A new planet? Probably not

Astronomers today announced the discovery of an object in the distant reaches of the Solar System about 1200 miles in diameter. This makes it 80% the diameter of Pluto, which some say is a planet. Since Pluto is a planet, they say, that makes this new object, named 2003VB12 or Sedna after an Inuit goddess, a planet also. Finally the tenth planet has been discovered. Or has it?

I don't think so. In fact, I do not think of Pluto as being a planet. It is too small. What is a planet? That can be tricky. It orbits the Sun. Hipparcos, the solar observatory satellite, orbits the Sun and is only as big as a living room. So it's more than that. It is large. So therefore Mercury is a planet. So Ganymede, a satellite of Jupiter, is a planet because it is larger than Mercury. It has a gravity so strong that someone could not hop off it. But that would make Ceres a planet. So what is a planet?

I think the definition that seems to fit the best is that it have a mass of about 200 yottagrams (or 0.2 xonagrams) . Ganymede may be larger than Mercury but it is less massive. Ganymede is a snowball as large as my hand, while Mercury is a billiard ball or a cannonball. It is more dense, and it is more massive. Ganymede has a mass of 148 yottagrams, and Mercury has a mass of 330 yottagrams. (Earth's mass is 5.974 xonagrams). Under this criterion, Mercury is a planet but Ganymede is not. I also add the requirement that nuclear fusion is not going on in the object (except for nuclear wars) and that the object does not glow. Under these requirements, there are just eight planets in the Solar System: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Pluto is not a planet, since its mass is only 13 yottagrams. The mass of Sedna is even less yet, so it is not a planet either.

So what are these? Pluto is clearly a Kuiper Belt object: an asteroid that orbits somewhere just outside Neptune's orbit. About a thousand have been discovered, and some of these are huge, compared to Mars-Jupiter asteroids: Quaoar, Ixion, Varuna, and Charon are all bigger than Ceres. But Sedna is way, way out. At its closest, it is still just outside the Kuiper Belt, whereas at aphelion, it is much farther out, stretching into the Öoo (term used by Nigel Calder, meaning Öpik-Oort, and pronounced eu-oh, where eu is the sound of eu in French feu) Cloud. So Sedna is not a Kuiper Belt object. It is something unique. Maybe it is an Öoo Cloud object, even though so far the main residents of the Öoo Cloud are thought to be long-term comets. If an object that large can be out there and is not a Kuiper Belt Object, might there be other, even larger objects out there? If any are found with a mass of 200 yottagrams or more (it would have to be slightly larger than Mercury at least), then we will truly have found a tenth planet.

Spain and the Lichtman Keys

First Trainattack occurs, the 10 bombs on 4 trains on 2004 March 11 that killed 200 people in Madrid. Then the elections come, and Jose Maria Aznar is thrown out in favor of Socialist Jose Zapatero. Some people are thinking that the terrorists swung the election in Spain, so they may try it in the US. Barbara Stock has gone out as far as to say that there certainly will be a terrorist attack between now and Election Day in the US.

Is that really the case? Maybe the Lichtman Key theory can help. This theory says that there are 13 keys or questions to ask of the situation before an election, and that if five of these or less are false, then the incumbent party wins, and if six or more are false, then the challenging party wins. If terrorists can swing an election, it is because they change the values of the keys.

Let's go over the keys and find out what the chances are:

1. After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Not any more, in either country.
2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. I don't see how a terrorist attack can create a new candidate for President.
3. The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. No changing of this, provided the sitting president remains sitting.
4. There is no significant third party or independent campaign. Same as 2.
5. The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. This is possible, but requires a huge attack, on the scale of Planeattack or greater.
6. Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Same as 5.
7. The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Possibly, but this probably would work against the terrorists.
8. There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Terrorists could cause social unrest if they act cleverly enough.
9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. Why stage a terrorist attack when planting a factoid in some official's ear does a better job of creating a scandal?
10. The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. This is for certain. A terrorist attack is a military failure.
11. The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. Possibly, but again works against the terrorists.
12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Terrorism can't change the charisma of a person; it is possible that the person could be replaced with one who is charismatic. Right now I am saying no effect.
13. The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Same as with 12.

This means that only keys 5, 6, 8, and 10 can be reasonably changed by terrorists.

How about applying the key theory to Spain? It's not a perfect fit, but it may give some illumination. Here is what I found with Aznar as the incumbent:

1. Stands. Aznar won the last election by huge majorities and he seemed to be popular.
2. Stands. I have heard of no challenge to Aznar. Rajoy is more like a vice-president.
3. Stands. Aznar is the incumbent, regardless of terrorists.
4. Stands. I heard of no third parties in Spain.
5. Fails. Unemployment is 11.7%. That tells me the economy is not good.
6. Fails. It has not improved much recently. Unemployment has been bad the past few years, averaging 12%.
7. Fails. Aznar has not made any important changes that has caused world notice.
8. Stands. I have heard of no unrest in Spain.
9. Stands. There is no scandal involving the Aznar administration.
10. Fails. Trainattack.
11. Fails. Sending troops to Iraq is not a military success.
12. Fails. Aznar is not charismatic.
13. Stands. Zapatero is a nice-looking guy but I haven't heard of any heart throbs or Peronista type excitement involving him.

Six keys failed. Hence the Aznar government was defeated. What if Trainattack had not occurred? Then Key 10 would have stood, and hence Aznar's successor, Rajoy, would have been elected. So yes, the terrorists did change the outcome. That forebodes ill for other supporters of Bush's invasion. If an attack can change an election, they will be emboldened to attack elsewhere.

But in the US? Because of what happened in Spain, is a terrorist attack likely here? I am not sure, since I don't know what the terrorists know or how they operate. But if the keys are any factor in their decision, I don't think so. Why not? It is because Bush has won keys 1, 2, 3, 11, and 13; lost keys 5, 10, 12 and 7; probably has keys 4, 8, and 9, and key 5 is favoring Bush but is wobbling severely. Note carefully that Key 10, military failure, is already down because of Planeattack, and if another attack occurs, that does not make it count twice; it will have no effect. The terrorists would have to tamper with keys 4, 5, 8, and 9, and those are harder to deal with. So I don't think a terrorist attack will affect the election results. It still looks like a victory for Bush, and terrorists can't change that. So I think there will be no terrorist attack for the rest of the year.

Let me know if I have any of the facts about Spain wrong.