We have a birdfeeder and some bird houses and baths in our back yard. We notice a lot of birds at the feeder, especially at migrating times in the spring and fall. So far this summer only some of the local birds, such as mourning doves and cardinals, have shown up, together with hordes of squirrels. We have also had hummingbirds, and these birds have flown all over the place, annoying the other birds that cross its territory near our hummingbird feeder.
As of late we have been getting huge flocks of grackles, with as many as 40 grackles in our back yard. They eat up the food and suet quickly, and I had to replace the food in the feeder. But I let them feed, since these flocks come mixed with other species. Somoe of these are starlings, which I could care less about. But last spring we saw two red-winged blackbirds among the grackles. For that reason, we let the grackles feed.
They are skittish birds. The slightest movement, even indoors, will scare them all off in a big swoosh. I have even heard of a case where cardinals and other songbirds come in just after the grackles have been scared away, so they can get a chance at getting the food before the grackles come back.
Things are changing all right. Now I hear of nighthawks in the area, including the Diamond, where the Richmond Braves play baseball. A huge flock of them showed up at the Diamond, and this got reported in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Later on, more birds will come in as migration proceeds, and the snowbirds will arrive - the first sign of winter.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Pluto Officially No Longer a Planet
The decision came from the International Astrophysical Union (IAU) today. Pluto is no longer considered a planet. This was a ruling that I had hoped for a long time they would make.
A week ago they came up with an unworkable proposal. This would keep the "traditional" nine planets and include Charon (so that Pluto would be a double planet), Ceres (the largest asteroid), and Xena (a Kuiper Belt object like Pluto, but somewhat larger) as planets. Their definition of planet was that it orbit the Sun, and that it is massive enough for gravity to have made it into a sphere. This was unworkable because it would have made too many planets. It's not just Pluto and Xena out there beyond Neptune. There are also the Easter Bunny, Santa, Orcus, Ixion, Varuna, Quaoar, 2002 FX25, Sedna and a host of other discovered and undiscovered objects in the Kuiper Belt larger than Ceres. All of these are almost certainly spheres, and they circle the Sun. So they would be planets. There would be a lot of planets out there. Boy would there ever be a lot of planets. Michael Brown of Cal Tech, the discoverer of Xena, said there would be 53 of them. Ask our high students to remember 53 planets.
As a result, a storm of protest arose in the astronomical community at the convention of the IAU in Prague, Czech Republic, which is considering the matter. Today an alternative resolution was considered and passed. It maintained the two requirements for a planet mentioned above, and it added a third one: that it "cleared the orbit of other objects". To me this means that it is more massive than everything else in its orbit put together. This means that Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are planets; in fact, each has a "sphere of influence" - the orbit in which it moves. It also means that Pluto is not a planet (and neither is Charon), since its orbit goes all over the place in the Kuiper Belt and even overlaps Neptune's orbit. Ceres is not a planet, because the sphere in which Ceres is in is the asteroid belt and all the other asteroids put together is much larger than Ceres - in fact, it is about the mass of the Moon. So now there are only eight planets.
Actually, "planet" is a term used by us humans, and the only thing that has changed is what we call these objects in the Solar System. The objects have not changed themselves. To me, this entire debate is as much etymology as astronomy. People seem to behave as though "planet" was an inherent property of these objects, and that Pluto is a planet because it is a planet, and that it is that way in all our astronomical books, and there is a cartoon dog named after him and so forth. People are even getting attached emotionally to the far distant world. They say, "Poor Pluto", when actually the planet is not alive and could not care less. The astrologers take anything called a planet and proclaim influences of them over us, which somehow did not exist before. No, the entire thing was selecting words so that astronomers can logically refer to these objects. They have acted correctly in defining planets in terms of spheres of influence and in saying that Pluto is not a planet.
This should settle a few things now. For example, we have objects named Xena (who is not a mythological hero but a creation of today's hyperculture), Santa, and the Easter Bunny. These objects will now get permanent names. The rule is that if its orbital period is about 247 years, it is named after an underworld figure, else it is named after a creation deity. Xena would be renamed for a creation deity, and I hope it gets named Baiame, for the native Australian deity. Popular sentiment would select Persephone or Prosepina, the wife of Pluto or Hades. But these are names of asteroids. Kore is a possible name - Persephone's name as the Queen of the Underworld, and it is not the name of an asteroid. The Easter Bunny and Santa would also get official names.
But questions remain open for the future. For example, how about two Earth-sized worlds that orbit in overlapping orbits? Maybe such does not exist long; that eventually they would collide, as the Earth did with Theia to form the Moon. And shouldn't the Asteroid Belt (Mars-Jupiter) and the Kuiper Belt be declared something like planets, since they are zones or spheres of influence? Perhaps call these belts. There is one belt for each planet, and also the MJ Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt. The Solar System has 10 belts.
Will the definition be viable in the future? The MJ asteroid belt is associated with the terrestrial planets, the largest of which is Earth, at about 8,000 miles in diameter. Ceres is 480 miles in diameter, so the ratio is about 17 to 1. In the same way the Kuiper Belt seems to be associated with the giant gas planets, the largest of which is Jupiter, at 88,000 miles. 1/17 of this is about 5200 miles, somewhat larger than Mars. This makes me think there is a really huge undiscovered Kuiper Belt object out there with a diameter of 5,200 miles. If such is discovered I would think it would have be called a planet, even though it would not dominate its orbit. But for now, the IAU has presented us with a reasonable definition of planet.
A week ago they came up with an unworkable proposal. This would keep the "traditional" nine planets and include Charon (so that Pluto would be a double planet), Ceres (the largest asteroid), and Xena (a Kuiper Belt object like Pluto, but somewhat larger) as planets. Their definition of planet was that it orbit the Sun, and that it is massive enough for gravity to have made it into a sphere. This was unworkable because it would have made too many planets. It's not just Pluto and Xena out there beyond Neptune. There are also the Easter Bunny, Santa, Orcus, Ixion, Varuna, Quaoar, 2002 FX25, Sedna and a host of other discovered and undiscovered objects in the Kuiper Belt larger than Ceres. All of these are almost certainly spheres, and they circle the Sun. So they would be planets. There would be a lot of planets out there. Boy would there ever be a lot of planets. Michael Brown of Cal Tech, the discoverer of Xena, said there would be 53 of them. Ask our high students to remember 53 planets.
As a result, a storm of protest arose in the astronomical community at the convention of the IAU in Prague, Czech Republic, which is considering the matter. Today an alternative resolution was considered and passed. It maintained the two requirements for a planet mentioned above, and it added a third one: that it "cleared the orbit of other objects". To me this means that it is more massive than everything else in its orbit put together. This means that Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are planets; in fact, each has a "sphere of influence" - the orbit in which it moves. It also means that Pluto is not a planet (and neither is Charon), since its orbit goes all over the place in the Kuiper Belt and even overlaps Neptune's orbit. Ceres is not a planet, because the sphere in which Ceres is in is the asteroid belt and all the other asteroids put together is much larger than Ceres - in fact, it is about the mass of the Moon. So now there are only eight planets.
Actually, "planet" is a term used by us humans, and the only thing that has changed is what we call these objects in the Solar System. The objects have not changed themselves. To me, this entire debate is as much etymology as astronomy. People seem to behave as though "planet" was an inherent property of these objects, and that Pluto is a planet because it is a planet, and that it is that way in all our astronomical books, and there is a cartoon dog named after him and so forth. People are even getting attached emotionally to the far distant world. They say, "Poor Pluto", when actually the planet is not alive and could not care less. The astrologers take anything called a planet and proclaim influences of them over us, which somehow did not exist before. No, the entire thing was selecting words so that astronomers can logically refer to these objects. They have acted correctly in defining planets in terms of spheres of influence and in saying that Pluto is not a planet.
This should settle a few things now. For example, we have objects named Xena (who is not a mythological hero but a creation of today's hyperculture), Santa, and the Easter Bunny. These objects will now get permanent names. The rule is that if its orbital period is about 247 years, it is named after an underworld figure, else it is named after a creation deity. Xena would be renamed for a creation deity, and I hope it gets named Baiame, for the native Australian deity. Popular sentiment would select Persephone or Prosepina, the wife of Pluto or Hades. But these are names of asteroids. Kore is a possible name - Persephone's name as the Queen of the Underworld, and it is not the name of an asteroid. The Easter Bunny and Santa would also get official names.
But questions remain open for the future. For example, how about two Earth-sized worlds that orbit in overlapping orbits? Maybe such does not exist long; that eventually they would collide, as the Earth did with Theia to form the Moon. And shouldn't the Asteroid Belt (Mars-Jupiter) and the Kuiper Belt be declared something like planets, since they are zones or spheres of influence? Perhaps call these belts. There is one belt for each planet, and also the MJ Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt. The Solar System has 10 belts.
Will the definition be viable in the future? The MJ asteroid belt is associated with the terrestrial planets, the largest of which is Earth, at about 8,000 miles in diameter. Ceres is 480 miles in diameter, so the ratio is about 17 to 1. In the same way the Kuiper Belt seems to be associated with the giant gas planets, the largest of which is Jupiter, at 88,000 miles. 1/17 of this is about 5200 miles, somewhat larger than Mars. This makes me think there is a really huge undiscovered Kuiper Belt object out there with a diameter of 5,200 miles. If such is discovered I would think it would have be called a planet, even though it would not dominate its orbit. But for now, the IAU has presented us with a reasonable definition of planet.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Astronomical Passitarounds
Astronomy is a unique field among the sciences. It is one where the objects of study are readily in our view - look up at night. This allows amateurs to get into the act and make important astronomical discoveries just like the professionals. We can't get direct access to these objects, however, because they are so far away, from a few hundred thousand miles to billions of light years away. So astronomical truths should be readily accessible to all.
But maybe not. Recently I have received two passitarounds concerning astronomy. Passitarounds are these items floating around on the Internet, usually as email. Some examples include getting help for a lost Indian girl, viruses "threatening" our computers which turn out to be hoaxesm, and pictures of cute kitties. All of these except the kittens are false hoaxes, however. What concerns me is that I have received two fo these concerning astronomy.
The first concerns an event that happened on 2003 August 27. At that point, Mars was in opposition to the Earth, so it was closest to the Earth, and it was up all night long. However, this was a special opposition, since Mars was also in an especially close perihelion, or closest approach, to the Sun. And further, it was closer than at any time for a few thousand years (but it will be even closer in 2287). Someone typed up a passitaround in 2003 and sent it off, hoping to inform as many people about this event. However, he did not put a year on his announcement. As a result, it keeps coming up over and over again, every year as August 27 approaches. The passitaround gets altered, even to the extent that the planet will appear as big as the full moon, perhaps motivated by the large picture of Mars through a telescope that appears in the passitaround. This gives people the impression that an especially close encounter will occur on 2004 August 27, 2005 August 27, 2006 August 27, 2007 August 27, and so forth and so on. On none of these dates was Mars especially close. In fact, Mars will be too close to the Sun to see on 2006 August 27. I received this passitaround no less than four times!! I got it once in 2003, when it expressed the truth. I got it in 2004, from someone I knew at church. I got it in 2006, first from a Toastmaster and then from another church friend. I told these people that this event already happened. It does nothing for the science of astronomy for this out of date passitaround to keep floating around.
I got another one just yesterday. It has the inscription " A scene you will probably never get to see, so take a moment and enjoy God at work at the North Pole. This is the sunset at the North Pole with the moon at its closest point. And you also see the sun below the moon. An amazing photo and not one easily duplicated." and features a picture of an enormous smile-like thin crescent Moon hovering just over a much smaller Sun near the horizon over an icy landscape including some water. I looked at this and could tell it was not for real. The Sun is 400 times wider than the Moon, but it is also 400 times farther away, so the two of them appear the same size in the sky. In this picture, the Moon appeared much larger than the Sun. Further, the Moon and Sun, both on the ecliptic, were one on top of each other. This implies that the zodiac or ecliptic goes overhead in the scene, but that never happens at the North Pole - the ecliptic rises to only 23 degrees below and above the horizon there. So I looked around and found the Scopes reference in the above hyperlink. I was shocked to learn that this was a work of art. I think it was an exceptionally good one, evoking all kinds of emotions in me. Someone simply swiped this piece of art, disregarding any copyrights, and threw it into a passitaround and started it circulating.
If you see either of these passitarounds, don't pass it around again! Instead, tell the people involved that the polar scene can't happen, that Mars can't be as large as the Full Moon or will approach as close as it did in 2003, and tell them to stop it there. In general, disregard passitarounds. They can spread a lot of untruth and hurt the cause of science in a demon and mainline-religion-dominated world.
But maybe not. Recently I have received two passitarounds concerning astronomy. Passitarounds are these items floating around on the Internet, usually as email. Some examples include getting help for a lost Indian girl, viruses "threatening" our computers which turn out to be hoaxesm, and pictures of cute kitties. All of these except the kittens are false hoaxes, however. What concerns me is that I have received two fo these concerning astronomy.
The first concerns an event that happened on 2003 August 27. At that point, Mars was in opposition to the Earth, so it was closest to the Earth, and it was up all night long. However, this was a special opposition, since Mars was also in an especially close perihelion, or closest approach, to the Sun. And further, it was closer than at any time for a few thousand years (but it will be even closer in 2287). Someone typed up a passitaround in 2003 and sent it off, hoping to inform as many people about this event. However, he did not put a year on his announcement. As a result, it keeps coming up over and over again, every year as August 27 approaches. The passitaround gets altered, even to the extent that the planet will appear as big as the full moon, perhaps motivated by the large picture of Mars through a telescope that appears in the passitaround. This gives people the impression that an especially close encounter will occur on 2004 August 27, 2005 August 27, 2006 August 27, 2007 August 27, and so forth and so on. On none of these dates was Mars especially close. In fact, Mars will be too close to the Sun to see on 2006 August 27. I received this passitaround no less than four times!! I got it once in 2003, when it expressed the truth. I got it in 2004, from someone I knew at church. I got it in 2006, first from a Toastmaster and then from another church friend. I told these people that this event already happened. It does nothing for the science of astronomy for this out of date passitaround to keep floating around.
I got another one just yesterday. It has the inscription " A scene you will probably never get to see, so take a moment and enjoy God at work at the North Pole. This is the sunset at the North Pole with the moon at its closest point. And you also see the sun below the moon. An amazing photo and not one easily duplicated." and features a picture of an enormous smile-like thin crescent Moon hovering just over a much smaller Sun near the horizon over an icy landscape including some water. I looked at this and could tell it was not for real. The Sun is 400 times wider than the Moon, but it is also 400 times farther away, so the two of them appear the same size in the sky. In this picture, the Moon appeared much larger than the Sun. Further, the Moon and Sun, both on the ecliptic, were one on top of each other. This implies that the zodiac or ecliptic goes overhead in the scene, but that never happens at the North Pole - the ecliptic rises to only 23 degrees below and above the horizon there. So I looked around and found the Scopes reference in the above hyperlink. I was shocked to learn that this was a work of art. I think it was an exceptionally good one, evoking all kinds of emotions in me. Someone simply swiped this piece of art, disregarding any copyrights, and threw it into a passitaround and started it circulating.
If you see either of these passitarounds, don't pass it around again! Instead, tell the people involved that the polar scene can't happen, that Mars can't be as large as the Full Moon or will approach as close as it did in 2003, and tell them to stop it there. In general, disregard passitarounds. They can spread a lot of untruth and hurt the cause of science in a demon and mainline-religion-dominated world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)