Pluto's pros and cons

Martin, Orlando — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:25:56 GMT

I have to say that I never understood what all the fuss is about. As you quoted Dr. Tyson saying, "There was never any science in that question." Some people have gotten very emotional over this issue.

Pluto's pros and cons

PM, Atlanta GA — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:07:53 GMT

Science isn't about consensus. Science isn't about putting one's foot down and making covenants to decide facts. That's not even science; just idiocy. Science is about what IS. Science is the facts. Despite all the arguing back and forth, what Pluto actually IS hasn't changed one bit. Not one atom.

And yet we stand here doing our best to label and name and classify something no human will likely ever see up close, an object that has existed since before humans walked the earth and will continue to exist long after we're gone, and even after the Sun dies.

The names and labels and planetary charts mean nothing, and as Dr. Tyson says, they tell us nothing about the science and nothing about what Pluto IS.

I find it appalling that the science is being impacted by this desire to keep kids happy, to let them have their nine planets and not eight, because it's somehow unfair to stop counting something. That sort of approach risks rendering astronomy little different from a child's coloring book that displays a drawing of some ducks and asks whether there are three or four. Hurry, lives are at stake. Three or four ducks?

What IS out there in the universe is so much more interesting and important than the name or classification of one object. We're not teaching that to the children or ourselves, even, and it's a horrible mistake.

In a few years, I will be no longer able to see. One of the memories I'll always cherish was the time I, a city boy, went out into the country and looked up and saw the Milky Way for my very first time. I was astonished by what was no longer hidden by all the city lights. I had no concept for what I was seeing and I was reduced to abject tears just at the beauty of it. I still cry thinking about that night. The beauty and wonder of the universe is what we should be teaching to everyone.

Pluto's pros and cons

Laurel Kornfeld — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:32:40 GMT

First, Tyson is way off about the reason for people's affection for Pluto. It is NOT the dog. It never was the dog. Just because Tyson--an astrophysicist, not a planetary scientist--is baffled by people's affinity for Pluto doesn't mean he can pull any answer out of a hat and claim it to be the reason.

Most Pluto supporters are astronomy enthusiasts with a strong interest in the solar system. They view the solar system as a "family," and see a round object that looks exactly like a planet and find it bizarre that anyone would categorize it as something else.

Pluto as a planet is not in a category of one. There are several of these smaller planets that need to be distinguished from asteroids because their makeup is exactly like that of planets in that they are in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium. This means they have enough self gravity to pull themselves into a round shape, which makes them geologically differentiated like the larger planets and unlike shapeless asteroids and comets. Tyson never discusses hydrostatic equilibrium and blurs this crucial distinction by lumping Pluto and other small Kuiper Belt planets with comets and asteroids.

Inclusion of Pluto--and Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris--is not being advocated, as PM says, to keep kids happy. In fact, it is the dynamicists--professional astronomers--who have an illogical problem with there being what they view as "too many planets in the solar system." What's wrong is to stop counting categories of planets at two--terrestrials and gas giants--when the reality is there is a third category of planets, the ice dwarfs, to which these smaller round objects belong.

Support for Pluto's planethood is not limited to Americans. I have personally received emails from around the world opposing Pluto's demotion, and there are Internet groups worldwide committed to seeing Pluto reinstated. Many songs and poems opposing the demotion were written by people other than Americans.

Weintraub's book is by far the more scientific of the two, and he's right that the controversy isn't over. Personally, I think my next vacation just might be to Rancho Hidalgo.

Pluto's pros and cons

W. Sitze, Las Cruces, NM — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:36:47 GMT

A video of the Great Planet Debate can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/index.php, with Tyson and Dr. Mark Sykes, of the Planetary Science Institute, as debaters, and NPRs Ira Flatow as moderator.

Clyde's twin 16 inch (nominal) was moved once before when he moved his home from the center of Las Cruces to the outskirts where there was less light pollution. We believe that it will be well used at Rancho Hidalgo.

Pluto's pros and cons

Dominic — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:54:15 GMT

Pluto is in space..right. It really does not make a whole a lot of sense to be concerned with naming objects in space. Earth, yes. Earth is planet we lived on. But if the universe is teeming with life and if this life became "intelligent", then it's probably safe to say that they have a different name for planet and so on. Just think of all the different names and classifications of space objects that could be in use at this very moment. Just seems a little odd to focus on whether Pluto is a planet when they had to keep changing the defintion of a planet to exclude Pluto. All that hard work should tell you something about what is really out there. These defintions and classifications are going to change time and time again.

Pluto's pros and cons

Stephen, Kingston, Jamaica — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:03:56 GMT

The problem with the 2006 pluto debate and the "demotion" of Pluto, is that it never got to the real point. The question of Pluto's planethood was never a scientific issue. Rather it was a question of public relations, and educating the public about the new understanding of our solar system. The scientists who study the planets had already moved beyond any need to define the eight or nine planets into one category, because as Tyson correctly showed in 2000, they already found it more useful scientifically to use more refined categories: rocky planets, gas giants, etc.

The question is how to enhance understanding of the solar system, and increase interest among people who don't study planets for a living, and have other things to think about, but nevertheless are interested in what is out there. For those of us in this category, to say something is a planet is to say it is an interesting world worth knowing more about, while to say something is not a planet is to say it is a boring rock or iceball in space. If the IAU had understood this, they would have kept calling Pluto a planet, called Eris the 10th planet, maybe set Pluto-sized as the lower limit for planethood. Then when they got attention for having found the 10th planet, begun to explain what is really out there and how interesting it really is. What the debate is, is just a wasted opportunity.

Pluto's pros and cons

Emma Morrow, Urbana, IL — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:54:18 GMT

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a media whore. He stirred up this controversy for his own career. Reminds me of Zahi Hawass, the head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities. You can't buy a postcard of the Great pyramid these days without his face somewhere on it.

Pluto's pros and cons

Michael Wood — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:14:20 GMT

Tyson is just another example that any scientist, no matter how celebrated, can be wrong. His irrational dislike of Pluto is just icing on the cake. Pluto was never about the dog....

Pluto's pros and cons

Darrell Messbarger — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:37:23 GMT

I can't believe that this issue is still getting attention.

Pluto's pros and cons

Dave, Albuquerque, NM — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:48:22 GMT

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a "dwarf plant" still a planet in the same fashion that a "blue car" is still a car? I would like to think that profesisonal astronomers would know the difference between an adjective and a noun.

Pluto's pros and cons

Seth Deitch — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:59:03 GMT

I have the distinct impression that the reclassification (not *demotion*) of Pluto was because a lot of people, mostly outside of astronomy were uncomfortable with the idea that after the discovery of Eris the number of planets in the solar system was likely to skyrocket well beyond the traditional nine to maybe a hundred or so. If that's the case, then it was a silly reason. Apparently a lot of people give enough cultural weight to the number of planets for it to matter.

Pluto's pros and cons

Bill Stewart, Cape Coral, FL — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:14:36 GMT

"Consensus" has no place in true science. The "consensus" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It took Copernicus to refute that. The "consensus" was that the sky never changed. Tycho Brahe refuted that. "Consensus" is what Al Gore calls global warming. But the consensus then and now are all wrong. Citing a "consensus" as a proof of anything means exactly zip.

Pluto's pros and cons

hugh mcknight — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:33:46 GMT

In Pluto's favor,
power politics does not belong in science.

And that is all the decision amounted to; it was shameful.

Pluto's pros and cons

Robbie Withey, New Bern, NC — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:36:35 GMT

i was a little disappointed myself on pluto's "demotion". perhaps the iau should take a page from star trek on planet classifications such as: m class or y class. they could use something like that for size,composition,terrestrial,gaseous,distance from parent star. names could be given for individual planets for recognition and study purposes. people have been giving names to anything and everything since our species began to speak. what's the problem with naming cosmic objects as well?

Pluto's pros and cons

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:02:20 GMT

I think one reason for the noise is education. What do we tell kids (please read "aspiring young scientists") about Pluto. Once they get older it won't particularly matter, but before they have a basic understanding ... Traditionally it's been a planet and the "demotion" seems rather capricious. Do we go with the flavor of the day and wait for the flavor to change tomorrow? Or is that a little too confusing for second graders?

On the other end, what does it matter. One big question, not even addressed by a designation as a planet, is whether or not it's habitable. If that's not the question then the next practicle consideration is mining it. Does it matter whether it's a planet, super planet, sub planet or just a rock in space? I guess it would for licensing purposes. "I'm sorry, sir, your class 3B license only permits you to mine asteroids. I'm going to have to ticket you and confiscate your equipment."

The question does, evidently, sell books.

Pluto's pros and cons

RH — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:14:30 GMT

All of the arrogant, egotistical pontification from these scientists absolutely sickens me. I am completely ashamed of the current state of humanity's exploratory endeavours. All of the sciences could do with a strong dose of humility.

Pluto's pros and cons

Bill, Gibsonton, FL — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:28:58 GMT

Okay. If you had a Cat, and it had Kittens in your oven, you wouldn’t call them Biscuits would you?

Pluto's pros and cons

Al Adab, Prescott, AZ — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:56:03 GMT

What about Persephone? Isn't she due a "body"?

Pluto's pros and cons

a p garcia — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:35:17 GMT

I disagree with David Weintraub, if concensus were trully the issue EARTH WOULD STILL BE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE LIKE THE SCIENTIST OF THE 16 BELIEVED.

Pluto's pros and cons

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:38:43 GMT

Was there ever a definition agreed upon for what is a planet? Does mass or distance of orbit amount for anything? I guess the problem with including Pluto is that many objects in the Kuiper Belt are very similar to Pluto. Either we have it as a planet for historical reasons or we have a whole bunch more planets.

Pluto's pros and cons

Daniel, Traverse City, Mi — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:00:51 GMT

Planet means "wanderer" so if it is an object that "wanders" against the back drop of the stars as seen by the naked eye and persists for years then it is a planet. Not that I particularly like such a definition but at least it would accurately represent why the ancients first coined the term. Then we can stop fighting and come up with scientific classifications for solar system based objects.

Pluto's pros and cons

R.S. Trujillo — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:09:55 GMT

I attended New Mexico State University, and took an Astonomy Class, the first thing they expected you to know is who discovered PLUTO. Clyde Tombaugh!

I was fortunate to meet Mr. Tambaugh and even got an autograph that hangs in my office.

What a shame that the Science community snubbed Pluto.

Oh well at least Mr. Tombaugh can rest in peace knowing his discovery still means a lot to a lot of people.

Pluto's pros and cons

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:33:18 GMT

Daniel, Traverse City, MI (1/28, 1600)
The problems with that are
1) So few objects are visible with the naked eye, some of what we now recognize as planets wouldn't fit. And this doesn't allow for extra-Solar planets.
2) Many of what we call planets don't persist for years. If recurrance counts, like for Mercury, then would comets be planets?
Getting an exacting definition is difficult, and if you want it to be scientific it has to be exacting. Even if you can figure out what you want a criterion to be based on determining when it's met is a judgement call. How round is round enough and what effect does planetary spin have on this? How swept does it's orbit have to be and how do we measure that, particularly when some objects that cross it's orbit may have substantially different orbit periods.
Of course, agreeing on what the criteria should be based on has to come before determining threshold values, then the problem becomes measurement.
It's not simple and deserves some bickering.

Pluto's pros and cons

Ragtatter, Dayton Ohio — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:37:55 GMT

I must admit, the whole matter seems silly to me. Pluto's basic nature and composition doesn't change because we decide to call it something else. And why is there so much argument over what is a planet and what isn't?

We don't debate about when a particle stops being a speck of dust and starts being a pebble. A very small star is still called a "star". We don't demote them for being small. There was a lot of fear a while back about the LHC creating microscopic black holes--being tiny didn't make us not think of them not black holes.

This isn't science. It's not even BAD science. It's just semantics that's distracting people from more valid scientific pursuits. I, for one, would like some more pictures of Mimas.

Pluto's pros and cons

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:11:36 GMT

But we did think of them as not gravity wells.

Pluto's pros and cons

CJE HBG PA — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:30:33 GMT

Alan, if you remember back, we had one person from the IAU say that "it was late... we were tired and just voted to get it out of the way"! Talk about a misstep! I absolutely loved the logic of the multi-year IAU study that round bodies should be planets and only a moon if the center of axis was inside the larger body unlike Pluto and Charon. Science made a great loss that could have inspired people to know there were now 12 or more planets but instead chose to uncharitaristically embrace the ego of those who think Pluto just another Kuiper belt object like the trillion others the size of a snowball. Ug... always a painful topic considering what was lost! Heck, maybe we'd even have a probe heading to Ceres if they did their job right?

[ALAN ADDS: Thanks, Chris ... the good news is that there *is* a probe heading to Ceres, known as the Dawn mission. It'll go to Vesta first, and should arrive at Ceres just about the time New Horizons arrives at Pluto. I have more news about Pluto to come, so stay tuned!]

Pluto's pros and cons

Michel E. de la Garrigue Anchorage,AK — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:37:56 GMT

Hello; I would like to see and read more about space, stars, etc. Thanks Michel

Pluto's pros and cons

Alonso Aragon — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 03:41:12 GMT

This is one more example of why any so called scientific discoveries can not be taken serious all the time. When I was going to elementary school I was taught Pluto is a planet. What do I tell my children and grandchildren now.? that our scientists were wrong once again????
That Pluto is nothing?

[ALAN ADDS: No, there's no need to say "Pluto is nothing." This is what I don't like about the "Pluto Is Not a Planet" decision. I'll have more on this as time goes on. The easiest thing to say is, OK, Pluto is a small kind of planet, and we're finding out that there are a number of other objects like Pluto out at the very edge of the solar system. The eight biggest planets in the solar system may be a lot bigger than Pluto, but Pluto is still interesting ... and in fact we're finding more worlds out there that are also interesting in their own right. When your children and grandchildren grow up, they will probably find some more surprises out there! I hope to have more to report on this later... Keep the faith, Alonso!]

Pluto's pros and cons

CJE — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:19:30 GMT

Aw... ha-ha!... Now I remember my grip... The clearing your "OWN" orbit clause to be considered a planet. ...which nicely rules out captured free-floating planets 1000s of AU away um... EVEN IF THEY'RE THE SIZE OF JUPITER :)! Sorry... a definitely peeve! :) Hey... at least we proved "scientists" aren't infallible :)!

Pluto's pros and cons

Angelo Cmapanella , Columbus, OH — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:31:07 GMT

It's a matter of semantics. What do you call a thing when there is no unifying terminology available to induce the name? The computer discipline is an outstanding example of new terms such as "floppy disk" and "memory stick" which would have little or no cognizence a century previous. And so it is with the more faint solar satellites so recently recognized. There, I've DONE IT! I have invented a new superior term; the compound noun "solar satellite". You see, it was not so hard. Future generations might contract it to "solarsat".

Now we can define subclasses sucm as planets pseudoplanets, etc.

I'm can't recall what motivated the audacious demotion of Pluto... Whether the author did not like its apparent gassy composition, or that it's not very synchronous like the other bigger solarsats, I can't say.

Pluto's pros and cons

Yael Dragwyla, Seattle, WA — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:48:16 GMT

Consensus *does* have something to do with this controversy. It doesn't apply to matters of fact (e.g., whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice-versa), but does apply to matters of procedure and other aspects of the social dynamics of science and everything else we do, such as how we name and categorize things. That just 4% of the IAU decided to "re-categorize" Pluto and the other KBOs, without giving the other 96% a chance to vote, was disgraceful, the sort of guerilla operation that may have an acceptable place in military situations, but not social ones. Then there's the matter of the stupid definition they gave for "true planet," which included, "has cleared its orbit." Guess what? There are only two planets in the Solar System that have "cleared their orbits": Mercury and Venus. *All* the others have moons and/or Trojan-point space junk in their orbits, which implies that all the bodies from Earth outward are "dwarf planets" -- including Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Nice going, kids. That the media went along with this farce, and shut out anyone who had legitimate objections to this travesty of scientific procedure, isn't surprising; the media love controversies, because they sell their sponsors' products. That's what this was, a vast media circus for no particularly good reason, an absolutely disgusting spectacle. Let's hope this coming Summer's vote by the rest of the IAU on this issue restores some sanity to science.

[ALAN ADDS: What I'm hearing is that the IAU meeting coming up in Rio won't do anything further on the planet-definition issue ... no one wants to go back into the mud on this one. Pretty much everyone agrees the issue was handled badly last time around, even those who are in agreement with the outcome. If there is any substantial chance that further action will be taken at the general assembly, I'd love to hear about it.]

Pluto's pros and cons

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:40:26 GMT

Yael Dragwyla (2/1, 2148)
You’re definitely not the only person to hold your opinion. Just the one I’ve most recently read. FYI: The IAU 26th General Assembly Resolution 5 “Definition of a Planet in the Solar System” includes "[H]as cleared the neighborhood around it's orbit." The footnotes of this resolution define the eight planets. (http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf) It may be a stupid definition. That’s certainly been an item of discussion. But to say that what the definition establishes as a planet isn’t a planet by that definition indicates to me that you just have a stupid interpretation of the definition. To help with that here are a couple of excerpts from their Q&A sections.
“In addition a ‘planet’ orbits in a clear path around the Sun – there are no other bodies in its path that it must sweep up as it goes around the Sun.”
and
“In addition a planet orbits in a clear path around the Sun. If any object ventures near the orbit of a planet, it will either collide with the planet, and thereby be accreted, or be ejected into another orbit.”
Both of these have “orbit” indicating some degree of proximity. Not the entire orbital path of a planet, but the part of the path it’s occupying. So that if we shrunk the asteroid belt down to Earth distance from the sun and then turned it 90 degrees so that it intersected our orbital path in two places, once one hole was punched in the belt our orbit would be cleared. That one hole would meet us as we went by. It doesn’t matter that there’s a bunch of stuff that never approaches us. Moons that don’t hit the planets they orbit, and are therefore moons, seem to be fine. LaGrangians that stay at their respective LaGrange Points seem to be fine.
Obviously one of two possibilities is true. Either they’re unaware of moons and LaGrange Point Objects and if you will just write and inform them they will rush to change the stupid definition.
-- OR --
They’re already aware of those things and consider objects in a gravitational lock to be cleared. So it really seems to come down to whether or not an astronomical society has heard of the moon.

Pluto's pros and cons

Eldridge, HBG PA — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:11:55 GMT

Alan, I guess that's what's disapointing ontop of things. When the IAU made their decision, the head of the group (a woman if I remember right), said that is was a good decision. Hey... if they made a mistake based on voting and the time alotted to it and the ultimate decision arrived at, it's only best to admit it and change it... not just gloss over it as if no one will notice. Scientists are supposed to be beyond that... And the proper label for things is critical! I really feel that the proper/intuitive categorization of round bodies as planets, makes "universal" sense and would have made each new successive discovery FAR MORE monumental, than "oh... we found another dwarf... not so planet today!" Right? A planet is round! and is a definite and diffinitive point at which to differenciate space rocks from major bodies! If there turns out to be 60 such planets who cares? The more the better! Just because the bulk would be small out in the outer solar system, shouldn't take away from their significance!

Pluto's pros and cons

Raymond Belanger Las Vegas, nevada — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:05:15 GMT

Pluto IS A PLANET, It is round and it orbits the SUN. So it is a round satellite that orbits the Sun, not a "rock" that orbits the sun.Even Venus, which obviously didn't come into existance at the same time as Mercury, and Earth in the begining of our solar system,is a planet.