14 Responses to “The Naeye kid in town”

1. 1.   Austin Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 8:58 am

   While you’re at it, ask them why they don’t have an RSS feed for the blog.

   Thanks!

2. 2.   Stuart Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 11:30 am

   You’ll have to talk to Dave Tytell about SkyTonight issues. But, hey, I have a blog too! And am likewise awaiting better blogging capability.

3. 3.   Ned J. Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 11:33 am

   Read your blog regularly. Thought maybe you would like this book called “America Deceived”. It was thrown off Amazon. It’s an indy book that’s a little out there but worth the time ( and a good distraction from bad astronomy).
   Link (also on Google Books):
   http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

4. 4.   Irishman Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 11:33 am

   Bob said:

   For example, what exactly is meant by “nearly round?” The committee defines it as an object in “hydrostatic equilibrium” (i.e. its mass is sufficient for gravitational compression to overcome its material strength and force it into a nearly round shape). But where does one draw the line between an object that is in hydrostatic equilibrium and one that is just slightly out of hydrostatic equilibrium? If they haven’t done so already, astronomers will find borderline cases, so the decision whether or not to include certain objects as planets will be arbitrary.

   Will they? Seems like the line drawn is hydrostatic equilibrium. Perhaps the question “how do we really tell if an object is in hydrostatic equilibrium or not?” Seems like there is a solid definition of a line, just the means to measure to that definition aren’t available.

   The simplest way to define “planet” is to use Pluto as the minimum size of a planet, and state that any body found orbiting a star (or brown dwarf!) the size of Pluto or larger is a planet…. I freely admit that my definition is arbitrary, but I challenge anyone to come up with a less-arbitrary scheme.

   But I think they have found a less arbitrary scheme! Either one proposed by the IAU now uses physical characteristics to make the determination, rather than an arbitrary size limit chosen around a previously made choice (i.e. Pluto).

   What seems to be bothering people is that “planet” is such a simple word, somehow the Solar System fails to provide a simple classification system to go with it. Well, that’s reality. Reality is what it is. Science is in describing reality as it is, not making up a description and then telling reality to conform or be ignored. So what if there are now likely a multitude, perhaps uncountable and never certain anymore, number of Planets? Why do we need a nice countable number? Does that make you feel better, to “know” there are 8 or 10 or 12 planets and that’s it, the rest are something else, but clearly not “planets”?

   We can talk about “Major Planets” and make kids memorize the Big 8. Or 9, and throw in Pluto for historical purposes. We can then later talk about the lesser known planets and the ongoing cataloging of the Solar System bodies, and breakdown the classifications to Terrestrial, Gas Giant, Icy; mooned and non-mooned; etc.

5. 5.   Rob Knop Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 4:04 pm

   If Dave Tytell doesn’t shape up, tell him that his Physics 1 TA is growling.

   -Rob

6. 6.   Bob Allee Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 9:24 pm

   C’mon, Astronomy magizine isn’t that bad: though I do prefer S&T.

7. 7.   Max Fagin Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 9:39 pm

   BA, I know this is out of the blue, but could I ask a favor in the name of science?

   My dad, who does some skeptic writing on the side, was forwarded this URL by a friend:

   http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1854305,00.html

   Now obviously, this guy is either deluding himself, or out to make illegitimate money.

   The problem is that we can’t find a reputable source from JREF, CSICOP or CFI who takes this guy on. It’s hard trying to convince people that this guy is just another crank without good sources.

   Is there any chance that you know someone who’s done a thorough debunking? If so, we would love to hear about it.

   Thanks.

8. 8.   csrster Says:
   August 24th, 2006 at 12:06 am

   Ask an astronomer (courtesy of wikiquote):

   “The law that entropy always increases – the Second Law of Thermodynamics – holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of physics. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things from time to time. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” — Sir Arthur Eddington

9. 9.   csrster Says:
   August 24th, 2006 at 12:08 am

   It occurs to me …

   Jupiter, to take a random example, is certainly not in hydrostatic equilibrium – an
   observation which can be made with a small backyard telescope.

10. 10.   Gary Ansorge Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 10:31 am

    MAX:
    As far as the “free” energy scenario goes, one must always remember TANSTAFFL,,,
    IE,
    There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
    or, more simply,
    “Ya Can’t get more peanut butter out of the jar than you put in it in the first place.”

    I think most people realize this is true on a gut level. It’s one of the few times gut feeling is right.

    Gary 7

11. 11.   Wisdom Man Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    This is the biggest error in modern history. No one can change the system that has been in existence for 1000′s of years and created with “Devine Design”. Whomever these people are they cannot change the way it is. There is a reason why the system is the way that it is. They may want to change it but it cannot be done as long as Pluto exists. These individuals have no concept of “Devine Design” and the meanings behind our very existence. It is not possible to remove something that will undo the “Devine Design” of all things in existence. If this is going to be taught to our children we will be making the biggest mistake in education history. Only the creator has the ultimate power to change our known natural existence not man and his conclusions

12. 12.   Max Fagin Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 9:13 pm

    Right Gary, I know that. But arguments are more persuasive when there are sources behind them. I know that this man is wrong, but that in and of itself isn’t going to convince anyone.

13. 13.   Max Fagin Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 9:16 pm

    anyway, my question is mute now. The JREF decided to take him on.

14. 14.   Mungascr Says:
    September 5th, 2006 at 6:38 am

    Uh, BA what’s wrong with ‘Astronomy’ magazine?

Leave a Reply