Ace of Spades HQ

« Obsessively Personalized Attacks Of Bloggers Claim Another Innocent Victim | Main | How Chuck Schumer Spent His Summer Vacation »

July 30, 2005

Tenth Planet (?) Discovered

In case you didn't know, there's a debate whether the ninth planet, Pluto, was ever discovered. There are a lot of small to mid-sized planetoids in a belt beyond Neptune, and Pluto's small size, plus the fact that it's not really a great deal bigger than a bunch of other icy rocks out there, has prompted some astronomers to strip Pluto of its deisgnation as the ninth planet. Instead, they want to lump Pluto in with what they call non-planet "Trans-Neptunian Objects." Pluto would just be the biggest of that non-planet bunch.

Obviously, this angers a lot of people, chiefly because, and I'm quite seriosus about this, we've done a dozen science dioramas featuring Pluto as a planet and we're not ready yet to call our entire childhoods a lie. Everything else in our childhoods turned out to be a lie, but not Pluto. Pluto we thought we could count on.

Now comes the discovery of a Pluto-like planet, or psuedoplanet, whichever you prefer. Except this one is apparently bigger than Pluto.

So, the discoverer points out, if Pluto's a planet, this one must be a planet.

But some astronomers say: But maybe Pluto's not a planet, so why are you bothering us with this nonsense? And then it gets weirder.

Astronomers have discovered an object in our solar system that is larger than Pluto. They are calling it the 10th planet, but already that claim is contested.
The new world's size is not at issue. But the very definition of planethood is.

It is the first time an object so big has been found in our solar system since the discovery of Pluto 75 years ago.

Just in case you thought nothing interesting was being discovered lately. Another possible planet was discovered the same day:

The announcement, made Friday by Mike Brown of the California Institute of Technology, came just hours after another celestial object slightly smaller than Pluto was revealed, on a very confusing day for astronomers and the media.
The new object, temporarily named 2003 UB313, is about three times as far from the sun as is Pluto.

"It's definitely bigger than Pluto," said Brown, a professor of planetary astronomy at Caltech. The object is round and could be up to twice as large as Pluto, Brown told reporters during a hastily called NASA-run teleconference Friday evening.

His best estimate is that it is 2,100 miles (3,360 kilometers) wide, about one and a half times the diameter of Pluto.

The object is inclined by a whopping 45 degrees to the main plane of the solar system, where most of the other planets orbit. That's why it eluded discovery: Nobody was looking there until now, Brown said.

Some astronomers view it as a Kuiper Belt object and not a planet. The Kuiper Belt is a region of frozen objects beyond Neptune.

Pluto itself is called a Kuiper Belt object by many astronomers. Brown himself has argued in the past for Pluto's demotion from planet status, because of its diminutive size and eccentric and inclined orbit.

But on Friday he struck a different note.

"Pluto has been a planet for so long that the world is comfortable with that," Brown said during the teleconference. "It seems to me a logical extension that anything bigger than Pluto and farther out is a planet."

Offering additional justification, Brown said 2003 UB313 appears to be surfaced with methane ice, as is Pluto. That's not the case with other large Kuiper Belt objects.

"This object is in a class very much like Pluto," he said.

NASA effectively endorsed the idea in an official statement that referred to 2003 UB313 as the 10th planet.

Yet in recent years, a bevy of objects roughly half to three-fourths the size of Pluto have been found.

Brian Marsden, who runs the Minor Planet Center where data on objects like this are collected, said that if Pluto is a planet, then other round objects nearly as large as Pluto ought to be called planets. By that logic, 2003 UB313 would perhaps be a planet, but it would have to get in line behind a handful of others that were discovered previously.

"I would not call it the 10th planet," Marsden told Space.com.

Alan Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, called the discovery "a major step." But Boss would not call it a planet at all. Instead, he said Pluto and other small objects beyond Neptune should be called, at best, "Kuiper Belt planets."

"To just call them planets does an injustice to the big guys in the solar system," Boss said in a telephone interview.

We can't have that. Plus, imagine the size of the shoebox you'd need for a diorama containing dozens of mini-planets beyond Neptune.

This is interesting. 10,000 Plutos?

Alan Stern of the Southwest Research Institute, the top scientist for NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, predicted in the early 1990s that there would be 1,000 Plutos out there. He has also contended, based on computer modeling, that there should be Mars-sized objects hidden in the far corners of our solar system and even possibly other worlds as large as Earth.

Thanks to BrewFan, or as My Favorite Nazi so wittily has dubbed him, "SpewFan."

I Question The Timing Update: Kaos muses...

IMHo, I think the new planet is the Death Star planted there by KKKarl Rove. Any day now we'll be seeing legions of clone warriors and tie fighters decending on earth with the intent to destroy the remains of the democrat party or maybe it's just a speck of dust on the hubble mirror.

Everything is a "distraction" from Rovamania.

Or, as Traffic Non-Santa might say, "There's an investigation on."

Plutonian Politics: Is there any way we can use the Planet (?) Pluto controversy as a wedge issue against the Democrats?

Can we bait Howard Dean into saying something derogatory about Pluto?

Because, if we could, it would really annoy a lot of nerdy liberal-leaning voters.

There must be some way to use this. We conservatives can argue on behalf of "tradition," and bait liberals into taking an anti-Pluto position by using over-the-top anti-intellectual arguments in favor of Pluto, perhaps attacking the "pusillanimous puling pencil-necked pointy-heads" with all their silly "facts" and "theories" and "arrayed radio telescopes."

The "reality-based community" will then, predictably and invetiably, be forced to mock the Plutophiles, perhaps denigrating Pluto as a "sub-planetoid Jeebus spacerock."

And then we just sit back and reap the political benefits.

All we need to do, really, is get President Bush to mention Pluto in connection with some passage of a book of the Bible. Isaiah, maybe. Isaiah always seems to set these people off.

Or -- just spit-balling here -- "plucky little Pluto, the period at the end of the solar sentence, a methane-ice covered David fighting the Goliath of post-modern relativism and scientific hubris..."

I know they'd fall for the bait. They just can't help themselves.

They're crazy.

posted by Ace at 02:16 PM

Comments

Astrologers have long believed there's a planet Vulcan waiting to be discoverd.

Posted by: erp on July 30, 2005 02:24 PM

Vulcan was supposed to be closer to the sun than Mercury, and was predicted to exist by astronomers on the basis of some apparent orbital irregularities of Mercury which went away when relativistic er.. stuff was taken into account, and by astrologers when Geminis didn't suck as much as they should have done.
I'm quite inspired by the thought of earth or Mars-sized icy rocks in the outer reaches of the solar system.

Posted by: Botec on July 30, 2005 02:29 PM

IMHo, I think the new planet is the Death Star planted there by KKKarl Rove. Any day now we'll be seeing legions of clone warriors and tie fighters decending on earth with the intent to destroy the remains of the democrat party or maybe it's just a speck of dust on the hubble mirror.

Posted by: kaos on July 30, 2005 02:38 PM

Bah! If it takes fancy-schmancy 21st century technology to detect it, it sure isn't going to make much of a dent on your horoscope.

Posted by: Guy T. on July 30, 2005 03:19 PM

Woot! My first tip-o-the-ol'-AoS-hat!

BTW, speaking of cedarford, do you know why he crossed the road? His dick was stuck in the chicken! Hey, I'm here all week! Don't forget to tip your host!

Posted by: BrewFan on July 30, 2005 03:31 PM

"That's no moon."

Posted by: Sean M. on July 30, 2005 03:52 PM

You have to admit, "SpewFan" has a certain ring to it. Even ACE seems to enjoy it. Perhaps because there is a hint of truth.

ACE can go with My Favorite Nazi - It reminds me of Ray Walston laying down the law on Spocoli and his Pizza.

I think of ACE as an Oscar Wilde who spoke of the Spewfan sort of "Love that dare not speak it's name" in the sense that ACE bespeaks for the "One Country That He Dare Not Criticize".

Forbidden love vs the Forbidden subject in the WoT.

Posted by: Cedarford on July 30, 2005 03:57 PM

No, I don't think it has a "certain ring to it." I think it's childish and stupid. One of the stupidest aspects of on-line argument is the juvenile re-naming of posters.

Posted by: ace on July 30, 2005 04:03 PM

Planet, schmanet. It was probably just Ted Kennedy wandering home after tieing one on.

Posted by: DWC on July 30, 2005 04:20 PM

Why would they attack the Democratic party? When the clones attack the earth they'll be the only one's who will understand the root causes behind their attack?

While still supporting our troops of coursae.

Posted by: Silk on July 30, 2005 04:24 PM

ace wrote:
One of the stupidest aspects of on-line argument is the juvenile re-naming of posters.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim on July 30, 2005 04:46 PM

Dude, what a year. First it turns out 666 isn't really the number of the beast, and now Pluto isn't a planet ??? Jeebis! My whole world is turning upside down.

Posted by: dave f on July 30, 2005 04:50 PM

There's a simple solution to this problem - blow up Pluto. Any new wannabe planets will have to do a little more than tripping over that low hurdle to be considered for official status. And, we can scare the crap out of everyone. "Hey everyone, look what happened to Pluto, and it was just minding its own business. We're the USA, and we're friggin' crazy!"

Posted by: Tim Higgins on July 30, 2005 05:09 PM

One of the stupidest aspects of on-line argument is the juvenile re-naming of posters.

I'm sorry, by stupidest, did you perhaps mean most deliciously burn-o-rific, Monsieur Ace of Gaywads?

Posted by: jack wilkie on July 30, 2005 05:10 PM

Pluto is clearly a planet and so are all the other discoveries. Think of the negative impact that denying them planetary status will have on their self esteem and future development.

Nobody wants to go settle a KBO - they want to settle a planet.

Posted by: on July 30, 2005 06:11 PM

The way the word was originally used, any light that wandered the sky rather than moving in lockstep with the stars was a "planet." So Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were certainly planets, but so was the Moon--and the Sun! Earth, on the other hand, was not a planet.

Posted by: Edric on July 30, 2005 06:21 PM

Man, loose shit astronomers. Just because you try to regale us with data on far off stars but haven't even managed to count the frigging planets in our own solar system you have to start ragging on Pluto. Shameful.

Posted by: Sortelli on July 30, 2005 06:49 PM

Geez, there's a lot of crap floating around out there.

Sounds like we need a vacuum cleaner. Har de har har.

Later,
bbeck

Posted by: bbeck on July 30, 2005 06:57 PM

How about cedarford, bbeck? He certainly sucks in cosmic proportions!

Posted by: BrewFan on July 30, 2005 07:20 PM

Brew, you think he sucks? I think he blows. :)

Either way, I don't understand why he doesn't take a long walk on a short pier, preferably while wearing his good luck concrete.

Later,
bbeck

Posted by: bbeck on July 30, 2005 07:27 PM

Brew and Bbeck...

And I think he swallows.

Posted by: Jack M. on July 30, 2005 07:53 PM

The "reality-based community" will then, predictably and invetiably, be forced to mock the Plutophiles, perhaps denigrating Pluto as a "sub-planetoid Jeebus spacerock."
And then we just sit back and reap the political benefits.

You're on to something.
Sorry, I meant, you're ON something.

Probably valu-rite discount vodka and Klonopin suppositories.
But I digress. Or regress. Whatever.

Do we know the political persuasion of these guys defining what is, and what is not a planet?
For all we know the planet-spoilers could be saying, "It's just a cluster of space-rocks!"

While OUR guys are going, "Heathen! If it has gravity, it's a PLANET." Or something.

Posted by: lauraw on July 30, 2005 10:47 PM

I've long thought that Pluto shouldn't be considered a planet. There are just too many reasons why it doesn't make sense to consider it that way. It's not on the ecliptic, it's too small, there are too many objects like it in the Kuiper belt, and so on.

The problem is coming up with a rigorous definition of "planet"; there's really no way to do it. But if you include Pluto, why not also Ceres, the largest Asteroid, whose diameter is half that of Pluto?

There are six moons in the solar system which are larger than Pluto: Triton, Titan, Ganymede, Callisto, Io, and Luna. The smallest planet, Mercury, has a diameter more than twice that of Pluto.

And once Charon (Pluto's moon) was discovered and its orbit characterized, it was possible to come up with a good estimate of Pluto's mass and a reasonable approximation of its density. It's an iceball; it isn't rock and metal like the inner planets, or a ball of gas like the outer planets.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste on July 30, 2005 10:52 PM

As long as were tossin out objects to de-planet, how bout Saturn?

God, I've always hated that gas bag. "Oooh, lookit me everybody! I've got rings." Yeah, we get it Saturn. You've got rings. Fine. I think it's time Ms. Stuck up 6th from the sun got her cumuppence.

Saturn is hereby no longer a planet. There bitch.

Posted by: Guy Dupree on July 30, 2005 11:23 PM

"Isaiah always seems to set these people off."

Gee, I wonder why?

I just opened it completely at random, and here's what I found:

"But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the harlot." (57.3)

How great is that? "Seed of the adulterer and the harlot." I've got to update my Friendster profile ...

Posted by: Knemon on July 30, 2005 11:25 PM

Okay, having been burned in a previous thread re: the name "Charon", I did some poking around this time before posting. I've come to the conclusion that we don't have enough planets named after Roman chick gods in this solar system. We've got Venus and that's about it ("Earth" doesn't have any connection with the Roman god naming convention). So I nominate the name "Minerva" (Greek - Athena) for the new one. As I recall she had a reputation for being somewhat cold & distant as Roman/Greek gods go. Also, I've done some quick searches and it seems that Minerva hasn't been associated with any local celestial bodies yet.

Posted by: Enas Yorl on July 30, 2005 11:26 PM

I think this is the proper place and time for a couple of classic Pluto bits from the (sadly defunct) Brunching Shuttlecoks.

Posted by: PlacidPundit on July 30, 2005 11:31 PM

Most of the Roman "chick gods" got asteroids named after them, including Minerva.

Me, I'm waiting for the next season of Sailor Moon...

Posted by: Pixy Misa on July 31, 2005 01:33 AM

If Pluto can be a plant, why can't Australia be a continent? This is SO unfair!

Posted by: warty on July 31, 2005 10:19 AM

Well, I guess Pluto could be a plant, and a planet too. But Australia is STILL getting the short end of the stick, real estate-wise.

Posted by: warty on July 31, 2005 10:21 AM

I'm still reeling that Den Beste posted here.
He must have been faced.

Posted by: lauraw on July 31, 2005 01:47 PM

or a ball of gas like the outer planets.

Then Oliver Willis is a planet.

Posted by: Dave in Space on July 31, 2005 02:49 PM

Mental heavyweight and blog-god Steven Den Beste deigns to comment here and he is completely ignored. Geeze, Ace, you really ARE the only important one on this stage. Heh.

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! on July 31, 2005 08:48 PM

I still think the ancient definition is admirable in its simplicity and obviousness: If you can see it and it's not one of "the fixed stars," that is, if it moves against the starry background, it's a "wanderer" or "planet."

--Edric

Posted by: Edric on August 1, 2005 04:34 AM

Den Beste is right, as usual. There are only eight planets in the Solar System. Pluto, Sedna and the rest are KBOs.

Posted by: Kingslasher on August 1, 2005 07:56 AM

I never quite understood why a planet can't be a KBO -- obviously, a gas giant is less like Earth than Pluto is and yet we consider Jupiter and Earth to both be planets.

I'd say a planet is anything that orbits a star that's Pluto-sized or bigger.

Posted by: John Nowak on August 1, 2005 11:44 PM

The important question is "Did John Roberts ever express an opinion on the existance of a 10th planet?" I will not be satisfied until the Administration releases all of Roberts' extra-Plutonian opinions. I don't see how the scientific community can do their job on this subject until they have all the information.

Posted by: Lew Clark on August 3, 2005 08:31 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]