– what is meant by “cleared” & how far from the planet must the orbit be cleared?

“it has become gravitationally dominant, and there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence“. IIRC I’ve seen a paper clearly outlining why the planets stands out from the rest on this account, so it is very well defined.

My initial problem with the planet definition is that exoplanets and plutoids was left hanging (pun intended), but it seems they have cleared that up now. I liked the initial definition better as it was simpler and more general; but it is only a classification system after all.

It could be worse – think of the taxonomists who must change groups reclassify the phylogeny, yet must stick to stable species names, just because they want to see priority and follow a more rigid paper trail. “The first published description of a species fixes the species epithet; if the species is later moved to another genus, it retains the first-published epithet unless that would create a homonym.” Yet, “In the interests of stability of nomenclature, the rule of priority can be reversed if a junior name has been used very widely and for a long period of time.” [Wikipedia.]

So Apat-osaurus instead of Bronto-saurus: “In 1877, Othniel Charles Marsh published the name of the type species Apatosaurus ajax. He followed this in 1879 with a description of another, more complete specimen, which he thought represented a new genus and named Brontosaurus excelsus. In 1903, Elmer Riggs pointed out it that Brontosaurus excelsus was in fact so similar to Apatosaurus ajax that it belonged in the same genus, and which Riggs re-classified as Apatosaurus excelsus. According to the rules of the ICZN (which governs the scientific names of animals), the name Apatosaurus, having been published first, had priority as the official name; Brontosaurus was a junior synonym and therefore discarded from formal use. [Wikipedia.]” Makes you go “apat hic”, doesn’t it?]

Meanwhile molecular biologists do the reasonable thing and use data bases to keep track of biochemicals, whatever their current classification. So the same gene can have a funny and memorable name if sequenced in a fly, while a boring alphanumerical code if sequenced in a human or a yeast.

By your definition (and apparently BA’s), the other 4 members of the Court hate habeas corpus, too, along with a lot of other Americans. In fact, there is a significant body of legal opinion that suggests that habeas corpus MAY not extend to the kinds of detainees in question (not just Gonzalez’).

Disagreeing with a ruling is a far cry from “hating” habeas corpus, or wanting to do away with it on a whim.

Nuance? How ’bout Obama’s 57 states? Or does he get a “pass” on that one?

So by disagreeing with SCOTUS ruling, McCain hates habeas corpus, and that’s the only way to interpret that.

Are all of your opinions so carefully nuanced, or just the ones about McCain?

There are no elitist career engineers. Nada. Zilch. That’s because you can’t be an effective engineer and not listen to people who’ve been there and done that. Engineers who don’t soon find themselves unemployed when their assumptions run around on the hard rocks of reality, or shuffled out of engineering to where they can’t do as much damage.

I seem to recall the Gitmo prisoners have appeared before military tribunals as would POWs. And I don’t have to remind everyone that McCain has literally been on the other side of this. I also wouldn’t be surprised if he is also influenced by noting how the Gitmo prisoners are treated verses the way the North Vietnamese treated him.

brief primer of the US legislative branch>
The equivalent of M-of-Parliament is “congressman” of which there are basically two types*: Senator or Representative. Senators serve 6 years and there are only 2 from each state. They are therefore the “elite” . In the House of Representatives, there are as few as 1 from each state (Wyoming) or 53 (California). The reason for the odd numbers/overlap is what we call “The Balance of Power”: Representatives only serve a two year term (and recently have had to campaign non-stop in order to maintain a seat) and to make up for the Senate being the higher house, the Speaker of the House of Representatives gets a higher ranking than the Senate Pro Tempore, who is actually 2nd in command of the Senate after the Vice-President (who isn’t particularly hands-on). The Executive line-of-succession of power is : President; Vice president; Speaker-of-the-House; Senate Pro Tempore; Secretary of State; Secretary of Treasury, etc. All 15 Secretary Offices are Cabinet Positions (i.e. not voted in by the public but selected by the President). Easy, right?

*US territories get seats and get to carry public concerns to Washington DC but can’t vote in congress. There are also 50 separate congressional systems at the state level, so a “State Senator/Representative” is different than a Federal one, meaning there are an absolute load of politicians over here.

I’ve only been called elitist (to my face innyhoo) because of my programming skills. I refer to myself as a snob all the time, though. I even answer to the word.

Seriously though, “elitist” has come to mean “I fear you because I sense a greater intelligence”. It’s the canard: I want to elect someone I can have a beer with, not someone who can best fill the position” (like that’s ever gonna happen).

*there was a convoluted hypothesis that accompanied; had something to do with ice cubes made from bottled water.

The hoi-polloi, riff-raff and your common peasant will write to their local MP*,senator or congressman those in the scientific elite write to the IAU instead! Ah those little differences!

MP = Member of Parliament – Its what we have in Australia where there’s no Congress but instead we have parliament house and no President but a Prime Minister and a Governor-General – & the Queen of England! (Sigh. Yep, we haven’t kicked her out yet.)

Ah those little differences!

For instance, I’ve just sent the following open letter to the IAU people listed on the Plutoid announcement link :

***

Dear Dr. Catherine J. Cesarsky, IAU President (& so forth)

Rather than adopt the new “Plutoid” term, I strongly urge the IAU to reconsider and reverse its decision to revoke Pluto’s planetary status and to adopt the initial proposal for planet proposed at the last Prague IAU meeting or alternatively adopt this suggested variant of that definition :

“A planet is a natural, gravitationally-forced spheroidal, non-fusing object (ie. not just round by happenstance & allowing for rotational oblateness) directly orbiting a star or fusing object.”

I think it would be a good idea to then classify solar system further by breaking them into the sub-classes of :

I) Terrestrial or rocky (Mercury, Venus, Earth, & Mars)
II) Asteroidal (Ceres & also possibly the largest couple of other asteroids eg. Juno, Pallas, Vesta.)
III) Gas Giants or Jovian (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune)
IV) Ice Dwarfs (Pluto, Eris, & maybe also Sedna & others.)

Here are ten good reasons why I consider Pluto worthy of full planetary status and the IAU’s current definition problematic :

1) Pluto has all the characteristics of a planet except for the “orbital clearing” criteria – however this criteria is flawed because it is itself too hard to define – what is meant by “cleared” & how far from the planet must the orbit be cleared? Strictly speaking this eliminates any object in our solar system as all planets have objects – comets and asteroids crossing their orbits, Jupiter has 100,000 Trojan asteroids, Neptune has Pluto crossing its orbit, Earth has 10,000 near-earth asteroids such as Eros and comets even venture inside Mercury’s orbit. By this logic, no planet can be considered a true planet unless it wanders its star essentially alone and all our solar systems twenty plus worlds – including the IAU’s eight ‘Classicals’ – are disqualified!

2) A further reductio ad absurdum approach then reveals that this criterion fails again because it leads to absurd results ruling out objects we’d clearly consider planets based only on their location. If a Jupiter or Earth-type planet was located in the Oort cloud surely we’d still call it a planet! So why then draw the line at smaller objects otherwise fitting the planetary description?

3) Furthermore, in relation to forming planetary systems (including historically our own,) we know planetary orbits cross and interact, even colliding to form moons and larger planets. Our own Moon formed from such a collision with our Earth and a Mars-sized body. By that poorly considered and ill defined third criterion, these youngest growing planets – even ones Jupiter sized and above – are NOT technically planets because their orbits are not yet cleared – again failing the reductio ad absurdum test. This also reveals that by that criterion’s definition, ‘planets’ cannot collide because their neighbourhood then isn’t clear – nor can they exist as binaries or “double planets” by the same logic. This is contrary to common-sense and consistency. It potentially creates trouble with exoplanets given the possibility that some extrasolar planets may exist in this form – even perhaps twin Neptunes or Jupiter’s. Given that some would describe the Earth-Moon system like the Pluto-Charon system as such a ‘double planet’ then a strict definition of the IAU rule (assuming one can be ‘strict’ with so-vaguely defined a law) could disqualify Earth from planetary status – clearly an absurd proposition!

4) The current anti-Pluto definition is not applied to and is inconsistent with regard to exoplanets – among the flaws of the IAU ‘planet’ definition was its application only to solar system planets. Surely planets orbiting other suns are no less planets for not orbiting our star! Even more tellingly, at least one of the Pulsar planets, PSR B 1257+12 e is tiny – smaller than our Moon and even smaller than Pluto at just 1/5th Pluto’s mass (and another of the Pulsar planets has a mass about the Moon’s) raising a blatant inconsistency. As that is counted as an exoplanet then Pluto, equally, for the sake of consistency should also count among our star’s planets.

5) The dwarf planet-dwarf star analogy; just as dwarf stars are still stars so surely are dwarf planets still planets. Extrapolating the “dwarf planets don’t count” line to stellar astronomy would imply our Sun is not a proper star nor are 99 % of all stars – those 90% on the main-sequence and the 10 % of “stellar corpses” such as white dwarfs and neutron stars. Clearly an absurdity! Moreover, just like with stars, the smaller the class the more its numbers! Therefore calling a planet a “dwarf” should NOT rule it out of being considered a proper planet!

6) Then there are the problems with the whole “classical planets” term. It is hard to see how they apply to exoplanets or how the term can work usefully as a scientific description. Apart from these “classical planets” differing immensely among themselves – Earth and Pluto are arguably far more similar than Earth and Jupiter – the term also clashes with a previous understanding and use of the term namely the more apt concept of “classical planets” being the ones visible to the “classical” age peoples – the five original bright wanderers – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, & Saturn. Thus if we retain the ‘classical’ term, it seems best used as in that original sense applying to the bright planets easily visible from Earth with unaided eyesight and consequently first recognised as planets. Planets discovered later could contrastingly be termed ‘modern’ or ‘Post-Telescopic-era’ planets. This keeps ‘classical’ as a historical term rather than a scientific one and renders it useful in a descriptive, sky-viewing sense.

7) Pluto is the dominant body in its immediate gravitational region among a complex, intriguing system of four bodies; (Pluto, Charon, Hydra & Nix) two moonlets and two worlds with a surrounding atmosphere, seasonal weather of a kind and perhaps rings. It is a complex, slowly changing place, well worthy of attention and planetary status. It is a lot more than just a rocky asteroid or cometary nucleus!

Clearly it is important to have a reasonable definition of the term ‘planet’ and thus there’s a need to set maximum and minimum boundaries to rule out objects that are clearly not planets however we can do this by using two criteria – ability to shine by nuclear fusion for the maximum and gravity-driven roundness combined with direct solar or stellar orbiting for the minimum boundary. This can be done without leading to ludicrous results or setting an arbitrary division with no logical basis. Such a more reasonable definition keeps Pluto and adds the largest ice dwarfs and Ceres and was the original, superior definition considered by the Prague IAU meeting.

9) There are also a whole range of cultural, historical and political arguments favouring Pluto’s long scientifically and culturally established place as a recognised planet from its discovery in 1930. Among these are the slight to Clyde Tombaugh’s memory, widow and family plus the perceived political aspect of stripping from planetary status the first planet discovered by an American.

10) Finally, we have, in addition to the logical and scientific flaws outlined already, the rather undemocratic manner in which the IAU ruling was made. Bad enough that of the 10,000 IAU members only 2,500 attended that Prague meeting, it was worse still that of those 2,500 only 424 actually got to vote therefore making a very unrepresentative decision. Worst of all is that in that single room, last minute, key meeting some highly relevant and articulate people were excluded from voting and arguing their case; notably Pluto expert, Alan S. Stern, head of the New Horizons mission. His concise summary of the IAU decision making process and its verdict : “… idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision.” (on P.28, ‘Astronomy Now’, October, 2006.)

I personally am inclined to agree with Alan Stern and feel the decision-making process reflected badly on the IAU and the astronomical community world-wide and is therefore in need of rectifying.

Hence I am hoping and urging you to please raise the issue of the planetary definition and Pluto’s status again as soon as is possible and restore Pluto (and add Ceres and Eris) to their proper planetary status.

Best regards :

Steven C. Raine
*********SNIP my eml & postal addresses
***** Adelaide
South Australia Ph***** Snip

****

I encourage others here in this elite company who feel likewise to follow my example and if they wish to send this as their letter too – or customise it to suit themselves – they’re very welcome too!

it is pretty astounding how well it has worked over the years. it’s gotten to the point where nobody can be a “liberal” with money without being called an elitist and a hypocrite, *especially* when they use their wealth and privilege to speak out against bad government or bad policy. It’s high time we start putting a stop to it.

Hear! Hear! Well said & absolutely spot on!

There’s snobs and toffs and Upper crust
Aristocrats and kings
Grand Poobahs and their viziers
Pompous over-stuffed things!

There’s plebs and bogans (Aussie)
Rednecks NASCAR moms and dads
There’s hoi-polloi & riff-raff
And common vulgar thing’s

But I’m an intellectual
Academic that may be
Call me an elitist but
I’ll still hear other things!

Yet all of us are human
We breathe and breed and bleed
All species homo sapiens
We all have common need

So chuck out all the labels
We’re people each and all
Individual as anything
But yet from one big herd!

-end

(As far as I know original to me now …)

_____________________________________

Language is a funny thing and the way its used and abused by ‘Americans’ (& that term itself is a bit dubious given Amercia starts in Alaska and ends in Tierra Del Fuego!) especially so.

Elite is one word that seems to be in the class of “politically” misused for political ends.

“Yeah, I’m a bit surprised that his posts were removed. I certainly didn’t feel offended by anything he said. It’s those who start using pejorative names for the supporters of one candidate/party or another who should be excised.”

Would you be referring to me for calling the “republicans ” what are are -Retardicans?

(Because they want to retard our civilisation, slowing or stopping scientific and cultural advances and returning us to a new dark age.)

If so, tough. Get used to it. I’m going to call them what they are ..well what they are that’s printable here anyhow!

I’m definitely on the side of people who can rather than those who claim they can.

If we are to survive the next century, then its high time that more people became “elite”, got off their arses, and studied science and engineering. Whether anyone likes it or not, we live in this universe, and this universe is both weird and fascinating. It is your duty as an intelligent homosapien to know what the hell is going on in it, and how it goes on. Ignorance of science among the general public is on an almost epidemic proportion. Truly, the world has enough politicians, new age w!nkers, conspiracy theorists, religious zealots, lawyers and bankers. We don’t need any more. We need thinkers, and more importantly we need them running this planet!

What about meteorites?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080613/sc_afp/spacesciencebiochemistrybiology_080613180404

Hmmm . . . the last time I looked, the Democrats seem to be holding their own in the riches department. Now that I think of it, they have for a long time. When you get a chance, Google a picture of FDR’s New York residence (for kicks, then Google a picture of FDR’s Warm Springs cottage – it then becomes evident why he went through the roof when his cottage’s electric bill was higher than his New York home).

Besides, I think you’re mistaking snobbery for elitism. The two may at first blush seem identical, but they’re not. Snobbery is strong on “I’m better than you because of thus and so,” but a snob can acknowledge there’s people smarter than they and will listen. The elitists don’t.

More to the point, the GOP you associate with snobbery is the segment known as “Country Club” Republicans, who have looked askance at the influx of DNC refugees. Country Club Republicans are centered on the Northeast and deep-down consider themselves as the “real” party. OTOH, Country Club Republicans hold Ronald Reagan in high regard, even though Ronald Reagan was not a Country Club Republican. That’s a clear indication that they are snobs, not elitists. An elitist will never, ever, ever accept anyone out of their “priesthood,” nor accept that they possibly have any input of value.