[email protected] wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > It is not simply a matter of rewriting textbooks to take into account
> > 8 planets,it is that the discovery of Pluto was heralded as a success
> > for empirical celestial mechanics -
> > "The first planet to be discovered was Uranus by William and Caroline
> > Herschel on 13 March 1781. It was discovered by the fact that it showed
> > a disk when viewed through even a fairly low powered telescope. The
> > only other planets which have been discovered are Neptune and Pluto.
> > These were predicted using ingenious mathematical arguments based on
> > Newton's laws of gravitation and then observed near their predicted
> > locations. "
> And, of course, the fact that Pluto did not have enough gravity to
> cause the supposed effects which caused telescopes to be aimed in its
> direction had been acknowledged and admitted *long* before any
> consideration was given to withdrawing its status as a planet, even
> though its discovery (unlike that of Neptune, which *did* result from
> celestial mechanics correctly applied) was fortuitous.
> So I don't see why this really applies to the debate on what we should
> call Pluto.
> John Savard
You can say whatever you wish and cook up whatever dynamicist
explanation you need to support the withdrawl of Pluto as a planet but
equally you have to acknowledge the equally good dynamicist explantion
which supported the discovery and naming of Pluto as a planet.
I look at the half-hearted attempts by astrophorographers to live with
the demotion of Pluto with great interest,not because of the merits of
celestial mechanics which is and always was a really dumb way to
explain planetary motion,bjut to see if they had enough intelligence to
watch you lot shoot yourselves hastily in the foot.
Obviously they do not have enough intelligence and there is nothing
that can be done about that.Dynamicists did not gain a victory,they
just highlighted how stupid they really are.