electrical vote recorder.

1869

  • Invented the universal stock ticker and the unison stop.

1872

  • Invented the motograph.
  • Invented the automatic telegraph system.
  • Invented duplex, quadruplex, sextuplex, and multiplex telegraph systems.
  • Invented paraffin paper.
  • Invented the carbon rheostat.

1875

  • Discovered "Etheric Force," an electric phenomenon that is the foundation of wireless telegraphy.

1876

  • Invented the electric pen used for the first mimeographs.

1877

  • Invented the carbon telephone transmitter, making telephony commercially practical. This included the microphone used in radio.

1877

  • Invented the phonograph. This was Edison's favorite invention. He sponsored the Edison Phonograph Polka to help popularize the new device.

1879

  • Discovered incandescent light.
  • Radically improved dynamos and generators.
  • Discovered a system of distribution, regulation, and measurement of electric current-switches, fuses, sockets, and meters.

1880

  • Invented the magnetic ore separator.

1880

  • Discovered the "Edison Effect," the fundamental principle of electronics.

1885

  • Discovered a system of wireless induction telegraph between moving trains and stations. He also patented similar systems for ship-to-shore use.

1891

  • Invented the motion picture camera.

1896

  • Invented the fluoroscope.
  • Invented the fluorescent electric lamp.

1900

  • Invented the nickel-iron-alkaline storage battery.

1914

  • Invented the electric safety miner's lamp.
  • Discovered the process for manufacturing synthetic carbolic acid.

1915

  • Conducted special experiments on more than 40 major war problems for the Navy Department. Edison served as Chairman of the Naval Consulting Board and did much other work on National Defense.
These Include:

I Locating positions of guns by sound ranging.

2 Detecting submarines by sound from moving vessels.

3 Detecting, on moving vessels, the discharge of torpedoes by submarines.

4 The faster turning of ships.

5 Strategic plans for saving cargo boats from harm by enemy submarines.

6 Development of collision mats for submarines and ships.

7 Methods for guiding merchant ships out of mined harbors.

8 Oleum cloud shells.

9 Camouflaging ships.

10 Blocking torpedoes with nets.

11 Increased power for torpedoes.

12 Coastal patrol by submarine buoys.

13 Destroying periscopes with machine guns.

14 Cartridges for taking soundings.

15 Sailing lights for convoys.

16 Smudging skyline.

1 17 Underwater searchlights.

18 High speed signaling with searchlights.

19 Water penetrating projectiles.

20 Airplane detection.

21 Observing periscopes in silhouette.

So now you see the NAVY connection to this whole blog entry!

Okay, "So what is an 'Astronomical Unit" anyway?"

Probing the strange language of Scientists

Hey, if scientists can arbitrarily set the freezing point of water at zero degrees and its boiling point at 100 degrees and call that scientific, even though those values change at various elevations and barometric pressures, why not set the astronomical unit at something equally obtuse?

Thus, according the Merriam-Webster on-line Dictonary "One astronomical is a unit of length used in astronomy equal to the mean distance of the earth from the sun or about 93 million miles (150 million kilometers).

Thus, Saturn is about 10 times more distant from the Earth then we are from the sun...

As you might remember from your 1st grade math classes, great numbers, both large and small are often described best using logarithmic scales, this helps us quantify very large and small values in a manner our stupid little minds can better comprehend.

I should make the point here that "logarithmic scales" is NOT a skin condition you get from exposure to tree allergies, bugs grubs or tree bark, and while mathmatically it might be related to Geometry (pronounced: "Gee, I'ma tree!") that too has nothing to do whatsoever with trees!

...and I'm just not going there with regards to the various astronomical rings and belts.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Trilogies involving Dwarves and Rings of Power...

You know, these days there is still a lot of talk about the epoch Trilogy of the Ring with it's prelude as a fourth story written by J.R.R. (John Ronald Reuel) Tolkien (1892-1973).



But before Tolkien's stories, when folks mentioned stories about rigs of power and dwarves they were talking about Richard Wagner's "Ring Cycle" or The Ring of the Nibelung.
Wilhelm Richard Wagner (1813 - 1883) was by all account both brilliant and very egotistical.

"The Ring of the Nibelung" is a series of four epic musical dramas based loosely on figures and elements of Germanic Paganism, particularly from theIcelanders' sagas and the Nibelungenlied. It is often referred to simply as "The Ring Cycle", "Wagner's Ring" or just "The Ring". Both the libretto and the music were written by Richard Wagner over the course of twenty-six years, from 1848 to 1874.

The four operas in the Ring cycle are:

Besides both epoch series having to do with a Ring-of-power, dwarves and giants the similarity pretty much ends there except that the original "Ring Cycle" started out as an opera, then was written into books and also became a series of movies, the "Lord of the Rings" started out as a series of books, became a series of movies and now is (would you believe) been made into an opera!

Friday, August 18, 2006

Okay, let's clear up this confusion!

Here is a comparision chart of many of the thus discovered "Major" planetoids in comparision to Earth and Pluto (...which might lose planetary status!) Let's not forget tiny Ceres & Vesta that exist in the asteroid belt! As you might be aware, Ceres and other asteroids ceased to be classified as planets after the 1860s.because so many were being discovered!

Thanks for the barrage of questions, I hope I answered them all!

Turning Grammar School Astronomy on its Head!! Instead of NINE planets to remember, how about TWELVE or maybe....FIFTY-THREE!!!!

Artist's conception of the cold distant Sedna. The sun is a tiny point of light 8 billion miles away from the red planetoid. A hypothesized tiny moon appears nearby. Sedna lives in the Oort Belt (outside the Kuiper belt!) ...That's right folks, we have belts, outside of belts!!

BTW: Both Sedna and Xena have orbiting moons!!


The IAU has proposed a definition which would add hundreds of new planets to our solar system!


The text contained here was snatched from this website

From the time of the announcement of the discovery of 2003 UB313 in late July 2005, the "planetary" status of 2003 UB313 and of Pluto have been in limbo. The International Astronomical Union (IAU), the group charged with classifying objects in space, has just released a proposed definition and will hold a vote on this proposal on August 24th.

A little background: Why is there a problem with Pluto (or 2003 UB313)?

Pluto and 2003 UB313 are significantly smaller than the other planets. If you were to start to classify things in the solar system from scratch, with no preconceived notions about which things belong in which categories, you would likely come to only one conclusion. The four giant planets -- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune -- belong in one category, the four terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars -- belong in one category, and everything else belongs in one or maybe more categories. You wouldn't lump the largest asteroid -- Ceres -- in with the planets, you would group it with the other asteroids. Likewise you wouldn't group the largest object in the vast swarm of objects beyond Neptune (the "Kuiper belt") with anything other than the Kuiper belt. The current word "planet" encompasses the group of giant planets and the group of terrestrial planets and the awkwardly ventures out into the Kuiper belt to take in one or two of the largest of those objects. Using the word in this way makes no scientific sense whatsoever, hence, the issue with Pluto.

What are the possible solutions to the Pluto (and 2003 UB313) problems?

I. Demote Pluto and 2003 UB313 (8 planets)

The simplest solution is the one that makes the most people cringe: admit that we made a mistake in 1930 by calling Pluto a planet. We have eight planets, and many thousands of asteroids and many thousands more Kuiper belt objects. Pluto is simply the second largest of the known Kuiper belt objects (2003 UB313 is the largest). Ceres is the largest asteroid. Case closed.

But we can't demote Pluto, can we? Well, of course we can. We did the same thing to the asteroid Ceres more than 150 years ago. When it was first discovered in 1801 it was declared to be a planet (the 8th, actually). Then another asteroid was found. Another planet! Then another. Planet again! This got old quickly and soon these tiny bodies were realized to be part of a vast population of rocks orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. They were wisely grouped into a single category, the word "asteroid" was born, and Neptune was the new 8th planet.

It takes guts to demote a planet that many people claim to love. But if the IAU had made this decision and stuck to it it would only take a generation for everyone to accept the idea. People would even learn that science is capable of correcting itself when it makes errors, which is a useful lesson to see in action.

As the discoverer of 2003 UB313, would I be upset by this decision? No. Scientific decisions should be based on science, not sentiment. It would be an excellent choice. I'd be sad to miss the chance to have discovered the 10th planet, but I'd get over it.

Why didn't the IAU propose this definition? I think that astronomers are as sentimental as the rest of the world and couldn't stomach removing Pluto. Probably they also couldn't stomach the criticism that would follow.

II. Keep the status quo (9 planets)

We could always just say "OK, the word planet is an historical word, not a scientific word, so let's just leave it at nine and ignore anything else that comes in." I don't actually think anyone ever seriously considered this idea, though it is sometimes floated around. This definition would have the unintended effect of sending the signal that discovery in the solar system is complete. It doesn't matter what else we might find, we already know all the planets there are to know. This signal would be a very very bad signal. To my knowledge no one has seriously proposed this idea.

III. Let in the newcomer (10 planets)

A very simple solution to the Pluto/UB313 problem is to just define Pluto to be a planet (much like in II. above) and say that anything larger (currently only 2003 UB313) is also a planet.

Why do this? It makes no scientific sense at all, yet it appears to be what most people on the street think that the definition of "planet" should be. What are astronomers to do in a case where the public clearly thinks one thing and scientists another?

One interesting question to ask is "who is most affected by this decision?" Will it affect astronomers? Not at all. If there are officially 8 or 9 or 10 or 53 planets astronomers will continue the business of science by studying these objects to figure out what they are made of, how they were formed, and what they can tell us about the history of the solar system. In scientific discussions the word planet is hardly ever used.

Will it affect the public? Much more, it seems. The only reason that astronomers are spending so much time and effort on this question is because of the effect that it appears that it will have on the public.

Given that it is the public, rather than astronomers, who care and will be affected, one suggestion is that the astronomers simply get over it. To most people the word "planet" is more cultural than scientific. It is part of the mental landscape that we use to organize our ideas of the universe around us. The best analogy I can come up with is with the word "continent." The word sound like it should have some scientific definition, but clearly there is no way to construct a definition that somehow gets the 7 things we call continents to be singled out. Why is Europe called a separate continent? Only because of culture. You will never hear geologists engaged in a debate about the meaning of the word "continent" though. When geologists talk about the earth and its land masses they define precisely what they are talking about; they say "continental crust" or "continental drift" or "continental plates" but almost never "continent."

Astronomers might be wise to learn from the geologists. Let culture define "planet" and let astronomers get back to the more important business of actually doing science.

IV. Leave no ice ball behind (53 planets, and counting)

This definition is the one the IAU chose to propose

There is a fourth solution, which is to fix the problem of Pluto being too small by making many many more planets so that Pluto is no longer even close to the limit. Even better, make the new definition have a scientific basis.

Such a solution would be to declare that everything that is large enough to be round due to its own self-gravity is a planet. As long as it is not a moon.

Why round? If you place a boulder in space it will just stay whatever irregular shape it is. If you add more boulders to it you can still have an irregular pile. But if you add enough boulders to the pile they will eventually pull themselves into a round shape. By this proposed definition, you would then have a planet.

All of the ten current planets -- including Pluto and 2003 UB313 -- are round, so this means we don't have to demote anybody. What else is large enough to be round? The asteroid Ceres -- that one that was once a planet and got demoted -- is, in fact, round, so more than a century after its demotion it would be back to being a planet.

While the IAU is only officially willing to call 12 objects in the solar system round, we know with very little doubt that the Kuiper belt is home to perhaps a hundred or more round objects. We don't know the precise number because we don't know exactly how big an icy object in the Kuiper belt has to be to be round, but if we look at the icy satellites of the giant planets we see that everything larger than 400 km (250 miles) across is round while things smaller than 200 km (125 miles) across are not round. So somewhere in between is the transition. In the Kuiper belt we currently know of about 44 objects (including Pluto and 2003 UB313) that are larger than 400 km, so, at a minimum, we have 44+8+1=53 planets, by this scheme. We are not through searching the Kuiper belt, but when we are we are likely to have about 100 planets.

Most people might think that a proposal to suddenly go from 9 to 53 planets would have no chance of passing, but I give this one good odds of passing the IAU vote. Why? It sounds scientific, it saves Pluto, and it suddenly makes many more people discovers of planets. Of course, it does even greater damage to the popular concept of the word planet by suddenly adding 44 new ones, all of which are so small that they could easily fit all together inside the earth's moon (which, of course, doesn't count as a planet) with plenty of room to spare, but perhaps that's a small price to finally have a definition after all of this time.

V. Make no decision

While the IAU has proposed a definition, the membership may vote no. What happens then? We are left in the same state we started, with no scientific definition, but with most people thinking there are 9 or 10 planets. I think this result is essentially similar to II. above. I give it a 30% chance.

The IAU proposal officially recognizes only 12 planets; where does the number 53 come from?

By the proposed IAU definition, anything large enough to be pulled by its own gravity into the shape of a sphere and which is in orbit around a star is a planet. The proposal officially recognizes 12 planets (the nine previously recognized plus Ceres and Pluto's moon Charon plus 2003 UB313) creates a complex committee procedure for an object to become officially recognized. This part of the proposal is perhaps the weakest. In no other area of astronomy is there a definition for a class of objects and then a committee that has to decide if an object fits the definition. There are simply definitions. If an object fits the definition it is part of the class. If the IAU proposal is accepted then scientifically all of the spherical objects out there are indeed classified as planets, regardless of how long it takes for a committee to officiailly declare them to be so.

A relatively simple analysis show that there are currently 53 known objects in the solar system which are likely round. Another few hundred will likely be discovered in the relatively near future. Regardless of what the official count is from the IAU proposal these object all fit the scientific definition of the word planet and if the scientific definition is to have any credibility they should all generally be considered planets.

What should the public think about 53 planets?

Most people, when first confronted with a proposal to make 44 new planets in the solar system, seem to react by looking blankly for a second, then shaking their heads and muttering something about astronomers being crazy. Astronomers are not actually crazy, at least most of them. Astronomers have needed a good scientific definition of the word "planet" for many years now and this one works well for scientists. It doesn't, however, work terribly well for the rest of the world. The solution is the one that should have happened long ago: a divorce of the scientific term "planet" for the cultural term "planet." No one expects school children to name the 53 planets (most, in fact, don't even have names). If I were a school teacher I would teach 8, or 9, or perhaps 10 planets and then say "scientists consider many more things to be planets too" and use that opportunity to talk about how much more there is in the solar system. But at the end of the day I would talk about 8 or 9 or 10. Not 53.

Culture and science have always meant something different when they use the word planet, and with this new scientific definition so clearly far removed from what the rest of the world things a planet is there will no longer be any need to confuse the scientific word with the cultural one.

Look! Up in the sky! ...It's a bird? It's a Plane! ...No you Dummy, it's a Newly Discovered Planet!!

Notice anything moving in this picture? If you can, then you too have seen our tenth planet, still un-named: 2003UB313 but folks around seem to like to want to call it Xena. This chunk of God-forsaken ice and rock lives in the region of our solar system called the " Kuiper Belt" and contrary to popular opinion this is not the sort of belt worn around the waist to hold-up your pants! This belt, a swarm of icy bodies lives beyond Neptune in orbit around the sun, thus Pluto is included in the belt of orbital debris.

But if you were born on Xena I would not want to wait until I was 21 years old to drink, because it takes this 'slow-moving-wasteland-excuse-for-a-planet' about 580 earth-years to orbit the sun!!

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Since you seem to be obsessed with the subject....

You too can become a "Lovely" gal like this!
Just don't get her ANGRY ...right Doug?

Friday, August 04, 2006

I've heard of Siamese Cats, but German Cats??

German Genetic Engineering!
...What will they think of next?