Pluto postmortem

Nick Greene, Charleston, SC — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:24:53 GMT

I don't know that it's better, but here's another one: Many Very Elaborate Mnemonics Are Just Smart Useful New Knowledge Objects. I'll have to give it some more thought and ask my readers.

Pluto postmortem

Ethan Vishniac, Baltimore MD — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:49:35 GMT

My Very Educated Mother Alma Just Served Us Nine Killer Omelets

Pluto postmortem

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:56:12 GMT

Considering that there is a real concern about Near Earth Objects, does this mean that Earth is not a planet? The orbit is demonstrably not clear, so...

Pluto's orbit crosses that of Neptune, although neither has "cleared" the other. So, we are now down to six planets by the new definition. Whoops, I forgot the cosmicly recent impacts on Jupiter. Does that mean that Jupiter has not "cleared" it's own orbit? And then there were five!

The IAU had best look to its logic and semantics very quickly. The ability of Marsden to jump in with a serial number is immaterial. He has hordes of them at his disposal.

Size (gravity potential), shape (spheroidal), orbiting a star and not a star.

Pluto postmortem

Shalom Outmezguine — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:29:23 GMT

So we have Gas Giant Planets, Terestrial Planets and Dwarf Planets. They cemented Pluto and other Dwarf planets planethood when they gave them the deffinition of Dwarf planet. Notice the word planet after dwarf. If they want to call dwarf planets asteroids then they need to change the name of there classification. For now though but my understanding we should have gained and known body as a planet that fits the new Dwarf Planet classification. That brings us up to what, 12 or 13 planets ? I say we write our politicians and have them push the IAU to finish defining what a planet is so that we have a definition that not only applies to our system but to any other system we encounter.

Pluto postmortem

Kip C, Columbia, SC — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:54:28 GMT

Pluto is or is not a planet. To qoute Garfield "BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL". These are people who appear to have way too much time on their hands. Let's worry about something that would have an "impact" on our planet and the way we live, like that errant rock or comet out there with our name on it. Let's spend this time and money(millions/billions??)to find the means to get off this rock before some lunatic starts lobbing nukes or worse around the world. Let's apply this effort to something that, in the grand scheme of things, actually means something of importance to the people of our planet

Pluto postmortem

S. Lange — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:33:56 GMT

It's sadly appropriate to this era of human history that Pluto should be downsized to being just another member of the Kuiper belt. Still, a rose is a rose is a rose . . .

Pluto postmortem

Magnum Serpentine, San Francisco CA — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:06:32 GMT

How can you justify this change when there were only 424 members (Out of 9000) left when the vote was taken? I call this dishonest in my books and the IAU just lost all respect I had once given it.

Pluto postmortem

EG — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:55:54 GMT

*sniff*
I'll always remember you Pluto, though you were always quite distant to me. You were more than just a planet; you were Mickey Mouse's best friend.

Pluto postmortem

David Fecich, North Canton, Ohio — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:59:09 GMT

It always seemed like the first eight planets were formed in the same orbital plane, and thus out of the same primordial cloud. Pluto was always an exception to that. I'm surprised the astronomers did not take that into consideration when making a definition about our solar system.

Pluto postmortem

jw4 — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:47:05 GMT

sorry, but our solar system contains hundreds, thousands, or more, of plantary sized objects....i can just can't see a 'star trek' episode where they go into orbit around something a couple of thousand miles across and say 'let's beam down to this non planet'.. if it is big and round---it is a planet

Pluto postmortem

Don Sharon, San Antonio, Texas — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:16:49 GMT

Well, why not new categories such as gaseous planets, rocky planets, inhabitable planets (human lifeforms, that is), moonless planets, planets with too many moons, planets with circular orbits, planets with ellipitical orbits, planets with long solar orbits, planets with short solar orbits. Where do you draw the line for nomenclature?

Pluto postmortem

Bryan Wayne, Dallas, Texas — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:17:48 GMT

Headline:

Physically Challenged Advocates Ask California Judge to Toss "Dwarf" Status for Pluto

Pluto postmortem

steve — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:23:49 GMT

scientists can call pluto what ever they like. As far as I'm concerned, its a planet and always will be. As far as the public accepting the descision, remember that people still say that the sun rises and sets even though everyone knows that it's the earth turning. I know that I didn't elect the IAU to do anything and don't really care what they say.

Pluto postmortem

Andy. Boulder, Co — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:46:50 GMT

How about:
Most Versions Eventually Mention All Jumbo Spheres Until Nearing King-size Orbits.

I don't like the hyphen, but it's the best I can do right now

Pluto postmortem

Alli, Las Vegas — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:08:48 GMT

Mega Vaulting Engine Ares Just Sent Up NASA's King Orion

Pluto postmortem

Steve - Grand Rapids, MI — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:31:10 GMT

So far, the arguments I have heard against the "demotion" of Pluto have no scientific basis. Science is not static. It grows and expands as our knowledge grows. As we learn more about the universe around us, we have to let go of old ideas that were incorrect and embrace new ones.

One of the biggest arguments I've heard is that this demotion diminishings Clyde Tombaugh's discovery. I can think of little that could be farther from the truth. Clyde Tombaugh didn't discover the ninth planet. He discovered the first of an entirely new type of solar system object! He just didn't know it at the time.

That feat wasn't repeated for over sixty years! Today we call these objects "KBOs" or Kuiper Belt Objects. His memory should be honored as the first to discover a KBO.

I wonder what teachers of centuries past would think of our periodic table of elements? Once it was thought there were four basic elements, wind, earth, water and fire. Today there are hundreds of known elements on the periodic table, and none of those original four made the cut.

Pluto postmortem

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:14:45 GMT

Fine-tuned, eh? Talk about CYA... Yeah, a real great definition that leave out exoplanets, free floating planets, and those others thrown out of a normal orbit by orbital migration (and/or other chance encounters)... NOT! They've only proved that scientists can be both bias and dead wrong!

So what would be wrong with a spherical-ish body that does not orbit another planet (which would make it a moon). Then and ONLY then can you subcategorize and say rocky, Jovian, ice, dwarf planet - which I wouldn't mind! Lets not forget the blunder about neglecting the proper deffinition of a moon. I am certainly not in favor of promoting moons to planets but it two bodies orbit a "point in space" rather than one orbiting the other, than you have a double planet. End of story! It may be easy enough to forget Charon and Pluto, but if Venus and Earth orbited a point in space I certainly hope they'd call it a double planet.

Pluto postmortem

Alex von Krzesinski, Calgary, Alberta, Canada — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:21:25 GMT

This is really very simple, any object having sufficient mass to achieve a spherical(rotational oblation notwithstanding) shape that orbits a star and is not in orbit around another non-stellar object is a planet. Pluto and Charon appear to revolve around a common centre of mass (Trojan orbit), this makes them a double planet. Having cleared its neighbourhood only means that nothing else shares it's specific orbit. Being struck by an object from outside its orbit does not indicate failure to clear.

Pluto postmortem

Peter Lugara, Kenilworth, NJ — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:32:58 GMT

I believe that it is important for science to adjust as new information becomes available. We now know that Pluto is far smaller than originally believed. Armed with that information and knowing that Pluto revolves around the Sun like a comet, instead of like the other planets, it makes perfect sense to reclassify it. If science didn't change as new information became available, we would still believe that the Earth is the center of our solar system.

Pluto postmortem

Elizabeth Ann Braun, Indianapolis, IN — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:47:47 GMT

Decades ago my grandmother asked me what we learned in school that day. I told her that our solar system had 9 planets. She corrected me and said, no, it has 8. I recounted them for her. She pensively looked at me and said: "We have 9 planets? When did we get 9 planets?" She did not believe the name "Pluto", either. I now realize she was greatly ahead of her time. Remember: Grandmas are always right.

Pluto postmortem

Laurel Kornfeld, Highland Park, New Jersey — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:37:41 GMT

Don't be so sure Pluto won't be returned to its place as one of the nine planets orbiting our sun. The IAU process for coming up with this definition was flawed and highly political. 400 out of 10,000 people voting in haste on the last day of the conference when most participants had already left hardly equals a consensus. The planet "definition" appears to have been created specifically to exclude Pluto. Pluto orbits the sun, has three moons, and has an atmosphere, all of which make it a planet. What would make more sense is dividing the planets into subcategories such as terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars); gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), and Kuiper Belt Objects (Pluto, UB313, and other large similar objects).

Pluto postmortem

a p. garcia — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:55:53 GMT

Remember, Neil De Grasse Tyson is probally lobbying to leave Pluto as a non-planet. Too bad, even Xena lost it name along with Gabrielle

Pluto postmortem

Brad, St. Louis, MO — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:46:24 GMT

I subscribe to the KISS philosophy - Keep It Simple, Scientists! Look, if it's big enough to have enough wieght to force itself into a sphere and it orbits a star, it's a planet. Clear the orbital path? If that's the definition, I know of about 100 million dinosaurs that would testify that Earth isn't a planet either.
Solar systems with two or more stars that orbit each other are called double-star systems, etc. The don't call one of the stars a dwarf star...
Plain and simple, this is just an attempt to get their names in the paper and possibly be granted tenure at their local community college. It's so pathetic, it's comical.

Pluto postmortem

Art Skoog, Keene, NH — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:42:13 GMT

I have heard nothing about moons. Now I suppose we will have to reclassify them too. Jupiter has many, big ones, little ones, some round, some not. Some moons are not even round and some have retrograde orbits. Saturn's moons are still in the rings. what now?

Pluto postmortem

Mint — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:48:55 GMT

For those who are fond of Pluto, Pluto will always be a planet for them. For those who wishes for it's demotion, they can stick with the IAU's definition. Although it's not like when people discovered the earth was round and not flat because there was geographical evidence proving it. This topics is all in human definition of what a planet is.

Pluto postmortem

Andy Lawrence, Edinburgh, Scotland — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:56:32 GMT

I was there in Prague and voted for resolutions 5a and 5b, because they were at least a reasonable conclusion to an increasingly sterile debate. The definition makes no difference to the known facts about the solar system, and does not require any theories to be re-written. What matters is the exciting new discoveries of more and more bodies at the edge of the solar system. Scientifically, the "definition" of Pluto will fade into irrelevance. For most of us I think, the vote was a vote to get on with some real work now please.

How to take such decisions is of course a tricky business. It ain't obvious. But what about this "only 4% of astronomers" stuff ? The vote was passed by an overwhelming majority. Those who know some statistics might like to work out the probability that the majority of astronomers were actually against the resolution, when a random sample of 1 in 20 voted by about twenty to one in favour...

Pluto postmortem

Laurel Kornfeld, Highland Park, NJ — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:32:47 GMT

That four percent minority who voted to demote Pluto are not representative of the majority of IAU members or professional astronomers around the world. How do you substantiate that claim? Most who voted in Prague are not even planetary scientists. Electronic voting was not allowed, meaning anyone not in the room couldn't vote. The sample you had was not representative or random. It was heavily dominated by dynamicists. Within only a few days, an equal number of planetary scientists signed a petition saying they will not use the new planet definition and reject the decision. In the six months since the vote, some who originally supported it have changed their minds, and Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of the New Horizons mission to Pluto and one of the leading authorities on Pluto in the world, plans to convene a conference of 1,000 astronomers later this year to reopen this issue. This vote is not leading to "getting on" with other issues--instead it has opened a Pandora's box and only intensified this debate. How about the IAU change its policy and allow Internet or email voting in 2009? Let's see how the results go then. That's not to mention that a lot of astronomers who've never attended IAU General Assemblies before now are outraged and plan to show up in person in 2009. This decision will not stand.

Pluto postmortem

D.Krishna Warrier, Trivandrum, India. — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:57:30 GMT

The whole contervorsy seems trivial. Why not call all natural bodies orbiting the Sun and endowed with enough gravity to make them spherical "Planets". Why worry about the number of such bodies? The object of language is to convey meaning. "A rose by another name" etc. Clearing its obit of other debris is not a very easy criterion. So many bodies cross the orbit of the Earth after all. Of course somebody has to judge these things; and I am nobody to argue with the IAU.