I don’t follow your logic that an indiviual getting out of bed poses the same risks as what they are doing? I mean, do you make microscopic black holes when you get up in the morning?

I’m simply saying that they have a comparably astronomically small probability that they’re both virtually impossible. Given the extraordinarily larger number of times that much higher energy cosmic rays have collided into things, with energies the LHC can’t even dream of, compared to how many times people have gotten out of bed, it should have done something by now if there were any danger at all.

I’m also ridiculing the notion of trying to stop things based on “might be”s that have been thoroughly ruled out. What’s going to stop a chain of events when you get out of bed, where you drive a car, crash it into a car, killing the only scientist who could have figured out quickly enough a way to stop a spontaneous “true” vacuum that arises tomorrow from swallowing our universe? (Or some other unlikely chain of events.)

And why we don’t take advantage of cosmic rays? We do! They just don’t happen where we want them to happen often enough, namely detectors like ATLAS, so we can’t get enough reliable data with just cosmic rays.

Their standard line seems to be that cosmic ray particles with higher energy strike the Earth’s atmosphere all the time.

Which if true, makes me wonder why they need the LHC at all – if nature is providing these colliding particles why not just observe them as they happen?

Of course if its false, then they haven’t got that excuse and if nature doesn’t smash “god particles” to pieces then why do we think its such a great idea?

The other thing is that the particles hitting our atmosphere come, I understand from super-energetic and rare events millions of lightyears away – Gamma Ray Bursters and supernova and Active Galactic Nuclei like blazars and quasars.

Now these are all fascinating and amazing places – when studied from a very, very long distance away – but you wouldn’t want to be standing next to any of them – or even within a few light-years of any of them.

Hmmm … Almost had a swear word in there entirely by accident!
But then it didn’t post so trying again & hoping it works this time & doesn’t come through twice. If so, my apologies.

Their standard line seems to be that cosmic ray particles with higher energy strike the Earth’s atmosphere all the time.

Which if true, makes me wonder why they need the LHC at all – if nature is providing these colliding particles why not just observe them as they happen?

Of course if its false, then they haven’t got that excuse and if nature doesn’t smash “god particles” to pieces then why do we think its such a great idea?

The other thing is that the partciles hitting our atmosphere come, I understand from super-energetic and rare events millions of lightyears away – Gamma Ray Bursters and supernova and Active Galactic Nuclei like blazars and quasars.

Now these are all fascinating and amazing places – when studied from a very, very long distance away – but you wouldn’t want to be standing next to any of them – or even within a few light-years of any of them.

Hmmm …

****
StevoR said on Aug. 15th @ 11.37 am – comment 86.

Spaceman Spiff said on August 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am :

“Read Steven Soter’s paper, which appeared in the Astronomical Journal: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608359. See especially Figures 1 and 2 and the discussions thereof. In particular the “mu” parameter, which compares a planet’s mass to that of all objects within its dynamical zone does not have the problem of “location”.”

SCR (me) : Umm . Can we get a translation to plain English please?

SS (Spaceman Spiff – & should be quotes in italics too):

“And the fact that comets and asteroids cross “planetary” orbits is a red-herring argument.

What!! The criteria is supposed to be “orbital clearing” & yet somehow you’re saying it doesn’t matter that orbits aren’t clear? That comets, asteroids even potentially other stars and planets can come past and make an orbit NOT clear? That orbits didn’t use to be clear in the past and might NOT be again at some stage in future history.

In fact our solar system will encounter a star called Gliese 710 sometime in the distant future which may affect planetary orbits as will the death of the Sun as a red giant when it loses mass. Suppose in the latter case Jupiter’s orbit suddenly crosses Saturn’s – does that stop either of them being planets? According to the IAU baloney criteria it would – & how silly is that!

No the fact that orbits are crossed – by anything other than radiation and solar wind means that they’re NOT clear to anyone speaking the language of reasonable.

Otherwise then what exactly is meant by “clear” and for how far around the orbit it needs to be ‘cleared’ needs to be well ..cleared up! Which it really just can’t be. Its a fatal flaw in a stupid and unnecessary third criterion. This “orbital clearance” nonsense just doesn’t make sense. Period.

SS : “Those who drafted the language were aware of both Soter’s work and of a paper Alan Stern wrote with Harold Levison in 2002 in advising NASA on how to define “planets” in which was said: “we define an überplanet as a planetary body in orbit around a star that is dynamically important enough to have cleared its neighbouring planetesimals …And we define an unterplanet as one that has not been able to do so,…”

and a little further :

“our Solar System clearly contains 8 überplanets and a far larger number of unterplanets, the
largest of which are Pluto and Ceres.”

SR : Uberplanets and unterplanets?

Mein Gott! Vot ist happenink here are ve liffink in Germany!?

What’s this Soter dude saying here – that Pluto is some kind of gipsy sub-planet & Neptune is from the superior planetary master race or some such tripe?! Come on! This seems to be just a pluto-haters rant, nothing much else is clear about Soter -whoever he is. Give me Alan Stern’s words instead anyday!

SS : “Soter’s arguments don’t solve all problems. But in my opinion, something physically profound separates the inner 8 larger bodies from those in the asteroid belt or Kuiper belt. In particular, Figure 2 shows clear separation between the “isolation zone” of fully accreted “planets” and the “swarm zones” of the other condensed objects.
(Emphasis added.)

SR : Well in my opinion, your opinion is wrong. In my opinion a planet is a planet regardless of whether it skims the surface of a star like a HotJupiter or orbits in the far reaches of the solar system where there’s a lot more room for other objects like Pluto does. I see NO reason why you can’t have planets inside asteroid belts or cometary “swarms” or whatever if they fit the other criteria – roundness, non-nuclear fusing for energy, etc ..

If you imagine otherwise then I reckon your imagination is lacking. (& Einstein no less rated imagination over a lot else! )

I think the problem arose because orbital dynamicists had a problem with a planet – Pluto – that they disliked because it seemed a misfit. Ironically once they’ve found a few bodies that are similar (& lets remember only 1, Eris, is larger & it is only barely so.) and Pluto is no longer a misfit by the leading member of its planetary sub-class now they want to scrap it! Huh? Well there’s no good reason that reasonable folk (incl. many in the general public) can see. Sorry but if that reflects badly on orbital dynamicists then the fault lies with them and the only way for them to correct it & regain our respect is for them to come to their senses and accept that : Yes Pluto really is a planet.

To paraphrase Dr Seus : A planets a planet no matter where it is & no matter how small!

Incidentally, its not just Pluto, I’d be happy to term Eris, Ceres, Sedna & others planets as well. I see no reason why we should limit the number of planets just so there are less names to remember. I mean for pity’s sake! If there are twenty or even a hundred planets in our solar system then so be it – that’s how many there are. And Pluto is one of them.

Finally, for What Its Worth, my suggested definition for planet would be (& not just mine either as its my suggestion compiled and considered from many other people’s thoughts and contributions) :

“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.”

Simple. Effective. Clear. Isn’t it? Then we can usefully break planets down into further categories of :

1) Gas Giants (Jupiter & Saturn)
2) Ice Giants (Neptune & Ouranos)
3) Terrestrial or Rocky dwarf planets (Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury)
4) Ice dwarf planets (Pluto, Eris nee ‘Xena’ /UB313, Sedna, Ceres*, Quaoar, Varuna etc .. )
& maybe also
5) Rock dwarf or asteroidal planets (Pallas & Vesta)

We can then say our solar system consists of 20 odd planets – 4 gas & ice giants, 4 rocky or terrestrial planets and 10-15 or so ice dwarfs the largest and most remarkable being Pluto, Eris, Ceres etc … (Hence we can discuss only those most remarkable cases in school classrooms if the ‘kids can’t memorise more than 9 names’ argument is really so incredibly salient a point. But, frankly, that’s a pretty dumb.)

* BTW. In case people are wondering; Ceres is also apparently composed mostly of ice thus qualifying as an ice dwarf, unsure of the composition of Pallas but Vesta is rocky so not all asteroidal ‘minor planets’ would fit in the rock dwarf category but then most are too small to be counted planet anyway falling off on the ’roundness’ criterion.

Where would your argument be against this sort of idea Chris A and other Pluto-haters? Isn’t the sort of classification scheme I’ve described above much betetr than the current IAU-diocy?

Putting spaces in links doesn’t work then. But my name should be connected to that thread.