Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online The Bird People (Near Star Planets Book 1) file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Bird People (Near Star Planets Book 1) book.
Happy reading The Bird People (Near Star Planets Book 1) Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF The Bird People (Near Star Planets Book 1) at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Bird People (Near Star Planets Book 1) Pocket Guide.
This is a list of fictional planets organized by the medium in which they primarily appear. . Calafia – Water world in David Brin's Uplift universe, inhabited by humans Thallon – Star Trek: New Frontier books (geologically unstable, finally . (gas ring around a neutron star); We Made It – Planet in Larry Niven's Known.
Table of contents
It is almost the exact same age as our planet, and gets its warmth from an identical star. On the other, it also reflects away a lot of that radiation. Its theoretical equilibrium temperature is just below freezing, so with a little natural greenhouse warming it would be quite an inviting place. If we found it orbiting another star, this world would surely be hailed as the most Earthlike exoplanet known: No doubt you sense there is a catch, and indeed there is.
It is not orbiting another star; it is the planet closest to home right here in our own solar system. Despite its proximity, Venus is a profound enigma. It really should be a hospitable world, but the truth is that it is more like hell on almost-Earth. Understanding why that is—why our planet went right while Venus went terribly wrong—is crucial for finding out whether habitable planets are common or rare throughout the universe. The ways in which Venus diverged from Earth are as dramatic as they are perplexing. Venus has a crushing atmosphere tinged with sulfuric acid clouds and dominated by carbon dioxide.
It has no plate tectonics to renew its geology. It has no moon. Some of these traits may be connected. Its slow rotation, in turn, might be related to its lack of magnetic field…which in turn might be related to its thick, dry atmosphere…which in turn might be related to its lack of dynamic geology. There might be a chain reaction at work.
The perpetual cloud cover presents a huge challenge in studying its surface features. Even worse, landing a probe on its surface is exceedingly difficult. Atmospheric pressure on the ground is more than 90 times that at sea level on Earth, and then there are those searing temperatures, which quickly fry electronics and melt mechanical components.
There is also a sense of gloom hanging over Venus, since the odds of finding anything alive there are just about zero. For these reasons, Venus has attracted a tiny fraction of the attention lavished on Mars. Surface of Venus as seen by the Soviet Venera 14 lander, which touched down in The thick, cloudy atmosphere lends a ruddy cast to the scene. No other probe has been there since. Russian Academy of Sciences, processing by Ted Stryk. That mission concluded in The view from the ground is even more limited.
The most recent Venus lander was Venera 14 , which arrived in It was sent by the Soviet Union. The last time we touched down on Venus, there was a Soviet Union. But Venus actually has a tremendous amount to tell us about life in the universe. If researchers knew more about Venus, they could judge how likely it is that Earth-size planets around other stars would follow the same disastrous course.
Was it always this nasty, or did it start out hospitable before devolving to its present state? Could life have started here billions of years ago, only to get snuffed out by a relentless environmental catastrophe? At long last, we may start to get some new answers. Two of them target Venus. Next year the agency will pick on winner from the group, with the intent of launching it by The other concept, DAVINCI , would send a probe drifting down through the Venusian atmosphere to study its composition, sniff out signs of volcanic eruptions, and study how the thick atmosphere interacts with the super-heated surface.
There are three other intriguing and highly worthy proposals in the latest set of Discovery candidates. In a perfect world we would do them all. Follow me on Twitter for more space and astronomy news: Venus is the true sister world to Earth, not like the small planet Mars. We need to have a floating probe in its atmosphere as well as orbiters, and we need to be trying to land something on its surface that should be an easy one to sell in terms of tech spin-offs — highly temperature and pressure resistant machinery.
Something is generating compounds that should be quickly destroyed. No, we have this all wrong! The venusians have erected a giant screen around their planet, so we only see and detect what they want us to see. Depending upon the current political environment there, the ufos are sent to either probe us or report back on our socioeconomic progress. We need to learn about them asap. Due to our progressively greater intrusions into their 50 million mile airspace, they are finding us a larger and larger liability. The clean up alone has cost way more units than they are comfortable with and they have found us unresponsive to their requests for compensation.
Many of them now have the impression that we are not children to be guided, but willful and perhaps even dangerous teenagers who are refusing to admit to their responsibilities! If we do not learn how to vote intergalactically, I have it on good authority they send us announcements on a regular basis, we may find ourselves removed from the equation permanently! Gala Girl is correct. Their planet-cloaking technology allows them to cloak individuals, many of whom now are active in Earth government, especially at the UN.
How do I know? I am one of them! I have a great idea for a manned lander. Send Obama and Hillary. That should scare the Venusians into compliance with all earthly demands? We find your lack of faith disturbing! Even now we have agents in your primaries, preparing to take the presidency by the fool votes of your own electorate! I leave it to you to guess who…. If you look at Earth, first was carbon di, then oxygen, then the minerals like sulfur, calcium, used for life. I think that the birth of the Moon allowed Earth to have thin moveable lithosphere plates that no other planet has.
It permitted the exudation of this chemical chain. I think Venus has not yet emitted her chemical production. It is sealed in due to the thick lithosphere. On these planets one volcano, like Olympus Mons suffices. Maat Mons on Venus. Remember, Venus is also the result of smashing protoplanets, even if there are no extra survivors of that time period orbiting it now. Assuming Venus was fully formed when Theia hit the proto-Eerth that still only gives Venus a 50 million year headstart on an iron catastrophe and core solidification.
There is no requirement for protoplanet collision. And yes, we very much DO know how planets form and have known this since the first images of protoplanetary disks in the Orion stellar nurseries were imaged. But I can dream. Why do you warmists want to lump the natural evolutional climate of a planet as an environmental disaster? Were untold numbers of rocks killed? Was it too many SUVs?
Too many AlGore Mansions? Who withheld your meds today? First of all, I love when people complain when people point out their poor grammar. Attention to detail generally indicates a sharp mind not necessarily, though. So, it is good to practice it. Secondly, to refer to it as a disaster is a human perspective or a life-sustaining perspective. This is one of the more flagrant attempts to create something out of nothing.
Maybe your comprehension skills are lacking. You actually read something NOT there? I welcome healthy debate here, but the rules of this site are that the conversation must remain civil. They stuck to themselves and turned once great American cities into third world hellholes.
Best to send them packing…. Birds of a feather. Truth sticks in your throat? Prove the statement in error. We had the same experience with indians, no? Have your nap, your brain cell needs the rest…. None of which BTW are racist. But thanks for more hate like a typical REgressive. In your next reply, be sure and mention my obvious Nazi tendencies. This is an article about life and habitability. Climate is the defining measure of habitability, and any change in climate that would preclude life would be a disaster for any life that had begun.
I made no connection—zero—to any events or policies on this planet. The only one who is introducing that obsession is…you. In view of the planets explored by probes and telescopes harsh life bare environments seem to be the norm not catastrophes. You do have a point that too many of us look at situations through the lens of our own inclinations and conceits. I suggest getting a complete engineering solution before popping off and spending tens of trillions on a failed attempt.
I agree with you. Again, who are you to say that the natural evolution of the climate on Venus is a disaster. Do you know for a fact that there no life at all. Even if there is no life of any kind, it is not a disaster. With no magnetic field, that high atmosphere is stripped off by solar wind. Carbon and sulfur oxides from vulcanism, then positive feedback for thermal trapping. Terraforming Venus absent water is futility. Crash a large wet comet or three, wait a few millennia for things to equilibrate, then add autotrophic photosynthesis. Good points, all, but they do not address the deeper questions.
When and how did its climate heat up? What kind of volcanism and other geologic activity are occurring today? How do those geologic processes influence the atmosphere? Are there any limited forms of tectonics? Does slow rotation automatically eliminate the possibility of a substantial magnetic field?
I could keep going, but you get the idea. We have a solid big-picture snapshot of Venus, but are woefully missing the details. Climate divergence is quantitatively explained above. Cytherean tectonics is internal radioactive decay heating absent most surface venting, then catastrophic planetary-scale resurfacing. Global meteor craters have a sharp old age cut off. Atmospheric composition less water and with carbon and sulfur oxides is explained above.
A self-exciting dynamo requires planetary rotation. We are rich with details in year old literature. Venus is fundamentally boring except for 1 volatile element harvesting tellurium, bismuth, lead on mountain tops by chemical transport, plus shipping and handling , 2 periodic turnover of planetary crust all at once to vent accumulated internal heat. Ceramics rocks are plasticized by trace water content, promoting plastic deformation. Venus is extraordinarily dry. Its crust is extraordinarily rigid. Its tectonics are long term boring punctuated by horrifying.
Spend NASA money somewhere productive. That is worth harvesting. Early studies of Venus were hugely influential in developing better climate models and an improved understanding of greenhouse warming. These are not either-or choices. Solar inputs are minor in comparison due to high albedo.
- Momentary Marriage.
- List of fictional planets by medium.
- List of fictional planets by medium - Wikipedia!
- Getting Change Right: How Leaders Transform Organizations from the Inside Out.
- Recommended for you.
I once asked my U. GEC grammar school science class to name the nearest planet to earth, and the farthest planet from the sun. Nobody got the correct answers, Mars, they said was closest. Pluto then a planet they said, was the farthest. This was a trick question, because as any astronomer knew at the time, Pluto in its elongated orbit was inside the orbit of Neptune. Just remember this mnemonic: For all you currently writing angry tweets to Mike Brown, hold on a sec.
Changing Pluto's categorization is an important step that really needed to happen. The more we discover about our Universe, the more we realize just how strange and wonderful it is.
When Pluto was discovered 80 years ago, we never could have expected the variety of objects in the Solar System. Categorizing Pluto as a dwarf planet helps us better describe our celestial home. So, our Solar System now has eight planets, and five dwarf planets. Aptly named after the Greek goddess of conflict, the icy dwarf planet, Eris, has rattled the general model of our solar system.
The object was discovered by astronomer Mike Brown of Caltech in the outer reaches of the Kuiper Earlier this month, Eris -- the distant world first discovered by Caltech's Mike Brown and colleagues back in , paving the way for the eventual demotion of Pluto from planet to dwarf planet -- passed fortuitously in front Planetary science is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the discovery of the Kuiper Belt. Astronomers have used three telescopes at ESO's observatories in Chile to observe the dwarf planet Makemake as it drifted in front of a distant star and blocked its light.
The new observations have allowed them to check for Launched in , it has been in flight longer New research indicates that there may be many more dwarf planets similar to Pluto in our solar system than previously thought. Studying these distant objects can help astrobiologists understand the basic properties of our In their search for life in solar systems near and far, researchers have often accepted the presence of oxygen in a planet's atmosphere as the surest sign that life may be present there.
A new Johns Hopkins study, however, The remarkable exoplanet discoveries made by the Kepler and K2 missions have enabled astronomers to begin to piece together the history of the Earth and to understand how and why it differs from its diverse exoplanetary cousins. Astronomers have captured one of the most detailed views of a young star taken to date, and revealed an unexpected companion in orbit around it.
On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, , tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show — the Geminids meteor shower—will Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Astronomers Measured Mass of Largest Dwarf Planet June 18, Aptly named after the Greek goddess of conflict, the icy dwarf planet, Eris, has rattled the general model of our solar system.
Planets with oxygen don't necessarily have life December 17, In their search for life in solar systems near and far, researchers have often accepted the presence of oxygen in a planet's atmosphere as the surest sign that life may be present there. Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank. The Kuiper Belt was only discovered 20 years ago, and there are supposed to be trillions of bodies in the Oort Cloud. Anyone want to bet that we find LOTS more dwarf planets, and even full size planets out there as our technololgy advances and we find how and where to look for them?
Interstellar space is being found to be filled with real matter of all kinds: Each of those will have its own planets and Oort Clouds. I think the "voids" between clusters will soon be found to be loaded with normal matter of all kinds as well. Eventually, we may find so much real matter we can't detect now that "dark" matter will no longer be needed. This is a very good article, but the top picture is of Ceres, not Makemake.
Hubble doesn't have the capacity to expand the outer dwarf planets into detailed globes. I'm sure if you go back and look you'll find that it is in fact Ceres. Fraser, once again you are being disingenuous in stating one interpretation of the solar system as fact when that is not the case. He was part of a team of three including Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz. Significantly, David Rabinowitz is one of the many professional astronomers who continues to reject the IAU planet definition. Our solar system does NOT have only 8 planets, no matter how many times you repeat that.
Changing Pluto's cateogorization did NOT have to happen. What really has to happen is recognition that we have 3 rather than 2 classes of planets. Dwarf planets are simply small planets that do not gravitationally dominate their orbits. However, compositionally and structurally, they are very much the same as the larger planets with geology and weather.
The question isn't about going back to 9 planets; it's about recognizing the solar system made many more planets than we learned about in school. Using the equally legitimate geophysical planet definition, a planet is defined as any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star or that once orbited a star and was ejected from that orbit. According to this definition, our solar system has a minimum of 14 planets and counting: Let's not forget that only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial definition; most are not planetary scientists.
Their decision was opposed in a formal petition of hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, which can be found here: Yep, that is ceres: MakeMake It is a little better than a dot, but not much. Sure that maybe be a legitimate geophysical definition. Why should the the IAU be subject to the whims, agendas, petty musings of outsiders? It's a private organization. Your club can make it's definitions but your club can't dictate that everyone use your definitions.
Outsiders use them by choice. Not for emotional lay dilettantes. Thanks, but we don't your wisdom touchy-feely new-agey as it may be, it's not scientific. Laurele, please leave the Pluto nonsense to your blog, Thank you. JohnGee, the only "Pluto nonsense" is the one that refuses to that Pluto's planet status is an ongoing debate. The need to make ad hominem attacks is a clear indicator that you have lost the argument.
The IAU cannot claim to be a private organization and then expect the whole world to blindly follow its dictates. Science doesn't work that way. We could use a planetary science organization, not to dictate, but to promote discussion on these issues. The geophysical planet definition has a strong scientific basis and is already used by many astronomers. You can't just banish people with opinions you don't like.
The IAU doesn't force anyone to do anything. People follow them out of convention. Christ knows no one is stopping you from calling Pluto a planet. The lengths some people will go to to feel persecuted amazes me. The IAU definition is short-sighted. At best, it can only be applied to the special case that was created around Pluto. There have already been found worlds much, much bigger than Pluto moving through disks of debris around other stars, failing to sweep orbits clean. If they had wanted to impose some sort of size limit in order to keep the number of major planets lower, that would have been fine.
Then they could have booted Mercury out of the big planet club, too. Unfortunately, they went with the very ad hoc "cleared its orbit" requirement, foisted on the rest of the world by some disgruntled dynamicists. What's funny about this is that the controversy was born out of petty politics amongst attendees of an IAU meeting and justified as a means of keeping the number of planets manageable. Yet interested people will still be learning ALL the planetary bodies. And the rest of humanity will not even be able to keep Uranus and Neptune straight.
In the end, it doesn't really matter. Who cares whether it's a planet or a dwarf planet or whether there should be more or less planets on the list? Does it make a difference to anything outside of people who get hung up on labels? I'll go with Feynman on this: You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts.
I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. A certain Mr Shakespeare beat him by around years That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet. I was looking for an article from last year but can't find it on the bleedin' interwebz. It was about measuring objects in de Kuiperbelt, some of the objects were supposedly out of orbit, which could most easily be explained by a between Neptune sized object some astronomical units away and a smaller earthsized some AU away.
It raised my interest a while and didn't see anything that debunked that idea. Maybe we do have 9 planets? I'll post the link as soon as I found it. If nothing else, this controversy has certainly made a whole bunch of people who otherwise wouldn't be interested in astronomy sit up and pay attention. I hope you astronomers aren't scripting this whole thing ;-. Guess I'm readig more Feynman than Shakespeare ;-. I am no "outsider" and certainly no "emotional lay dilettante.
I can assure that the IAU doesn't expect anyone to "blindly follow its dictates". Anyone, government, educational institutions, the public are free to use the IAU definitions or not use them. There are no legal constraints either way. Nobody is banishing anyone. Ya are the one who is short sighted.
Ya seem to have an emotional attachment to Pluto, and grasp at straws to tell the IAU what they should do, even though what they do could well be ignored by ya. See ya really don't know much about the issue. The controversy long pre-dated keeping the number of planets down, by decades. It began in the 40's, as a result of learning how unlike the other planets Pluto is. And on another note, had Pluto been somewhere else within the Solar System it would have been classified as a planet. For instance, if it had been inside the orbit of Mercury the aforementioned planethood criteria would have been satisfied, right?
The last survivor of the gravitational war within the Mercurial orbit would technically have cleared its orbit. If it's not a "planet" then how about tacking on some kind of prefix or suffix to it The word "dwarf" is that suffix. Dwarf in a noun in this case, not an adjective. This is from a few years ago, but I think it's similar to what you're referencing. Mike Brown lackeys are the touchy-feelie ones.
Lying to boost his credentials is not scientific. He co-discovered Eris with two other men, one of whom feels dwarf planets should be planets. Cain misrepresent the facts? The IAU demotion of Pluto was political. I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc. Do you call that scientific? The current definition of a planet is absurd. Earth shares its orbit with 19, other celestrial objects. The sun itself is a dwarf star, yet still a star.
Dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Thusly, dwarf planets should be a third class of planet, as originally intended when the term was coined. Actually, in this case, many astronomers do not follow the IAU. The most accurate position is to say that the definition of planet and the status of Pluto are matters of open debate. I don't feel "persecuted. Why don't you respond to my arguments instead of just saying "go away? We have more than nine planets, whether or not this Neptune-sized planet is found, which I hope it is.
Planetoid is a synonym for asteroid, which Pluto is not. Planetesimal is a planet in the process of formation, which Pluto is not either. You're totally correct about the IAU definition being biased against planets further from the sun. Dwarf in a noun is this case, not an adjective. No, it is not. The word "dwarf" is an adjective modifying the noun "planet. Ya can make up your own definitions of planets. Classifying things by the similarities is the best way to organize anything, not by emotional attachment.
This is all the IAU did in '06, work on establishing consistent groups of things based on their attributes. Did we get it perfect? By no means, it will always be a work in progress. Things are most easily studied by organizing them in groups according to their attributes. Especially as the numbers of things being studied gets larger. It the same in all fields of science, biology, chemistry, Pluto is still Pluto, it's just not so very like it's 8 major siblings. Laurele and anyone else. Not "dwarf", not "planet". No, I would call that a great big lie. And ya are a great big idiot to think that anyone would believe that.
I know many, many, many people who voted against it. They are all still very much respected and employed. I was there, I know of and took part in the "hot" discussions before, during and after the change.
How many planets are in the solar system?
No one was threatened to have their career destroyed. Only the emotional fringe could even come up with that kind of "conspiracy". Where did ya hear that one? Aaah, Zephyr, I didn't recognize ya at first. There must be some site like physorg that aggregates conspiracy theories. No way he could collect such a huge range of crazy on his own AWT, cold fusion, see-through martians, mainstream science cabals that secretly hoarde mountains of cash, AWG lodges, chemtrails..
It's funny to me, coming from a field with serious problems defining things, to see somebody get so worked up over something so uncontroversial in a field like astronomy with consistent terminology. So what exactly is the problem here Laurele? In one topic you say the IAU is a bully and forcing people to use its unfair definitions. Then in another topic you make sure to tell any astronomers that aren't listening that they don't have to follow the IAU's definition. Then in another topic you'll say how the IAU is a big dummy because so many astronomers aren't using its definition.
If no one is required to use the IAU definition, as you have stated, and many credible astronomers aren't using the definition, as you have stated, why are you here wasting space on my screen telling me about poor Pluto's plight? I did not make up the geophysical planet definition. It is a legitimate scientific view held by many planetary scientists. The IAU did a terrible job in , especially since they rejected the resolution created by their own committee and then violated their bylaws by putting a resolution on the floor that was not first vetted by the appropriate committee.
The IAU was asked in by planetary scientists to reopen the debate and refused. They seem to be reacting emotionally to the fact that their definition remains controversial. As for Pluto, it is a lot more like the 8 bigger planets than like asteroids; it has geology, an atmosphere and is differentiated. Your cat and dog are both mammals just like Pluto and its larger siblings are all planets, just different subtypes.
As for the man whose career was threatened, he is a reliable source. The IAU needs to decide what its role is because it has conveyed contradictory messages. On the one hand, its leadership says its definitions are only for internal use, but on the other hand, it claims to be the only worldwide "authority" in astronomy. Science is not dictated by "authorities"; that's religion.
Why is the IAU not listening to many of its own members who want the discussion reopened? As an IAU member, you object to criticism of that vote, but please refrain from using terms like "worked up" or "emotional" when discussing my position on Pluto. I am here to say there are two equally legitimate sides to this debate, which the author did not acknowledge. As for my joining the IAU, be careful what you wish for. But ya can't dictate it to the IAU. The IAU did a terrible job in , I'm sure they are much bothered that ya think so.
Why do ya care if they do a good job or terrible? Ya seem to tilting at windmills when it comes to the IAU. The IAU has that right. An outsider with an agenda would spin it that way. Ya are an outsider, ignore us rather than annoy us. I would hardly characterize Zephyr as a "reliable source". The claim is true, much to your displeasure.
Lobby the "recognizers" not the "recognized". As an IAU member, you object to criticism of that vote, I object to your thinking that the IAU should act at the pleasure of a vociferous public. The IAU is doing just fine without your concern. If ya had the credentials, I'm sure ya would already be known for your demeanor long past.
Maybe that is why ya are so emotional, ya don't meet the requirements for full membership but think the requirements should be waived for someone as "dedicated" as yourself. Actually, the IAU is not doing "just fine" and has lost much of its previous respect because of the Pluto debacle. If he can do it, so can I or anyone. Many others simply ignore it. I do have the credentials; I don't need a waiver, and this has nothing to do with emotions. Your repeated personal attacks do not reflect well on your position.
Don't be surprised if you hear of the formation of that new planetary science group. And if the IAU is doing so well, why the vociferous press release against Alan Stern's exoplanet naming project? I am NOT an "outsider. That's not how astronomy is done today, and that approach will only turn people off.
There are many professional astronomers who choose not to join the IAU. In , I was asked by the Secretariat to write an article about Pluto for the GA newspaper, and in , my petitions for reopening the debate led to the item being put on two separate committee agendas. I will continue to lobby for a geophysical planet definition both to the IAU and outside it. The controversy began in when Pluto was discovered and has gone on since then. However, the notion that "we cannot have too many planets" came into play with the discovery of Eris. Using a photo of Ceres and saying it's Makemake?
Saying Mike Brown discovered Eris alone? Cain think fact-checking something before you publish it is passe'? Those people can be trusted to tell the truth about Pluto. Laurele, I agree, it's all the fault of the "we cannot have too many planets" conspiracy. Why are you so worried about the label? Pluto still is what it is, regardless of how one would classify it. I said I know that person.
I heard it from him, right from the horse's mouth. Are you not aware that the term "dwarf planet" is a category? Just like "jovian planet" or "terrestrial planet". I don't understand why there's still controversy over Pluto being called a dwarf planet. I'm thinking it's probably due to emotional reasons. I am not Zephyr. Why don't you consider responding to the points made?
And I say it is a lie, yours or "his". Why don't you consider responding to the points made I did respond. I'll called that an absurd lie. And ya are too Zephyr. Their "Constabulary of Internet Conspiricy Theories" showed me the proof. IP addresses never lie. Unless Zephyr, natello, Valeria, and ya all use the same proxy servers.
And that would be just too much a statistical improbability to give seriously consider. I agree, it's all the fault of the "we cannot have too many planets" conspiracy. It's not a matter of being "worried. A label that blurs the distinction between shapeless, tiny asteroids, and small planets is inaccurate and confusing. And how that label came about matters. Why should the whole world be forced to accept a label that was enacted through a flawed process for the wrong reasons?
The notion that we cannot have "too many planets" has no scientific basis and should not be a reason for a supposedly scientific decision. Dwarf planet should be a category of planet, but look at Q-Star's comment. According to the IAU actually members, not as I erroneously said earlier , dwarf planets are not planets at all.
That is the problem. If they amended this one thing, they would end this controversy once and for all. I don't know who Zephyr or any of these other people or groups are. The person threatened with "consequences for their career" if they did not go to Prague and vote was a graduate student at the time. As a journalist, I have to respect the confidentiality of this source and not reveal their name.
However, facts have been checked, and the story verified. It is not a conspiracy theory. If you view the video of the session where this vote was taken, you can see just how political, emotional, and unscientific those proceedings were. As a journalist Do you report for any entity other than your blog? Do you receive pay for doing so? The Art Bell Institute of Gobbledegook has plenty of "inside" stories also. Are yours as meritorious as some of those? Sorry, but unless ya can provide some objective evidence, I will at best say ya were duped and mislead, at worst fostering a misrepresentation of the facts.
There have been more than a few failed graduate students with an axe to grind. It is not a conspiracy theory.. Oh, then it must be true. No spin or "interpretation" or misrepresentation is assured. No ya may not look behind the curtain. Is that about right? I am a freelance writer who works as an independent contractor, writing for various print and online publications. Yes, I do get paid for that writing. I am working on a book about Pluto. I recommend you listen to its transcripts here: Owen Gingerich, original head of the IAU Planet Definition Committee, himself spoke about the shenanigans that took place in Prague and how he would not have left the conference early had he known the IAU would at the last minute substitute a resolution other than the one his committee drafted.
I checked my sources carefully and was not duped. There is more, but it would be unethical to reveal something told to me in confidence. The lack of professionalism in the session leading to the vote has been verified by other astronomers who were there. Done it, several times. It's a source of great drollery and amusement for me.
And it's not very flattering of ya "Pluto is a Planet Nutters". The words "histrionics", "hyperbole", "over-wrought with outrage", and "childish outbursts" come to mind. It's unethical to make accusations or report misconduct without providing some objective evidence. If ya don't, then it's just an emotional misrepresentation and falsehood. And since ya don't realize that, ya can't claim to be more than a journalism poser.
Just like ya a science poser. Mike got it right when he refers to ya as an "obsessed nutter". Let me guess,,,,, Are ya paid by a "science group" who funds "science projects" by selling raffle tickets to name exoplanets? Completely superfluous statement that. Ya are a Pluto blogger, and a Pluto character in film, and Pluto geophysicist, and a Pluto email spammer, and a Pluto themed poet, and a Pluto insert anything.
Ya did not need to tell anyone that ya are working on a book about Pluto. What would be singular is to hear that ya were not working on a book or anything else that wasn't Pluto. If anyone is a nutter, it's Mike Brown who lies about being the sole discoverer of Pluto, has beheaded Disney dolls of Pluto the dog, claims to have killed Pluto, and whose narcissistic behavior is an embarrassment to the scientific community.
Ironically, he at first called Eris a planet. It was only after it became clear that Eris was not going to be dubbed a planet that he launched his irrational attack on Pluto. And, of course, Bruno Sicardy's data now strongly suggests that Pluto is larger than Eris and all other known KBOs by at least 12 kilometers or 7. Dwarf planets should be considered planets. The case to deny them planet status is a weak one, even without all the backdoor politics and threats and unprofessional conduct by Mike Brown and the Executive Committee of the IAU. If you watch the session in Prague in which Pluto was demoted, you will see pro-Pluto speakers cut off and treated with contempt by Ms.
If anyone is a nutter, Blah, blah, blah,,,, A long string of words repeated for the millionth time. Zephyr, ya really are a poor parrot. Ya are much better with your original material. Don't need to watch. Bell treated no one with contempt. She did her job, or tried to too, she tried to maintain order when some people just wouldn't comport themselves in a civil or orderly way. If she hadn't done her job, everyone would still be there at this very minute enduring a seven year long filibuster. Lying about things that are so very easy to verify doesn't help your agenda, it works against it.
The lesson that the Kornfield women best teaches, is how to shoot yourself in the foot, and then stick it in your mouth. Q-Star, I see there is no point in engaging you in a rational conversation. Your ad hominems are dull. Bell's behavior and it was atrocious. You were there, but obviously you were not observing her as closely as I was. Anyway, you, thankfully, are not the final arbiter of this issue.
Oh, and, I am not Zephyr. Do you approve of Mike Brown's behavior, too? Zeph, I've been trying to explain that to ya for years. Literally hundreds of others have also. According to ya everyone in mainstream science is atrocious. I'm sure she will be pleased that ya include with they others.
Of course ya are. Of course, why wouldn't I. What's really stupid is arguing on internet comment boards and expecting that you'll convince anybody. Hopefully ya realize that I'm not one of those. Anyone who has spent as many days with Zephyr as I have would never harbour such expectations. But I have become rather fond of him, and he's entertaining in a perverse way. Attempting to convince him would be the ultimate effort in futility. He's going to post regardless, ignoring him doesn't work,,,, reasoning with him certainly doesn't work,,,,, banning him doesn't work,,,,,, he'll never go away, so all ya can do is search for any entertainment value he might offer.
Q-Star, must I outline, again, the reprehensible action of Mike Brown? Taking full credit for the discovery of Eris, and the other discoveries of the team, not his team, mind you, the team of which he is a member. Beheading a Disney doll of Pluto. Ad hominem attacks on Ms. Kornfeld, who is a fellow astronomer and whose arguments in favor of the replanetization of Pluto and Ceres are well-founded and fact rich. And, lastly, calling himself the "killer" of Pluto. If I did not know better, Q-Star, I would think you are a moron for supporting such behavior.
But, I know you are a good guy and don't really mean what you say and share with all rational people utter contempt for that type of behavior. You are just pretending to be a lackey for Mike Brown to get my goat. Actually, ignoring him, and ryggeson, and Otto when he's in troll mode, does work. As long as nobody else posts anything in the thread whatsoever. Then, the thread just dies, and the science news moves on, like always. The only reason they're annoying is because they spam up the forums when someone asks a legitimate question or has a genuinely insightful comment to make.
Engaging them makes it worse. The Great Planet Debate was a professional, friendly conference led by some of the leading experts on Pluto in the world. No one there was a "nutter" or used histrionics. You obviously are incapable of respecting anyone who disagrees with you, even the PI of New Horizons. It's not unethical if the accusation is not directed at a specific person. This is how investigative journalism works. So Mike Brown is allowed to be obsessed with "killing Pluto" but I cannot have a genuine interest in the subject? And if Mike is calling me that, he's the one who is being unethical and unprofessional.
You cannot verify it didn't happen because the intimidation took place in a private conversation. Also, I will note that I am the only person here using my real name. How does anyone know you are really an IAU member or an astronomer or that you took part in the vote? You could be any troll sitting behind a computer screen. I do public presentations and talks about Pluto, and they are always well received, so this notion that I shoot myself in the foot exists only in your imagination and maybe in Brown's, when he's not dreaming of killing a Disney character.
The IAU is acting like some medieval elitist priesthood by claiming an authority it does not have to make decrees for the entire world that must be accepted for all eternity and never changed. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and real scientists know that. The IAU is also acting like a spoiled child because they didn't get to have the last word on this subject and resent the worldwide backlash against their decision.
No one is "stalking" them, and accusing people of crimes when they are doing the same type of lobbying that other scientists do is unethical. Do they really have such contempt for the public and for amateur astronomers? If so, they deserve to become irrelevant.
I am not paid by Uwingu, which is a genuine science group. It is a well known principle that anyone who has to resort to ad hominem attacks has already lost the debate. Can we all agree that there are too few spinning space habitats, and that however many official planets there may be, we need to get off our collective behinds and get out there? Yes, I can agree to that.
I hope to be there. Oh, and I do have a real name. I draw comics, too, sometimes, to boot. Ad nuasium ad infinitum, ya will sure. See, I was right sure. Kornfeld, who is a fellow astronomer She harasses, abuses, and actively seeks him out for no purpose but to annoy him. Not a fellow astronomer. Dilettante, amateur astronomer who has no astronomical interest in any object except Pluto. I'm no ones lackey, Mike Brown is a very nice person. Not obsessive, not passive aggressive, not histrionic, doesn't actively attempt to disrupt another person's every waking minute, and doesn't attempt to enlist the aid of anyone and everyone to do it on his behalf.
What so I might be another person blessed with the sort of attention ya bless Mike Brown with? No thank ya madame. Ya are an obsessive passive-aggressive type. And it's only been escalating these past few years. It's unethical to level any accusation if ya are unwilling to support it. Madame, I plea with ya,,,, please put some of your journalism skills into practice when ya are formatting your comments here.
Ya are making it difficult to decide what ya are quoting and what ya are trying to say as a response,,,,,,. See how easy it is to separate the quotes? That above is meself. This below is ya. Now my response to ya saying that: Love that ad hominem thingy, do ya? Ya use it a lot. Be that as it may be: It's not ad hominen if I list the reasons for the comment. Which is not ad hominen, because I went on to point out,,,,, Ya are a Pluto blogger, and a Pluto character in film, and Pluto geophysicist, and a Pluto email spammer, and a Pluto themed poet, and a Pluto insert anything. Which ya have to admit, is truthful in every respect.
Have ya not received the press releases? They are several years old. Ya'll be needing to add to the CV below to achieve your hope. Hmmm, I just can't find the qualifying credentials there,,, but ya can join Ms Kornfield outside and do what ya can to disrupt the proceedings. Maybe draw her a Pluto comic or two for her placards.?
As long as intellectual property rights aren't an issue with ya. So ya are an "attorney" sort of like Ms Kornfield is an "astronomer",,,, by proclaiming ya are? Folks this internet tells all, ya know it right? Or do ya just hope we are all as lazy as ya are? So the answer is 8? I'm sorry, I was brought up with 9 and it's staying 9 for me. Just because they come up with one BS requirement, obviously specifically to eliminate Pluto, I don't have to change my definition of a planet. If it's big, round and orbits the sun it's a planet. I passed the Bar on the first try back in You sure are acting like a troll by going ad hominem on me.
That does not help the anti-Pluto forces you're aligning yourself with, bucco. I don't plan to be inside the Hawaii Convention Center. I hope to be outside, though, perhaps with a sign with a high res photo of Pluto taken a month earlier during the flyby. So who are you, bro? Or do you enjoy going troll too much to reveal your identity?
Are you beheading a doll right now? A decent lawyer should know what ad hominem means. Don't fret over that thing over much, Laurel doesn't either. Ya brought up the fact that ya are an attorney. All I did was ask if ya were the one who failed out of law school? Nice attempt at diversion, but the question stands as "Are ya the Mike Wrathell who failed out of law school"?
Oh, no, oh no. Are ya so stupid that ya would think I'll bite at that bait? I've seen ya folks in action, no thanks. I'm amazed that this issue still stirs up so much discussions I wrote a book called "The Case for Pluto" about all this, and I think the bottom line is that you can consider dwarf planets a class of planets, just as the IAU currently considers asteroids, etc.
There are probably hundreds or thousands in our solar system, depending on how you classify them, and billions in our galaxy. After that, it's just a question of how you define the pigeonholes. For more, check out thecaseforpluto website. Granted there are great problems here on Earth, but that doesn't excuse scientists who act like twits and change definitions based on if their panties are in a bunch. Q-Star, don't believe everything you read on the Internet. I think you must have read a review of "the king of pluto" on FilmThreat.
The reviewer wrongly states that I flunked out of law school. That was not the case. I think he misinterpreted certain statements I made in the documentary. To my knowledge, I am the only Mike Wrathell who happens to be a lawyer. Oh, I am using the term "ad hominem" within proper boundaries of usage. I consider dwarf planets to be a third class of planets. So I stop at At least he didn't retract with ridicule, eh?
No ya are using it as a parrot would. Ya use it at every opportunity when ya are laureling on every site that mentions the word planet regardless of context. I post here everyday on all manner of topics. If my comments offend ya then don't come trolling me. Ya aren't that smart. Don't take me word for it, your turn. Q-Star, I don't really have anything more to say to you.
I will accept your word that you are not a troll. I have bigger fish to fry than you. There are many scientists who feel the IAU wrongly demoted Pluto, including one of the co-discoverers of Eris. I have followed the matter and have an opinion. So are you a scientist? I would think your manners would be better if you are one. Try to be nice, dude. Not everyone in this world is going to agree with everything you say.
I guess your mommy never warned you about that? Q-Star, I do not harass or seek out Mike Brown. I respond to anyone who presents one side of the Pluto debate as fact when this is not the case. My responses to Brown are objections to his calling himself "plutokiller" and saying he "killed Pluto," which I view as unprofessional.
He co-discovered a planet, Eris, and should take pride in that. I am an astronomer; claiming amateur astronomers are not astronomers insults the many past and present amateurs who do research, make discoveries, publish papers, etc. I studied astronomy at Swinburne University, where I will continue in the Masters program once I finish my book. My interest is in planetary science, including exoplanets. I have written about the Mars rovers, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Dawn mission, solar and lunar eclipses, and methods of exoplanet detection.
I enlist only the aid of others who feel the way I do about Pluto.
I do not believe you are Fraser Cain; he is far too professional to write the things you do. Regarding the accusation that Ms. Kornfeld spams, I have read her posts in the comment sections of various articles about Pluto and wouldn't categorize them as spam at all. They are always thoughtful, fact rich, and persuasive. If anyone is a spam artist it is Mike Brown who titles a book with two lies. One that he is the sole discoverer of Eris, and two, that by solely discovering Eris, he killed Pluto.
Then, on his book tour, nearly every reviewer repeated the lie that Mr. Brown was the sole discoverer of Eris and Mr. Brown never corrects them when he is interviewed. His book is a mountain of spam. Moreover, the computer program he uses to discover celestial objects was based on the method that Clyde Tombaugh laboriously used to discover Pluto. Mike Brown could be sleeping or beheading a doll when the computer finds a celestial object, then Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz have to do the leg work to verify the discovery. Brown acts like he is a gift to Astronomy.
In fact, this definition sounds like something concocted cynically for the purpose of forcing a pre determined exclusion of Pluto. In fact, the term "planet" can rightly be said to apply only to those bodies which gave rise to the idea of objects moving in the heavens, which would include the sun and moon, but nor Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Among other things, does Pluto not clear its orbit because it is too small or because its region of movement is too big, it takes centuries to traverse it? And it's being replenished from the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud!
Consider that a definition of "planet" might come from whether it would seem like a "world" in its own right, with its own distinct individual qualities. Huge conglomerations of cratered rock might not be considered so distinct with respect to each other, but, a body with its own surface processes, something that has or could have remodeled its own surface might. One could only hope that is a true thing. So it wasn't true, I'm shocked. Where do ya get these "lessons" from? Kornfeld spams, What happened to,,,, Q-Star, I don't really have anything more to say to you.
Ask around, everyone will tell ya that I'll keep answering if ya keep poking me. Do ya even know what the word spam means? Psst, it's not something a person has to voluntarily pay money to read. Good grief man, I use Newton's methods to write stuff in mathmatica everyday.
Should I feel shame? Tombaugh, was looking for something that didn't exist, with methods that would not have worked in finding an object with Pluto's attributes. Serendipitous is the word that best describes his discovery. Hid method was not a practical method, because to the technology wasn't available to him that we have today.
Same with "killed Pluto". Sort of like ya being so fond of the new word "laureling" to describe the activities off a person obsessed with some inconsequential thing is life and thinks the world must change before it ends. Q-Star, I had planned to leave things alone if you did, too; but your accusations that Ms. Kornfeld is a spammer got me to thinking and I concluded that that is not the case. Yes, she seeks out Pluto-related online articles and posts in the comment section of many of them as I happily do, as well with her insights.
I don't see insights as spam. Brown,however, titled his book with two mistruths and is making people pay for his book. It may not meet the standard definition of spam, but one of the wonderful things about the English language is the ability for words to gain new a broader definition when in the hands of a skilled wordsmith. As a writer and poet, I sometimes resort to such methods to make my point. When someone called Laurel a spammer, the old maxim, "It takes one to know one" comes to mind.
That is how I decided to write about Mr. Brown as a spammer. Regarding Clyde Tombaugh, yes, he was a bit lucky; but he put the hard work into it to make his own luck. Is the famous Mr. Boyle author and science editor? Who joined the site at 6: Joins into third day of discussion at 6: Boyle was shameless plugging his book, spamming. Or ya are doing an impersonation of Mr. Boyle and thought mentioning the book would give ya gravitas.
Sowff, ya aren't very good at this,,,,, and it will only stay the same for ya.