Thursday, June 12, 2008
Pluto, plutoids.. and telescopes
The International Astronomical Union (IAU) attempt to spare Pluto’s blushes after its 2006 annus horribilis - by defining all transneptunian dwarf planets as plutoids - hasn’t gone down well with those still honking for its return to full planet status, as the BBC reports here.
Alan Stern, a former Nasa space sciences chief and principal investigator on a mission to Pluto, was scathing in his condemnation of the IAU. “It’s just some people in a smoke-filled room who dreamed it up,” he told the Associated Press. “Plutoids or haemorrhoids, whatever they call it. This is irrelevant.”
Meanwhile, Phoenix has, finally, got an oven full of Martian soil.. And, speaking of optics, NASA have launched a new space telescope - The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope GLAST. All of which, telescopes included, allows me to quote from Robert Hooke’s preface to his 1665 publication Micrographia
‘Tis not unlikely, but that there may be yet invented several other helps for the eye, as much exceeding those already found, as those do the bare eye, such as we may perhaps be able to discover living Creatures in the Moon, or other Planets, the figures of the compounding Particles of matter, and the particular Schematisms and Textures of Bodies.
Pete Baker @ 02:25 PM
Zzzzzzzzzz....
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 03:38 PMHoga,
I take it that you’re having an afternoon nap so you can stay up late to look at the skies.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 06:18 PMFeel free to move along to another post, Hogan.
Or indeed another site.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 06:21 PMpeteb
dya think people look outside themselves, to the stars perhaps, because looking inside is painful?Do people look for answers outside; for often when they look within, they remark “ I can’t see anything”
Can one sit on the pot and look at the stars, or is it best to get off the pot first?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 07:46 PMIf you have an outside loo with a clear view, multitasking is the way to go. (excuse the pun)
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 08:00 PMpercy
If I was you I’d worry about your internal view.
As for mine?
Well, to quote Oscar, “We’re all in the gutter..”
And back to the topic.
Someone, somewhere, must have an on-topic comment..
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 09:17 PMOK, Pete.
I think plutoid is a big improvement over “sorry, you’re not a planet anymore”.Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 09:39 PMActually Joe, I’m with Alan Stern on this -
“Plutoids or haemorrhoids, whatever they call it. This is irrelevant.”
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 09:42 PMHogan’s posts are really evolving over time.
I like the phrase “plutoid.” I always thought there was something sort of oxymoronic about the phrase “dwarf planet”. It’s like the phrase “hot dwarf”—hard to carry off convincingly.
I would think we were bound to learn something from the Martian soil, but I guess I better click on the link first.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 09:51 PMsusan
“I like the phrase “plutoid.” I always thought there was something sort of oxymoronic about the phrase “dwarf planet”. It’s like the phrase “hot dwarf"—hard to carry off convincingly.”
Indeed.
Although I’m not sure Alan Stern would be any happier with “Asteroid pretending to be a planet”.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 10:05 PMWell , Pete, there’s an old joke of which I’ll only give the last three lines:
So he said “What are you gonna call your new wean?”
And the Jew replied “Nathan”.
To which the Ballymena man said “Don’t be stupid. You haft to call the wean somfing.”Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 10:07 PMStern has issues, Pete.
Joe, I suffered similiar confusion a few days ago with the phrase, “Don’t tase me, bro.” Couldn’t understand how anyone thought I was just “teasing” when I was clearly incensed.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 10:36 PM“Stern has issues, Pete.”
Indeed.
As does Hogan..
ANYhoo..
How about Robert Hooke’s 1665 quote?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 10:54 PMI thought it was most eerily prescient for 1665, Pete.
Clearly more going on there than just another hair band. :0)
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 11:37 PMI am sorry, Pete. I really tried to say something on-topic but I’m feeling a bit light-headed.
Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 11:40 PMGreat Quote peteb; he had the imagination and foresight of Da Vinci.
Despite the gentle mocking, I’ve been watching the Sky at Night for over 10yrs now, and almost never miss it.
I suppose your particular antipathy to Supernaturalism makes you an open target on starry matters, its kinda quirky; and makes me think of telescopes and microscopes and the whole “vision thing”.
What do we see? Why do we look? and so on.“We’re all in the gutter..”
reminds me of an alcoholic who gave a talk I went to, who said the day he quit, was when lying in a gutter plastered, a passing dog pissed on him!!Oh and did you hear about the redneck who said:
If I sit here any longer I’m gonna have me one severe case of asteroids…Posted by on Jun 12, 2008 @ 11:47 PMjoecanuck .
Bally mean ans :) dinna say ‘somfing’ sounds more like a cockney - Good one lol though it may be lost on those who fail the nathan pronunciation test :)
Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 09:11 AMPercy ,
“We’re all in the gutter..”
Speak for yourself but the the line did remind me of how you can tell the difference between a drunken Irishman and a drunken Scot.
After the pubs are closed the former can be seen crawling along in the gutter on all fours whereas the latter is the lad lying face down and prostrate beside him doing the breaststroke.
Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 09:17 AMsusan ,
‘ I thought it was most eerily prescient for 1665,’
Indeed it was and still is for 2008 . Hogan may want to link to micrographia pages 211-213 where his appearance is foretold by Richard Hooke on page 211 .
Observ. LIV. Of a louse, pp. 211-213
S was of course written differently in Restoration Age English . It looks like our modern F minus the mid letter crossing
The word sucker initially looks out of place :)
Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 09:33 AMClearly more going on there than just another hair band. :0)
Indeed, susan.
Quite the fella was Mr Hooke.
In Micrographia he speculated about the strength of gravity on the Moon - and he corresponded with Newton about the principle of universal gravity, Hooke could be credited with suggesting that principle to Newton. They didn’t get along particularly well, though, and Newton removed all references to Hooke and his work from Newton’s Principia before it was printed.
Hooke also designed most of the experimental demonstrations, as one of the first paid researchers, for the early Royal Society.
And he was heavily involved in the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire of 1666.
Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 12:58 PMThere have been two recent biographies. The one I bought is “The Man who Knew Too Much, The Strange and Inventive life of Robert Hooke”, by Stephen Inwood.
I can highly recommend it. The other one got good reviews too.Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 01:45 PMJoe
I recommended a couple of other Hooke biographies here.
London’s Leonardo: The Life and Work of Robert Hooke - Jim Bennett, Michael Cooper, Michael Hunter, Lisa Jardine
The Curious Life of Robert Hooke: The Man Who Measured London - Lisa Jardine
The Man Who Knew Too Much: The Inventive Life of Robert Hooke, 1635 - 1703 - Stephen Inwood.
And, yes I’ve read all three.
He’s one of Those [Royal Society] Guys!
Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 01:53 PMPete,
Yes, an amazing man, really not well known partly due to Newton’s machinations.
Is there sufficient different information in the other two books for me to read?Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 02:00 PMProbably not, Joe.
Unless you’re an obsessive. ;o)
Btw, Westfall’s a good go-to-guy on Newton [that’s the abridged version of Never at Rest]
Although James Gleick’s is a good read too.
Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 02:15 PMwondrous stuff, boys. Many. many thanks. Hard to read about Hooke’s insights without reaching for the word “inspired.”
Much more elevating to think about today while I wait for the doctor to figure out why I feel as though I’m spending too much time standing on my head than the Lisbon vote. I promise I won’t chirp in again without reading through at least three links.
susan
Posted by on Jun 13, 2008 @ 02:46 PM
