[meteorite-list] And the winner is-- PLUTOID!

[Jerry]

OK. It will no doubt come as a great surprise to the Executive
Committee of the IAU (henceforth referred to as "Executoids")
Sterling, you never fail to charm your way into a most subtle form of humor 
while elucidating the nuts and bolts of a gritty, in this case, language 
dilemma.
Jerry Flaherty
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] And the winner is-- PLUTOID!



> Hi, All,

>

>    First, what does the suffix "-oid" MEAN?

>

> http://dictionary.die.net/-oid

>    from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

> "-oid \-oid\ [Gr. ?, fr. ? form, akin to ? to see, and E. wit:

>   cf.F. -o["i]de, L. -o["i]des.]

>   A suffix or combining form meaning like, resembling, in the

>   form of; as in anthropoid, asteroid, spheroid."

>

>>From http://www.answers.com/topic/oid-1

>

>    "1. Used as in mainstream slang English to indicate

> a poor imitation, a counterfeit, or some otherwise slightly

> bogus resemblance."

>

>    and

>

>    "-oid is a suffix much used in the sciences and mathematics

> to indicate a 'similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else'.

> According to the Oxford English Dictionary, -oid is derived

> from the Latin suffix -oides taken from Greek and meaning

> 'having the likeness of'." (This is a re-working of the Oxford

> English Dictionary's definition by the Wikipedia.)

>

>    As a result, while "Plutoid" is a possible term of definition,

> the planet Pluto itself CANNOT be a "Plutoid"! The headline:

> "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid" is a gross mis-understanding

> of the meaning of the word. Not even the IAU says that. It

> says Pluto is a prototype for a class of objects to be named

> "Plutoids." They are named "Plutoids," not Pluto itself.

>

>    The term "Plutoid" defines an inclusive class of objects that

> superficially or fraudulently resemble Pluto but it excludes Pluto,

> the object a resemblance to which defines the class itself. The

> suffix indicates a similarity to something else. Pluto does not

> "resemble" Pluto -- it IS Pluto. Stars are not asteroids, for

> example, in case you need an example.

>

>    Moreover, it not clear why objects that actually DO resemble

> Pluto should be called by an "-oid" suffix. This problem arises

> because an "-oid" class is composed of many essentially

> dissimilar objects that share only their superficial appearance

> to, or a single characteristic with, the out-of-class object for

> which they are named.

>

>    Or if that single defining characteristic is the essential

> one, what is the defining characteristic of the Plutoids? Well,

> there's one ONE characteristic: iot is merely that they are

> "Out There"! (And round and sun-orbiting.)

>

>    Resolution 6A (2006): "Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by

> the above definition and is recognized as the prototype

> of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects," or so

> the IAU website says, assuming that all TNO's are "like"

> Pluto. I guess they know a lot more about Pluto -- and

> the other TNO's! -- than we do, don't they?

>

>    They voted, by the way, to name that common class

> "plutons" to the delight of geologists everywhere. That

> name is still on the IAU website.

> http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0601/

>

>    Is "Plutoid" intended as a substitute for "Pluton"? I

> guess so. Plutino is already taken; sorry! "Plutonian" has

> been around for decades, but neither the geologists nor the

> Gods of the Underworld would be happy with that choice.

> "Plutan" sounds funny. "Plutoan" sounds Polynesian.

>

>    Somehow, I doubt the IAU was aware of the complexities

> of an "-oid" class. I think they wanted to to lump the Outer

> Solar System together into a single-class group and dump it,

> get it out of planetary astronomy, to make it irrelevant and

> unimportant, and to get it out of the way.

>

>    Let's look at the rest of that definition: "Plutoids are

> celestial bodies in orbit around the sun at a distance greater

> than that of Neptune..." This is what Space.com say is "the

> official new definition," putting it in quotes. It is in fact

> what IAU says in their own press release, proving that their

> press officers are at least as incompetent as all other press

> officers in the known Universe.

>

>    OK. It will no doubt come as a great surprise to the Executive

> Committee of the IAU (henceforth referred to as "Executoids")

> that Pluto is NOT "in orbit around the sun at a distance greater

> than that of Neptune" for 8% of its orbital period. This actually

> does not matter as Pluto can't be a Plutoid at all as explained

> above, but if it WAS a Plutoid, it would only BE one 92% of

> the time, like a quantum virtual particle popping in and out.

>

>    However, we can blame THIS mess on the Press, the IAU

> included, because the actual qualifications for a "Plutoid" are

> NOT those given in the news story! (As usual.) Fiurther

> down, in the fine priont, here's what the IAU actually says:

>

>    "..it was decided that, for naming purposes, any Solar System

> body having (a) a semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune,

> and (b) an absolute magnitude brighter than H = +1 magnitude

> will be considered to be a plutoid, and be named by the WGPSN

> and the CSBN. Name(s) proposed by the discovery team(s) will

> be given deference. If further investigations show that the object

> is not massive enough and does not qualify as a plutoid, it will

> keep its name but change category."

> http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0804/

>

>    The Devil is in the details, ALWAYS. Define things as you

> want, it's the RULES that decide. With these rules, there will

> NEVER be any other dwarf planets, no matter what (maybe).

>

>    Why do I say that? Here's the deal. Mike Brown doesn't

> get to be a planet-finder for finding the planet Eris, but he gets

> two dwarf planets aznd a bag of marshmallows. Lowell

> Observatory (Pluto's "owner") loses old Pluto's planethood,

> but there will never be any other rivals called "planets." Christy,

> the discoverer of half of a double planet gets nothing -- zip,

> zilch, nada.

>

>    It's that detail: a new candidate will have to have an absolute

> magnitude (H) greater than +1.0. This purely arbitrary H = +1.0

> cutoff eliminates all the other candidates because that value is

> set 'way too high.

>

>    And they are all too distant for anyone to determine that they

> are round! Of course, most of them are, but you won't be able

> to prove it for another generation... or two... or five.

>

>    This means that "Easterbunny" IS a dwarf planet

> (H = -0.48) and a "Plutoid". Congratulations, Easterbunny!

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28136472%29_2005_FY9

>

> But the bigger, more massive and impressive "Santa" is

> not (H = +0.17):

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28136108%29_2003_EL61

> and neither is Sedna nor Ouaoar nor Orcus nor Ixion nor

> Varuna nor (55565) 2002 AW197 nor (84522) 2002 TC302,

> all larger than Ceres and all most likely round as a beach ball..

> because none of these eight (dwarf) planets have got the H!

>

>    Heck! Ceres doesn't have the H! Clearly beach-ball-like,

> its albedo is the same as the average TNO and its H is +3.36,

> less than all the eight PLANETS listed above... It's just damn

> lucky it was already discovered because it would never make

> it past the IAU today. Why would they not set the "H limit"

> at +3.36, as planetary evidence of a ROUND ice-rock world

> would suggest? Well...

>

>    You can get rid of a helluva lot of planets that way! (It's a

> clever move...) It also reduces the number of dwarf planets

> to four (of which only three are officially recognized), so

> eventually all this planet furor will die down. They will have

> gotten rid of Pluto and nobody is going to remember all that

> stuff about laughing-stock "dwarf" planets.

>

>    The committee is essentially gambling that all brightest

> objects have been discovered and is getting ready to fold

> their cards and let dwarf planets become a footnote, having

> dumped Pluto, which was what they wanted to do all along.

>

>    And I've decided to go along with their definition...

>

>    Is this the time and place to point out that under the 2006 IAU

> definition of "planet," there are ONLY TWO planets in the Solar

> System? They are Mercury and Venus, of course.

>

>    The 2006 IAU definition has three requirements for Planethood,

> one of which is that planets have cleared their own orbit and the

> neighborhood around their orbit of all other objects, at least

> those big enough to notice.

>

>    Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have all

> permitted the continuing residence of a variety of rock balls,

> ice balls, and other celestial trash very close to, actually

> entwining with, their orbits, objects constantly flirting around

> their respective barycenters like ants at a picnic, utterly failing

> the strict requirements of Uruguayan Absolutism. These bodies

> have NOT "cleared" their orbits. Those six bodies -- Earth,

> Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune -- are all, by the

> 2006 IAU definition, "dwarf planets."

>

>    I know you're all familiar with the Dwarf Planet Jupiter and

> the Dwarf Planet Saturn with those cute little dwarf planet rings,

> and so forth.

>

>    If you're going to have a written definition of "planet" with

> precise physical characteristics enumerated, rather than continue

> with the historical usages, then I, for one, will adhere to it AS

> WRITTEN.

>

>    There is a sense in which the use of  the "-oid" suffix IS

> appropriate. That is in the sense that the resemblance referred

> to is inaccurate or inappropriate. Apes at a distance resemble

> men ("anthropos"), hence anthropoid. A small solar system

> body seen at a distance with the naked eye or small telescope

> resembles a star ("aster"), hence asteroid (coined by Sir

> William Herschel in 1801 when he looked at Ceres and saw

> a point of light like a star). In other words, the "-oid" term

> refers to resemblances based on ignorance.

>

>    The IAU would seem to be the authority there.

>

>    Now, I'm going to sit down and drink a toast to each and

> every one of the Solar System's 23 Planets.

>

>

>

> Sterling K. Webb

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> PS: Oddly, Mike Brown seems to think "Santa" (2003 EL61)

> will be counted as a "Plutoid" even it clearly is not bright enough

> (at H = +0.17); the IAU specifically says the H = +1.0 limit

> applies. I don't why he thinks that. He discusses the magnitude

> limit, says he finds it strange. I don't think he's figured it out yet.

> http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/06/plutoid-fever.html

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: <lebofsky at lpl.arizona.edu>

> To: <cynapse at charter.net>

> Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>

> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:10 PM

> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] And the winner is-- Plutoid!

>

>

> Hi All:

>

> I will probably be going to the August meeting in Maryland, so it will be

> interesting to see how this new terminology goes over.

>

> So everything round and icy (maybe) is a Plutoid, which means Pluto-like.

> Since we don't know what Pluto is (at least what to define it as), this

> really makes a whole lot of sense. NOT!

>

> I predict it will go over like a lead balloon.

>

> Larry L.

>

> The previous statements are the opinion of the author and may not reflect

> the opinions of other scientists.

>

>

>

> On Wed, June 11, 2008 12:58 pm, Darren Garrison wrote:

>> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080611-plutoid-planets.html

>>

>>

>> Pluto Now Called a Plutoid

>> By Robert Roy Britt

>> Senior Science Writer

>> posted: 11 June 2008

>> 10:30 am ET

>>

>>

>> Updated 2:00 p.m. ET

>>

>>

>> Pluto's years-long identity crisis just got more complex today.

>>

>>

>> The International Astronomical Union has decided on the term "plutoid" as

>> a name for Pluto and other objects that just two years ago were redefined

>> as "dwarf planets."

>>

>> The surprise decision is unlikely to stem ongoing controversy and

>> confusion, astronomers say.

>>

>> Sidestepping concerns of many astronomers worldwide, the IAU's decision,

>> at a meeting of its Executive Committee in Oslo, comes almost two years

>> after it stripped Pluto of its planethood and introduced the term "dwarf

>> planets" for Pluto and other small round objects that often travel highly

>> elliptical paths around the sun in the far reaches of the solar system.

>>

>> "Most of the people in astronomy and planetary science community had no

>> idea this was going to come out," said Hal Weaver of the Johns Hopkins

>> University

>> Applied Physics Laboratory. Weaver called the new definition "sort of

>> outdated, outmoded, archaic."

>>

>> A meeting in August at the Applied Physics Laboratory is slated to debate

>> the entire topic of defining planets. Meanwhile, other astronomers said

>> the new definition needed more definition or that it might simply not be

>> used.

>>

>> "This seems like an unattractive term and an unnecessary one to me," said

>> David

>> Morrison, an astronomer at NASA's Ames Research Center who, in 2006, said

>> the IAU's actions on Pluto have created major rifts among astronomers.

>>

>>

>> The new definition

>>

>>

>> The name plutoid was proposed by the members of the IAU Committee on

>> Small Body

>> Nomenclature (CSBN), accepted by the Board of Division III and by the IAU

>> Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN), and approved by

>> the IAU Executive Committee at its recent meeting in Oslo, according to a

>> statement released today.

>>

>> Here's the official new definition:

>>

>>

>> "Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the sun at a distance

>> greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their

>> self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a

>> hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared

>> the neighborhood around their orbit."

>>

>> In short: small round things beyond Neptune that orbit the sun and have

>> lots of rocky neighbors.

>>

>> The two known and named plutoids are Pluto and Eris, the IAU stated. The

>> organization expects more plutoids will be found.

>>

>> "Rather than resistance to 'plutoid,' I think we'll just be hearing

>> groans," said Stephen J. Kortenkamp, senior scientist at the Planetary

>> Science Institute

>> in Tucson.

>>

>> Controversy continues

>>

>>

>> One IAU leader recognizes it is adding to an ongoing controversy.

>>

>>

>> The IAU has been responsible for naming planetary bodies and their

>> satellites since the early 1900s. Its decision in 2006 to demote Pluto 

>> was

>> highly controversial, with some astronomers saying simply that they would

>> not heed it and questioning the IAU's validity as a governing body.

>>

>> "The IAU is a democratic organization, thus open to comments and

>> criticism of any kind," IAU General Secretary Karel A. van der Hucht told

>> SPACE.com by email

>> today. "Given the history of the issue, we will probably never reach a

>> complete consensus."

>>

>> Van der Hucht said the new designation is not a further demotion for the

>> once-favorite planet of grade-school children: "Pluto is now the 

>> prototype

>> of a very interesting category of outer solar system bodies."

>>

>> IAU Division III President Edward L.G. Bowell of the Lowell Observatory

>> said the ruling stems from unfinished business from the forging of a

>> planet definition in 2006. Bowell said there is no agreed-upon way to

>> define "dwarf planet" yet, so "officers of the IAU thought it would be a

>> good idea to adopt alternative criteria that would at least allow those

>> large bodies to be named as though they were dwarf planets."

>>

>> It remains to be seen whether astronomers will use the new term.

>>

>>

>> "My guess is that no one is going to much use this term, though perhaps

>> I'm

>> wrong," said Caltech astronomer Mike Brown, who has led the discovery of

>> several objects in the outer solar system, including Eris. "But I don't

>> think that this will be because it is controversial, just not 

>> particularly

>> necessary."

>>

>> Brown was unaware of the new definition until the IAU announced it today.

>>

>>

>> "Back when the term 'pluton' was nixed they said they would come up with

>> another one," Brown said. "So I guess they finally did."

>>

>> Reactions were not all negative, however.

>>

>>

>> "It seems like a reasonable decision to me, and given the excitement

>> generated by New Horizons [a NASA probe headed for Pluto], it's in

>> everyone's interest to favor the largest Kuiper belt objects with their

>> own categorical designation," said Gregory Laughlin, a University of

>> California, Santa Cruz extrasolar planet

>> researcher.

>>

>> "The only fly in the ointment that I can envision is if a plutoid larger,

>> than, say, Mars is detected," Laughlin points out. "In that case, I think

>> we'd see a big flare-up of the what-is-a-planet debate."

>>

>> More debate coming

>>

>>

>> The dwarf planet Ceres (which used to be called an asteroid, and before

>> that was called a planet!) is not a plutoid as it is located in the

>> asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, according to the IAU. Current

>> scientific knowledge lends credence to the belief that Ceres is the only

>> object of its kind, the IAU stated. Therefore, a separate category of

>> Ceres-like dwarf planets will not be

>> proposed at this time, the reasoning goes.

>>

>> Weaver, the Johns Hopkins researcher, has helped organized a meeting,

>> planned earlier this year for Aug. 14-16 at Johns Hopkins University

>> Applied Physics

>> Laboratory, that aims to bring astronomers of varying viewpoints together

>> to discuss the controversy.

>>

>> "We're not trying to slam the IAU, it's just that we also don't want to

>> lead people to the idea that there's a handful of people who decide where

>> science should go," Weaver said today. The meeting is designed to 

>> "address

>> this question in terms of a scientific conference." He said no votes will

>> be taken at the meeting. Rather, it's a time to "sit back and take stock

>> of everything we've learned in the past couple of decades."

>>

>> The term plutoid joins a host of other odd words -- plutinos, centaurs,

>> cubewanos and EKOs -- that astronomers have conjured in recent years to

>> define objects in the outer solar system, whose appearance seems to grow

>> more complex every year.

>>

>> Kortenkamp wonders if "plutoid" isn't just one more confusing term in the

>> cosmic lexicon.

>>

>> "So Pluto is a Kuiper belt object, a plutino (the unofficial but nearly

>> universally accepted name for objects in the 2:3 resonance with Neptune),

>> a dwarf planet, and now also a plutoid?" he said. "If the IAU is trying 

>> to

>> make things more clear, I think it needs to try again. This is just

>> another layer of confusion that will feed the "pluto is a planet" camp at

>> the [Johns Hopkings] meeting."

>>

>> Kortenkamp also thinks the new defiinition leaves Ceres up in the air:

>> "And this

>> "-oid" classification doesn't apply to Ceres?" he asks. "Okay, so does

>> that means we continue calling Ceres an ASTERoid?"

>>

>> Asked if Ceres remains a dwarf planet and is not an asteroid, Bowell, the

>> IAU

>> official, said: "I think so!"

>> ______________________________________________

>> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

>> Meteorite-list mailing list

>> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

>>

>>

>

>

> ______________________________________________

> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

> Meteorite-list mailing list

> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

>

> ______________________________________________

> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

> Meteorite-list mailing list

> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list