ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Pluto politics left behind

Posted: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 5:05 PM by Alan Boyle


IAU
Dancers perform during opening ceremonies for the International Astronomical
Union's General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro Tuesday. Pictures of Pluto and other
dwarf planets are displayed on the screen above the stage, in the most visible
reference to the controversy that raged during the IAU's last assembly in 2006.

Pluto and its pals loomed over the stage when the International Astronomical Union kicked off its general assembly this week in Rio de Janeiro, three years after its controversial decision to reclassify the icy world as a dwarf-planet non-planet. But that's as close as the issue will get to the spotlight this time around.

Neither the pro-Pluto nor the anti-Pluto adherents have any interest in reviving the debate over planethood in Rio - and it'll likely be a long time before the IAU gets back into planetary politics.

"There's no discussion of dwarf planets. That has subsided," said Lars Lindberg Christensen, who served as the IAU's spokesman during the 2006 assembly in Prague and is filling the same role in Rio.

Like others among the thousands of attendees in Rio, Christensen noticed that depictions of the dwarf planets known as Pluto, Eris, Haumea and Makemake were projected above the stage during Tuesday's opening ceremonies. "I was sort of snickering about that," he admitted. But Christensen insisted that the display had no connection to the IAU's business this year.

"That issue was dealt with," he told me. "There will always remain some people who are skeptics, particularly in the North American part of the world, but people are returning to the science."

Among the anticipated headlines are fresh findings about the similarities between surface features on Earth and on Titan, Saturn's smog-shrouded moon, as well as new questions about the habitability of Earthlike planets around sunlike stars, Christensen said. However, there'll be no controversies that bring tears to the eyes of third-graders (unless there are some kids out there who really hate the Second Realization of the International Celestial Reference Frame).

No more pokes at Pluto
That's likely the way the IAU will play things for the foreseeable future, said Gettysburg College astronomer Laurence Marschall, a co-author of the recently published book "Pluto Confidential: An Insider Account of the Ongoing Battles over the Status of Pluto."

"Nowhere in the next 500 years are they going to deal with the definition of scientific terms," Marschall told me. "Maybe operational terms, like the definition of a dynamical second. But when it comes to scientific terms, they will probably wisely leave them to common usage."

Marschall belongs to a select group: the 400 or so astronomers who were actually in the room to vote on the IAU's planethood definition in Prague. He voted in favor of the final wording, even though the process was as ugly as an eruption on Io. "Given the course of action that the IAU took, the results were inevitable," Marschall said. "I would have voted for anything that recognized Pluto as being part of a new class of objects."

His co-author, astronomer/writer Stephen Maran, noted that one of the IAU's main reasons for pushing ahead with the planet definition was to set up a procedure for naming newfound objects like Pluto - relatively small, roundish objects such as Eris (a.k.a. Xena), which is actually bigger than the one-time ninth planet.

The procedure was indeed established: Names for dwarf planets are now approved jointly by the IAU's Committee on Small Body Nomenclature (which deals with asteroids and comets) and its Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (which deals with the moons and surface features of planets). However, that procedure could have been put into effect without ruling on the broader planet-or-not definition.

"Now it appears that everybody in the United States is an opponent of the IAU definition," Maran said, with just a bit of hyperbole. "Everybody pretty much agrees that the definition is not scientifically useful. It solves that administrative issue, but it has inflamed passions and raised the point that you don't normally adjudicate scientific questions in a court of law or a legislature."

No pitchforks for Pluto
So why aren't the definition's detractors descending on Rio with firebrands and pitchforks? According to those who put down Pluto, it's because they know they're in the wrong.

"I suspect no one will press the fight about Pluto because even the partisans are reluctantly admitting to themselves that the fight is over, and planets have won," Caltech astronomer Mike Brown, who was in on the discovery of Eris and two other dwarf planets, wrote in a blog entry from Rio. (His Twitter username, Plutokiller, lets you know where he stands.)

Speaking as one who's been in touch with Pluto's partisans, however, I'd have to say the reason is because they've moved beyond the IAU, just as the IAU has moved beyond Pluto. After three years of claiming that scientific questions can't be settled by a vote, why would the dissenters force yet another vote they see as meaningless? It'd be like Martin Luther pleading for a recount in the College of Cardinals.

"The IAU is not Holy Mother Church, speaking ex cathedra," Mark Sykes, director of the Arizona-based Planetary Science Institute and an advocate for Pluto's planethood, said in an e-mail sent as I was writing up "The Case for Pluto."

"The issue continues to be debated," Sykes observed. "Scientists continue to write papers where Pluto and other such objects are referred to and treated as planets, because the science being discussed (e.g., atmospheric processes, mantle convection, differentiation) are shared with objects like the Earth."

Alan Stern, a planetary scientist at the Colorado-based Southwest Research Institute and principal investigator for NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, turned down an invitation to speak at the IAU's Rio meeting. "I'm not there because the IAU seems to have become irrelevant," he told me today via e-mail.

Pluto in perspective
In their book, Marschall and Maran detail many other decades-long planetary debates - over the status of Ceres and other asteroids, for example, or the search for the planet Vulcan (fascinating!), or the arguments over who really discovered Neptune.

The IAU's actions back in 2006 will no doubt be incorporated similarly into the broader sweep of scientific history. (And humor as well. One of Marschall's favorite quips was something he saw on a bumper sticker: "They got Pluto, Uranus is next.")

So what kind of verdict will history render on the dwarf planets?

Marschall thinks that Pluto and its pals will be put in their proper perspective as scientists learn more about how solar systems are constructed.

"In our own solar system, the debate is over how we're going to group these various objects that circle the sun," he told me. "Eventually, we're going to think that there are these eight large bodies, and then there are all these little bodies between Mars and Jupiter and scattered out in that region, and then you've got these trans-Neptunian objects and the Oort Cloud out there. People aren't going to worry too much about what a planet is. You're just going to think about these things that are part of the retinue of the sun.

"But it's way too early to start thinking about that with extrasolar planets," he added. "It's going to take a long time before the pictures of those systems are fleshed out."

Maran thinks Pluto will eventually be accepted as a kind of planet once again, although he doubts that will come about as the result of a vote.

"What's going to happen is that scientists will continue to define planets as they see them," he told me. "The people left holding the bag are above all the schoolteachers, and to some extent the publishers and the journalists, who are not supposed to put themselves up as experts. They're supposed to apply some official usage, and there is nothing official except for the IAU. ... The one political body I can think of that could have a political impact on this would be the Texas school board. If they decide that there are nine planets for the schoolbooks, that's going to have a big impact."

But even the Texas school board would probably figure out that it's better to keep quiet on the subject, unless it's to make a joke.

"If you want to think of a project that can consume endless amounts of people's time and create unbelievable degrees of bad feeling, it's for any scientific body to begin a project to create an official dictionary of scientific terms," Maran said. "No one fights over the commercial dictionaries, but let it be an official dictionary of a body of scientists, and people who could be out there discovering new worlds will be indoors arm-wrestling over the definition of one term or another."

Then Maran had another thought: "It actually might be a good way to get professors in the current environment to retire and make their slots open for younger people - just appoint them to one of these commissions."

Update for 5:30 p.m. ET Aug. 6: I've updated my reference to Titan by linking to the IAU's news release about the research. The release notes that "wind, rain, volcanoes, tectonics and other Earthlike processes all sculpt features on Titan's complex and varied surface in an environment more than 100 degrees Celsius colder on average than Antarctica." That's too cold for water to work the way it does on Earth - but Titanian methane takes the place of water in the atmosphere and as precipitation, cutting channels in the surface terrain.

The Saturnian moon's volcanoes, meanwhile, appear to spew out slurries of water ice and ammonia.

"It has not escaped our attention that ammonia, in association with methane and nitrogen, the principal species of Titan's atmosphere, closely replicates the environment at the time that life first emerged on Earth," Robert Nelson, a senior research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is quoted as saying.

More from the IAU General Assembly:


Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And reserve your copy of my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto."  You can pre-order it from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Borders.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Glad to see the scientific community getting back to the question my younger brother used to ask, "Why?".  In my opnion, "why?" is always more interesting than "what?" and usually leads to larger advancements.
It is sad that this Pluto-planet mess won't be addressed at this meeting.
these scientist of full of it. pluto will allways remain a planet in my mind and there is nothing they can do about it. GG NO RE
Stop the ins and outs, set a size for a planet, X kilometers, then thats it.  If it's bigger it's a planet, smaller a piece of whatever ?

Move on, what's outside our system ?  It's like talking about what's in the next yard, move on !
If I could afford the trip to Rio, I would be there with pitchforks. As a proud Pluto partisan and friend of many Pluto partisans worldwide, I can say with conviction and experience that not a single Pluto partisan views our position as wrong--except maybe those in Brown's head.

Brown is dead wrong in saying the fight is over and his version of planets "won." He is in complete denial that any controversy over Pluto still exists at all. This shows just how out of touch he is. The issue has not subsided; in fact, the disconnect between the IAU and the rest of the world is very clear from those who pretend the discussion is over or that only Americans object to the IAU decision, a statement that is inaccurate based on discussions among astronomy groups and courses online with participants from around the world.

The IAU should take responsibility for the highly flawed definition adopted by only four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in 2006. However, the IAU should not be viewed as the sole authority on the definition of planet. Many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU. Should they not have a say in this matter? Something does not become fact simply because a tiny group that calls itself an authority says so. It is significant that hundreds of planetary scientists led by New Horizons Principal Investgator Alan Stern immediately signed a formal petition opposing the IAU definition.

There are other venues through which a planet definition can be determined, such as last year's Great Planet Debate at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. The IAU is the "only official" group only if enough people grant it that status. If enough recognize that the IAU no longer deserves this status, having made a mess and then washed its hand of the matter, the entire organization becomes irrelevant. I love Sykes' reference to the IAU as "holy mother church." At the Great Planet Debate, he emphasized, "we need more Protestants."

Teaching the solar system as only eight large bodies with one asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter plus the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud beyond Neptune is a disservice to children and students of all ages. It blurs a critical distinction between shapeless asteroids and bodies large enough to attain hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they are shaped by their own gravity. Why should this class of objects fall into oblivion? It will be interesting to see what happens when we get data from New Horizons not just about Pluto but about other Kuiper Belt Objects it will study. This data will likely reveal clear distinctions between geologically differentiated objects like Pluto and tiny KBOs.

Why can't teachers teach the debate? Kids are fully capable of understanding that there are two competing views if we simply explain that some astronomers focus on how objects influence other objects while other astronomers focus on the makeup of these objects themselves. My nephew, now six, understood this concept at age four-and-a-half. Why not keep the term "planet" fluid knowing discoveries in this and other solar systems are being made at a very rapid rate? Here is an example of a lesson plan that teaches the controversy: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/What_Is_a_Planet.html

If the IAU will not appropriately deal with this issue, then other groups and or individuals will likely emerge to fill the void, and they likely will do a much better job.
Of course those interested in science have moved beyond the IAU.....the IAU isn't involved much in science, just silly stuff like this.  Of course Pluto is a planet.  It would be a planet under their goofy definition if it were in a closer orbit.  Moving my cell phone to the living room wouldn't make it no longer a cell phone.  Moving the tree in front of the house to a yard in Canada wouldn't make it somehow not a tree.  A tree, a cell phone, and a planet are all objects that don't magically transform into different objects based on location.  
Al I can think is that Pluto now doesn't have the same gases surrounding it as the so called planet does?? If this is so I think I can understand why they want to refer to it as a non planet or dwarf plant..If it is refered to as a Dwarf planet ...does this mean that it has the same gases as a dwarf star and will burn out one day ???Lena

[ALAN ADDS: Actually, Pluto does have a thin atmosphere (which may freeze out as nitrogen/methane frost during the long winter). The only similarity between a dwarf planet and a dwarf star is that they are both small for their class. ... and both round.]
To be honest, the IAU lost my respect and my attention when they decided that a non-majority vote was valid enough to change the textbooks.  As a historian, I can tell you that arbitrary decisions like that very rarely stand the test of time, and this one doesn't have the cultural emphasis to be one of the exceptions.  Of course Pluto is a planet, whether it be a dwarf planet or not!  To my way of thinking, they would have been better off naming some of the other "dwarf planets" as planets rather than just arbitrarily trying to remove Pluto by non-binding vote.

My 11 year old son is fascinated by this decision, and I reprint the articles on the subject I find online for him to read and take to school.  He's gotten his entire class involved in the discussion, and I think the entire group has learned several lessons from this issue.  So at least SOMETHING has come out of this!

This handful of non-planetary specialists will continue to insist they're right, much as the Catholic Church did over the rotation of the sun around the earth, until they are reluctantly, at metaphorical gunpoint, forced to retract their silly vote.

LONG LIVE PLUTO!!!!
I agree with some other the others...  Lets move on, maybe here in North America we are stubborn and love our Pluto (maybe it reminds us of Mickey Mouse).  I'm excited to see what comes out of this diolog I'm a geek and was following the Pluto debate last year, lets see what comes out of this one :)

and thanks Alan for posting on some of the comments! Your comments always make me giggle!
The problem is that everyone is trying to classify items as a "planet" but this is simply a word like "rock" or "boulder".  None of these words have precise meanings and there is overlap between them.  This is simply a linguisitics issue regarding a word that was made up long ago, not a astronomical issue.
I'm really glad they didn't originally name it Mickey.  We would probably have rioting in the streets.

This debate has gone from interesting, to insignificant, to annoying.  Let it go.
I know this article was hard for you to submit, Alan. I just want you to know.. It's okay to cry. Pluto is totally not a planet.

There are bigger moons than pluto right?
Aren't there even larger KBO's than pluto?

I mean, I still plan on reading your book, but I'm feeling convinced that they got this one right.
Sounds like the whole debate about Pluto, Xena, and what defines a planet had more to do with politics within the IAU than anything else.  This is evidenced by the outcome: two bodies within the IAU now having joint jurisdiction over the debated celestial bodies.

There are a number of logical ways to define planet-hood.  Among those are a lesser number that are scientifically useful.  And among the remaining are those tending towards greater or lesser controversy.  Unfortunately the IAU seems to have listened only to their internal debates, ignoring the larger scientific community.

The IAU has indeed seemed to have made themselves irrelevant.  
Once again, the IAU (Irresponsible Astronomical Union), will avoid the issue.  As a professional Astronomer and Science educator I am annoyed at the whole IAU definition, which is scientifically flawed, and a voting process that was a fiasco.  Of over 10,000 Astronomers, only 237 of them voted for the definition, yet it passed.  Go to my web site and see the details.  You can then print out an information sheet about this topic.
"[Pluto] would be a planet under their goofy definition if it were in a closer orbit. "

No it wouldn't. Ceres is a dwarf planet in the asteroid belt, which, because of its mass is spherical. For a time, in the 1800s it was, like Pluto, considered a planet. Then the rest of the asteroid belt was found, and Ceres was demoted. The same debate raged then about Ceres as raged about Pluto.

Pluto happened to be the biggest, closest object in the Kuiper belt for a long time, but it is just a large example of a population. It's not even the largest example.

Think of it like this: The solar system is a beach--the water's edge is the surface of the sun, and as you move away, you come across good-sized rocks representing Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars--these rocks are obvious partially because of size, partially because they're sitting on the beach alone. Then, you come across a gravel road, representing the asteroid belt. Ceres is the largest of these rocks, but you wouldn't consider it a ' planet' like the others, because it's surrounded by identical rocks. Next you pass boulders--Jupiter, Saturn Uranus and Neptune. Finally, you come to another gravel road. Pluto is one of the larger rocks on the inside edge of that road. It's part of a population of identical objects--yes, it's still interesting, yes we can use it an a great 'example' object, but it lacks the uniqueness that the major planets have.
Interesting article Alan!  I think it's time to put the Pluto dwarf planet controversy to bed and move on to more important matters.  I thought Neil deGrasse Tyson did a great job debunking Pluto as a planet.  Time for astronomers to concentrate on examining other mysteries of our solar system and looking for habitable planets around other stars.

Heck, maybe we should just toss the word "planet" out. I mean, why are Earth, Venus, and Mars lumped in the same group as Jupiter and Saturn? Perhaps it is time to get even more specific. Dwarf Planets, Terrestrial Planets, Gas Giant Planets, Ice Giant Planets.... Some planets orbit other planets, making them moons!

[ALAN ADDS: I'm with you on that one ... adjectives are our friends. The moon, Titan and Mimas are planetary bodies that happen to be orbiting other planetary bodies (and Triton was most likely a planet that was drawn into another planet's orbit)] 

Personally, I don't care what the IAU says. Pluto was and is called a planet. If it is round and orbits the sun, that is good enough for me. Of course, they can be classed differently, but they are planets none the less. If we end up with 20 or 30 planets orbiting the sun, more is better. I'm all for putting in a size constraint as well, although, there could be some definitions developed that would include a smaller body as a planet even if it doesn't fit a general definition of a planet. We haven't heard the last of this and it will likely have to be modified on a continual basis as discoveries and understanding evolves.
There is only one known KBO bigger than Pluto, and that is Eris.

The fact that Ceres and Pluto are spherical distinguishes them significantly from the other rocks around them. Those rocks are not shaped by their own gravity; while spherical Ceres and Pluto are. Ceres and Pluto, being in this state known as hydrostatic equilibrium, are likely differentiated into core, mantle and crust, just like Earth, and may have weather as well. Describing these objects as "identical" to the shapeless rocks that do not share this essential property is erroneous. We cannot look only at where an object is; we also have to take into account what it is.

If Pluto were in Mercury's orbit, it would clear that orbit--well, actually the Sun would clear its orbit, as it does for Mercury. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, it would be unable to clear that orbit and therefore would not be considered a planet. This is where the IAU definition falls apart. You cannot take the same object and make it a planet in one location and not a planet in another. Significantly, the further a planet is from its parent star, the larger an orbit it will have to clear. Therefore, the IAU definition is inherently biased against objects further from their parent stars, which have larger orbits that become harder and harder to clear with increasing distance from the star.
Why is Mercury considered a planet? After all, it's airless, and Ganymede and Titan are two moons larger than Mercury. If Mercury were somehow knocked out of its orbit and captured by Jupiter, it would cease to be a planet and become a moon. But the object wouldn't have changed a bit. Likewise, Ganymede and Titan would be planets if they were knocked loose into their own orbit.

This highlights the absurdity of the definition of a planet. If there were people living on Jupiter, would they consider a speck like Earth to be a real planet?
I am confounded by people that find it so necessary to categorize everything, yet unsurprised when those same people become peturbed by a change in the parameters of a categorical definition.

Pluto did not change.  The definitions themselves did.  Deal with it.
I've always thought that "planet", by itself, leaves way too gray area.  I would have liked to have seen something along the lines of the classic Star Trek style of classifying planets (i.e. Class M is Earth-like, etc).  You can be as specific as necessary, and can even include a type for large asteroids/minor planets/planetoids like Ceres.

By developing a system along these lines, you can categorize many different types of planets, like the ones in our own solar system, into a fairly simple to understand system.  And though we are in our infancy in discovering extra-solar planet, now is a very good time to get a system sorted out else mass confusion could result from the inevitable rush of future planet discoveries.
Attempting to redefine Pluto is just a symptom of a bigger and more dangerous problem--specifically, the takeover of astronomy by Marxists and other professional meeting attenders . . .

We already have seen the consequences of similar takeovers in the strange behaviors and customs of so-called "managed communities", where everyone must have the same neutral gray plastic mailbox with forest green trim on an earthy taupe pole located exactly 32.5 inches from the curb and surrounded by carefully manicured grass which is kept at the optimal height of 2.75 inches . . .

That there is no logical reason to force people to engage in such strange and bizarre rituals is not the motivating force of professional committee members . . .

Instead, it is simply a step along the path which ultimately leads to complete and total world domination by sneaky weasels, who seek to steal our dreams, our desires, our women, our Country Western music, and local control of our bowling leagues . . .

And they always start with the most silly things imaginable, because it is easier for them to declare victory when otherwise rational people simply relent and move on to other things that actually are important . . .

Yet, when rational people relent to the sneaky weasels, they lose some of their intrinsic power, and the next step in the grand scheme then becomes less difficult for the sneaky weasels . . .

Understanding this is much easier when you ponder some simple questions:  

What does arbitrarily changing the planetary status of Pluto actually accomplish?

Does it pave the way for a new era of space exploration?

Does it make telescopes work better?

Does it alter or enhance the laws of astrophysics?

Or does it waste huge amounts of resources in one of the most pointlessly frivolous ways possible?

And once one realizes that it pointlessly and frivolously wastes huge amounts of resources, one might want to ponder precisely which resources it squanders so needlessly . . .

The most obvious consequence is that nearly every existing textbook on science, physics, astronomy, and so forth (including philosophy, metaphysics, and astrology) suddenly contains outdated and incorrect information, hence this deceptively simple change in the planetary status of Pluto requires an immediate and massive need to rewrite every textbook currently in print, because now all of them are antiquated by design . . .

If it does nothing else, it forces a complete revision of the 12 houses of astrology, which will have the immediate consequence of rendering the Congress, President, and Supreme Court completely and totally incapable of doing anything, since without the daily guidance of horoscopes, how can anyone reasonably expect our government to function at even the most minimal levels . . .

And once you realize the first set of immediate consequences of this nonsense, it is not so difficult to begin recognizing additional sets of consequences, because the same sneaky weasels who prevailed against centuries of diligent science and patently goofy mysticism will be on every committee that is tasked with rewriting and updating scientific textbooks and associated teaching materials.  And because rational people seldom attend any committee meetings, even more silly stuff will be introduced into all our books--scientific and otherwise . . .

There already are clues, as is easily observed in some of the other comments, where for example folks now are questioning whether Mercury should be a planet when Io, Titan, Ganymede, and other obviously large orbiting entities are not . . .

In fact, why not change the entire definition of the word "planet", so that the sun is a planet and the Earth is a solar moon, as are all the other moons (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto)?

Or better yet, why not define everything to be a planet, which has the dual advantages of ending the controversy over the planetary status of Pluto and of restoring logic and order to astrology . . .

Then, instead of having books on astronomy, we can have books on planestronomy, which will create even more opportunities for all the folks who write and publish textbooks . . .

And we can rename "telescopes" to "planescopes", as well . . .

This all fits nicely with Nikola Tesla's insights into the basically unexplored electromagnetic super-dimensions that made it possible for Tesla to construct a miniature device which fits inside a regular suitcase and has the ability to destroy large buildings in a matter of hours simply by refocusing and controlling various Eigenvalue fluctuations . . .

And once you ponder all this information in a bit more detail, is it so difficult to recognize that there is a very specific reason that the sneaky weasels want to remove Pluto from the thoughts and minds of the people of this planet . . .

In other words, when focus is shifted to contemplating the words "THEY" and "THEM", as was beginning to happen several years ago, is it such a surprise that certain groups of entities would feel threatened by the possibility of being discovered in spite of their diligent efforts over the millennia to avoid being recognized and identified for what they really are--specifically, aliens from outer space?

Stated another way, is there something so profoundly important on or near Pluto that THEY and THEM do not want us to discover and to explore the ninth planet?

What is it, and why are THEY and THEM working so frantically to keep us from knowing about it?

This is what I want to know!
There is no question. Pluto is the ninth planet, Eris the tenth. It is irrelevent as to what those idiots come up with.
Yikes! Some uber-crazies on this comment thread. There is a tiny cadre of people who are obsessed with Pluto for reasons that are difficult to fathom. It's an interesting object, sure. But so are many others. Why the obsession with a definition? Is Pluto less interesting as a big dwarf planet than as a tiny planet? I don't get it.

Also, the constant repetition that only a few hundred astronomers voted out of 10,000 implies, falsely, that a vote by every astronomer would have yielded a different outcome. It would not have. The group that voted was broad enough and representative enough of the general astronomer population that it represents a valid enough sample. The vote wasn't close so the statistical uncertainty from the sample would not nearly be enough to change the outcome. How do I know? I was there. I was among the minority that voted for dwarf planets to be a subgroup of planets. I still think that is the right answer, but honestly, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. The new category accurately captures the explosive growth in our knowledge of the Kuiper Belt where there is lots of exciting science being done.

Finally the IAU bashing is really counterproductive and childish. Any astronomer who wants to can join and participate in the IAU. It is the only international body for astronomy and the only body with the authority to make these kinds of decisions. When a decision doesn't go the way you want, you don't quit and start name-calling. The mature response is to recognize that not everyone views the world the way you do and then move on.
Everyone should just relax about this.  The only reason that the IAU acted was because they are the organization tasked with giving official names to astronomical objects, and different committees are in charge of approving names for different classes of objects.  The New Horizons spacecraft will fly by Pluto in a few years, and perhaps other Kuiper Belt objects later.  Features it discovers will need names.  Now that Eris has been discovered, the first KBO bigger than Pluto, it was necessary to either call Eris a planet or call Pluto something else.  Yes, the definition is lousy, but the real purpose was to decide to which committee to assign responsibility for naming certain features.  It was really just a bureaucratic housekeeping measure.  That's been done, so that's why the IAU has no desire to revisit this issue.
Pluto Ambivalent has unfortunately distorted the facts about the vote. First of all, according to the IAU's own charter, any issue that comes up to vote, must first be displayed on their web site months before.  The resolution never appeared anyplace. As a matter of fact, the resolution to make Pluto a dwarf planet, came over night, after many of the planetary scientist left the meeting, including the head of the planetary definition committee, Owen Gingrich.  At that point, the leftover anti-pluto folks changed the whole resolution to "demote" pluto.  And yes, the outcome WOULD have been different if other Astronomers had been allowed to vote.  More Astronomers around the world, including myself, signed a petition to ignore the new definition, than those who actually voted for the new one.
Does this mean Mickey Mouse's dog, Pluto is missing? Quick, someone call the dog pond.
Steven L J Russo, Schenectady, NY (8/7, 1408)
"And yes, the outcome WOULD have been different if other Astronomers had been allowed to vote.  More Astronomers around the world, including myself, signed a petition to ignore the new definition, than those who actually voted for the new one."
So is it your premise that everyone who would have voted for the new definition did vote?  Wouldn't you have to assume the same thing of those who didn't want it?  We often see more activism in people who are not satisfied with an outcome than in those who are.  So it's not surprising to see more people signing petitions to abandon a held idea than those signing a petition to observe the held idea.  I know I'm not out circulating petitions to get people to agree that red means stop.  Though I do wish they'd actually do it.  I'm sure there's a point to be made, whether correct or not, that the majority of those who left did so because they were frustrated by the proceedings and "knew" that it couldn't come to a vote at that time because it hadn't been properly posted.  But if you want to make that point, make it.  What you put up leaves me wondering that you might just need a time out, a hug, and the assurance that we don't always get our way.  Not what I want to see out of someone purporting to be an astronomer (scientist).  Leave the pouty, breathe-holding-til-my-face-turns-blue crap to the rest of us.  Unless you're just doing it cause it's fun.  Cause, man, it is fun.
"Also, the constant repetition that only a few hundred astronomers voted out of 10,000 implies, falsely, that a vote by every astronomer would have yielded a different outcome. It would not have. The group that voted was broad enough and representative enough of the general astronomer population that it represents a valid enough sample."

How do you know that the group that voted was representative of the entire IAU membership? It just so happened that this resolution was rushed through on the last day of the conference, specifically cobbled together by one particular subgroup--the dynamicists--in violation of the IAU's own bylaws, which first require that all resolutions going to the GA floor first be vetted by the appropriate committee. Most who left did not realize that the resolution to be put on the floor was not the one the committee recommended but a different one. And of course, no electronic voting was allowed. So just what data do you have that backs up the claim that the four percent who voted are a representative sample? The answer is, there is no data. Also, many astronomer, especially planetary scientists, are not IAU members and so had no input into this decision at all. Not only the outcome but the process by which the outcome came about was flawed. This is why the decision continues to generate so much controversy.

Pluto Ambivalent, it's great that you voted for the resolution that would keep dwarf planets as a subclass of planets. If you are now in Rio and truly believe this is the right answer, why do you not have the courage to bring it up as a resolution before the GA, to finally set things right and end the controversy. If it's so minor, why is the IAU so resistant to doing it and so determined to suppress any discussion on planet definition?

"It is the only international body for astronomy and the only body with the authority to make these kinds of decisions."

This is only true if enough people consent to it. If enough decide the IAU has made poor decisions and does not deserve to be vested with such authority, then the organization will become irrelevant. Respect is earned, not given blindly because someone states he or she is an or the authority. If the IAU continues its pattern of irresponsibility and refuses to fix the mess it made, other groups will most certainly step in and take charge of this issue on their own.

When a decision doesn't go the way you want, there isn't one set reaction. One must look at how the decision came about and whether the decision makes sense and is usable. If the answer to the latter is no and to the former is that it came about through a convoluted and deceptive process, then the right thing to do is not to move on, but to work at getting that decision changed.

Chris Peterson, the IAU is the one that created the problem over classifying Eris. Since it is clearly in hydrostatic equilibrium, why not simply declare it a planet and be done with it? Should the world be compelled to accept what you admit is a lousy definition just because the IAU couldn't get its bureaucratic process right?
Ok people, lets go bak to the begaining. with Greek Mytholigy. Starting with Applo as the first planet and pluto as the last. Troy was considered a myth, until proven to be a fact. Also the fabled planet mernerva was where the astroy belt is today. True these may be myths, but even myths have a grain of truth in them. Troy is now a fact.
I can accept Pluto not being a planet only if we do away with the ridiculous term "Dwarf Planet." A Dwarf Planet is not a Planet??? This label offends logic and will only confuse school children. I'm okay with "Plutoid," but no one seems to actually be using that term.
I read Alan Stern's "Gravity Rules".  Sadly in "Gravity Rules", he does not specifically mention that perhaps spherical moons should be treated as planets.  We have binary stars everywhere, and there is no reason that the Earth could not be a binary planet.  But this is where *I* think the real problem lies, "Is society ready (or willing) to accept all the spherical moons as real planets?  If not, then I do not think Pluto should be a planet either.  I don't think you should have one without the other. -- Kevin Heider
And to think there isn't a blog like this about the 40th anniversary of Woodstock..tsk tsk...
I can't understand why Pluto is the only planet that is removed in the solar system.
Lea, the solar system is full of planets from the Sun to Neptune.  You can not place another planet between the Sun and Neptune without the system being unstable.  But you can place another Pluto-like-body in a Pluto-like-orbit.  There are no obviously dominant bodies beyond Neptune.

It is far from a perfect definition, but it (IMHO) is a step forward in our understanding of the system as a whole. -- Kevin Heider
A thing I find interesting in this debate is that Mike Brown clearly, originally, wanted Eris to be called the tenth planet and for obvious reasons.  He even posted the most telling thing I've ever read in the debate, that the word "planet" is clearly a cultural, not a scientific definition, much like the word "continent".  THEN, for reasons known only to himself, he decided to become oh so politically correct on the entire issue.  Had he stuck to his guns, there would NOT be a debate today, perhaps.  He's been debated time after time by Laurel Kornfeld on  his blog over planet nomenclature, and he's lost so many times he's now banned her from his blog.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2020560

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google