Hate Mail from Third Graders
pbs.org
pbs.org
A double planet is basically any planetary system that contains moons that are relatively massive compared to the primary mass in the system.
Our moon is also quite large (1/4 the diameter of the planet).
However Asimov made a very interesting point, and a definitely more future-sighted point. He said that the measure of a double planet is of the tug-of-war between planet, satellite and star. With the Earth-Moon system, the Sun is winning the tug of war, eventually the barycentre will exit the Earth's surface and eventually the Moon will break free of Earth's orbit. This would make the Earth-Moon system a double planet. However Pluto is winning the fight in the Pluto-Charon system, and eventually Charon will impact Pluto's surface.
I personally prefer Asimov's definition. It's only a matter of time (maybe longer than the sun even) until the barycentre leaves the Earth's surface. IIRC ~600 million years the day lengthens by ~2 hours. This means that likely by the end of Earth's habitability (roughly 2 billion years from now) the day will be ~30 hours long at the present rate (it's considerably speeding up).
The vast majority of planet-satellite systems are arranged in a way that the satellite will eventually collide with its host planet. Those that don't will eventually hit their own classification as a planet or dwarf planet along the way, especially the Moon.
It also gives me hope that in the long run I'll be able to catch up on all the stuff I should have been doing, 30 hour days sound just fine.
I think my point was that most of the 'work' was probably not without parental help, and I think that a lot of the subject matter ('double planet', etc) may be over the head of a six-year-old. Though I may be under-estimating six-year-olds.
[edit] Upon further reflection, I may have been projecting my own mother a bit but, the gist of what I was saying doesn't depend on who the parent is (mother/father/both) -- at least I didn't intend it that way, if that's how it comes across.
A word means what people to use it to mean, so in this particular case, polling is an entirely reasonable method of deciding whether pluto is (or should be called) a planet.
Of course, if the kid was claiming that "evul-ution is wrong because all my friends at Oral Roberts Primary School say so"...
Generally, what your saying is probably correct. However, in scientific discourse, there are different definitions of words. E.g. the word "work" in science is force * distance (or the appropriate calculus version) but in regular discourse it means something else.
That's the best one. Some pretty deep stuff: "Do poeple (sic) live on Pluto? If there are poeple (sic) who live there they won't exist". Bet they didn't think of that :)
The issue seems to be: are you comfortable enough with a language that some portion of your brain can focus on whether what you're writing looks nice, or are you straining so thoroughly just to control the micro motor movements that these is no attention left for macro aesthetics?
That's called "honesty". Or, more realistically, "not yet having learned how to lie effectively".
Kids aren't necessarily clever or knowledgeable enough to think that far. But kids can and do lie, and they're not always effective about it.
The one thing that really surprised me was how polite the disagreement in opinion was voiced by the 6 to 7 year old. That is, as evidenced daily in abundance at work, the internet, etc ..., something that seems completely lost with a significant proportion of the grown up population. Makes one think why that is so? Your friend Erik
(Yes I accept that his mum may have driven the data collection but it comes to the same thing. She's going to make sure he turns into a winner)
But I also see the making of self-righteous, arrogant know-it-all. The kind of person that will complain over all non-A grades because his mum told him he's smarter than the teacher. Seriously, he's telling scientists how to do their job. Blind obedience to seniority is a bad idea, but so is that "sigh you got it all wrong, here, now, let me show you"-attitude.
I doubt Feynman's reaction to the boy's letter would have been: "I also see the making of self-righteous, arrogant know-it-all....Seriously, he's telling scientists how to do their job".
There's not a single thing in the boy's letter that is factually incorrect. It's merely a statement of opinion accompanied by some supporting data.
The child's name is in my comment. If you don't like something someone says then critique their opinion but try not to be personal and rude, it only makes you sound bitter.
I'm not criticizing the child, I'm presenting an alternative scenario. I'm not saying he going to end up like that, but I am saying that it's premature to conclude he's going to be a particularly employable based on that letter.
It strikes me as disingenuous, then, for anyone to authoritatively state that Pluto is "not a planet" without clarifying their use of the word "planet" - it leads to a lot of confusion amongst the public who suddenly believe something has physically changed, as we see here.
I particularly liked the sad Pluto & Uranus (Urectum?) / Saturn. I can't decide if I think it's cute or funny, but it certainly made me laugh.
It's cute when third graders do it, but the phenomenon is not limited to kids...