- Heaven: Chapter 32, What Will We Know and Learn? - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
- Free Moon Map:
- Navigation menu
- How many planets are in the solar system?
North pole is on the right in both views. Uranus's cloudy exterior is striped with faint bands that resemble those on Jupiter and Saturn, but they're exceedingly difficult to see and best revealed photographically using a near-infrared filter to increase their contrast. Uranus is the 4th "star" in a row to the east of Delta. Seeing Uranus without optical aid isn't too difficult, especially in November with the planet just a month past opposition and crossing the meridian around 9 o'clock. With a good map, you can nail down exactly where to look. You can use this map with binoculars or a telescope.
Tick marks are at day intervals through early Chris Marriott's SkyMap software. Once you know where to look, scan around the spot with averted vision and watch the faint planet pop into view. Now think of how many millions of times our ancestors unknowingly stared right at it Even with the advantage of near-zero light pollution, it evaded every gaze until Mr.
H got to work. If your sky won't allow a naked-eye attempt, binoculars will show the planet with ease and even allow you to track its westward retrograde motion into late December. A near-infrared view of Uranus with seven of its moons taken with the Very Large Telescope in northern Chile in Its ring system is also plainly visible. Titania and Oberon look like fly specks in the planet's glaring aureole; an 8-inch or inch scope should bring them to light. If you make an occulting bar for your eyepiece to block the planet's glare, you'll be amazed at how much easier they are to see.
Uranus and its five brightest moons are shown for this evening, November 16th. The two brightest satellites, Titania and Oberon, are near greatest southern elongation, one of the best times to find them. Ariel and Umbriel are not only fainter but much closer to the planet.
While I've spotted both Titania and Oberon in my inch and inch telescopes, Ariel and Umbriel remained hidden until this summer when I finally extracted them from the glare in a friend's inch reflecting telescope. For a few minutes, Uranus had that "Solar System in miniature" look. Miranda is closer yet and much fainter. I've never seen it. Sometimes the moon is just a bit further away, and the effect is an annular eclipse , in which the sun makes a thin ring, or annulus, around the moon.
This total solar eclipse will be visible along a track that runs roughly northeast across the South Pacific, before turning southeast and crossing South America. The shadow will first touch the Earth 1, miles 1, kilometers east of New Zealand's North Island, according to Eclipsewise. Observers in Rarotonga, in the Cook Islands, will see the sun rise on July 2 at a.
- To report this review as inappropriate, please complete this short form.;
- Heaven: Chapter 32, What Will We Know and Learn?.
- The Business End of Process Service.
- Navigation menu?
- The lifecycle of our Sun.
- Verse 12:34;
- Just Another Day at the Office (Toyz R Us Book 1).
The eclipse ends at a. Other islands that will get close to, but not quite, a total eclipse are Rikitea in French Polynesia, where the eclipse will start at a. Maximum eclipse there will be at a. On Pitcairn Island, the eclipse starts at a. This timetable for the solar eclipse on July 2, shows when the eclipse will be visible — both totally and partially — in cities across South America.
All times are given in local time zones. The eclipse track will run northeast until it reaches a point almost due north of Easter Island. The partial eclipse over Easter Island starts at a.
Heaven: Chapter 32, What Will We Know and Learn? - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
Maximum eclipse is at p. The eclipse ends at p. The moon's shadow then turns southeast, and at p. Totality starts at p. In the city of San Juan capital of the eponymous province the eclipse will start at p. Sure that maybe be a legitimate geophysical definition. Why should the the IAU be subject to the whims, agendas, petty musings of outsiders?
- Death in Heaven?
- Access (para quem não sabe nada de Access) (Portuguese Edition);
- The Heart of Goodness: A Radiant Path to a Richer, Fuller Life.
- Invisibly Yours.
- July New Moon 12222: Catch a Total Solar Eclipse, Bright Planets and Constellations.
- Houston Light Rail Train Business Directory Travel Guide (2017)?
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. 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. Dream on. 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. Hot gas! Inspector Spacetime. May 29, 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 ;-. Good catch 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 Just IMHO 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.
Why does Mr. 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. Why can't they? 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.
Free Moon Map:
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.
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. So use it. 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.
So, they refused. 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". Another disingenuous statement. 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. May 30, 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? Does Mr. 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. 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. May 31, 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.
Not very professional. 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.
Pluto deserves better. 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. I was there. 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. I saw Ms. 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. No I'm not. 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. Jun 01, 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?
How many planets are in the solar system?
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. By the By: 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,,,,,,.