In defense of dwarf planets

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:11:00 GMT

I am obviously very pleased to see the Pluto debate continuing. I am by no means sentimental about having nine planets nor do I even agree with the 800 million dollar flyby mission heading to Pluto that could have been directed towards a much more useful Europa mission. It is just that the IAU is dead wrong and they know it. The clearing of an orbit might imply a proto planet. But a proto planet to me is one who's surface is still liquified from all the impacts of the planet forming process. You just cannot justify that criterion now - 4 billion years later. One study suggested that we may have another Jovian sized world orbiting 50,000 AU from the sun (probably a captured free-floater). Is that to be called a "dwarf" just because it will never be able to clear an orbit it only is able to transgress every 20,000 years? The potential for planets to be thrown into new and different orbits which it hasn't had time to clear is also a point to be made.

In defense of dwarf planets

Adam, Brisbane, Queensland — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:36:38 GMT

I respectfully disagree on the Europa orbiter - a couple of months data before the radiation kills it isn't worth it - but Chris is quite right about the inanity of the IAU's ex cathedra decision-making. Surely something as important as defining 'planet' should require a vote by 90% of the membership to be worth ratifying.

Adam

In defense of dwarf planets

Ray Bilodeau, Worcester, MA — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:11:47 GMT

The "cleaned-out neighborhood" test is patently absurd, since the Earth and moon still are cleaning out their neighborhoods. When does a planet have a sufficiently clean neighborhood to qualify? No craters for 10 million years?

In defense of dwarf planets

Ron Linthicum, Brooklyn, NY — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:20:05 GMT

I agree with Chris Eldridge (9-15-06)where I had also posted to the NY Post that printed my view regarding Plutos status(8-25-06 p.11).With its oblong orbit around the sun, that does not take into consideration that our universe is billions of years in existance, and there are no ways yet to know what has, or will happen, millions and billions of years to come. Nor even the "moons" that orbit it.

In defense of dwarf planets

Tim Benzadrine, Greenville NH — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:40:17 GMT

Frankly I think it's a stupid idea. Pluto is a planet, like it or not. Yanking it out and deciding it's on the same plane as Ceres, Triton and Vesta makes me just shake my head. Something tells me that a smallish branch of the Astronomer's Union is trying to pull a fast one on their colleagues and the general public as well. I don't buy it. It's like the varied Hall of Fame voters, the Rock Hall puts in Eric Clapton 55 times but leaves out the Spinners. Sure guys you go ahead and you do that. But don't think it makes you into something yer not. Pluto's a planet and that's--that. Poor Clyde Tombaugh must be rolling in his grave.

In defense of dwarf planets

David, Quebec City, Canada — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 02:33:01 GMT

I quite agree with the way the Pluto debate has been handled since the IAU decision. There are several well illustrated problems with bunching Pluto along with the rest of the 8 planets in the solar system.

I think Clyde Tombaugh, like any scientist, would agree with the decision, a fact that his widow already acknowledged publicly.

In defense of dwarf planets

a p garcia — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:56:58 GMT

Blame Neil de Grasse Tyson & the IAU for this problem. Pluto and maybe all planets execpt for maybe Jupiter have not cleared their space.You could say pluto and its moon are like Earth and its moon, both could be called a double planet system.

In defense of dwarf planets

Rick Williams, Fayetteville, TN — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:43:48 GMT

I believe that in the 1960's, "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry solved the planet definition problem by defining numerous "clases" of planets. We learned that Earth was a "Class M" planet, while a "Class D" planet was "essentially a great rock in space". Such a system of defining various classes of planetary objects would be much more helpful than simply arguing about the definition of a single term - 'planet'.

In defense of dwarf planets

GC, NYC — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:06:26 GMT

In any professional decision making group I've ever been in, we set up rules precisely so we could avoid finding ourselves with our foots in our mouths. For instance, taking only a "straw vote" to get an idea how folks felt. Or, even if that went well, waiting until the next time we met, because we knew somebody would always find a flaw in what appeared sound. And so on. This never meant that we were not making progress during the whole process, just that we were trying to establish some checks and balances that could lead to an end result with integrity. My 10 year old daughter had to write a report on this last week and I was appalled at what appeared to be a hasty turn of events. And as a layman to astronomy I'm left wondering if the folks who voted even read what they were voting on.

In defense of dwarf planets

Bo McIlvain, Malvern, PA — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:19:05 GMT

Once you start voting on issues, you're engaging in politics, not science. The notion that a scientist should need to place arbitrary classifications on continuously distributed phenomena like astronomical body size is silly. All this debate shows is that there are no simple distinctions between things we call planets. Even the concept of spherical bodies is only approximate. How round does it have to be? The earth isn't perfectly spherical, nor is it hydrodynamically static. Equilibrium implies that restoring forces resist perturbations, and that's true even if the object is shaped like a cube. If the earth were in perfect hydrodynamic equilibrium, we'd have no mountains - in fact, there would only be water at the surface, no land at all, and yet I don't think anyone in this debate would dispute the earth's designation as a planet. Ambiguity like that is what you get when you try to apply concepts which are only meaningful to fluids (hydrodynamics) to solids.

It would be nice if scientists could resist engaging in politics and calling it science, but as the problems Larry Summers had at Harvard indicate, that's not going to happen soon.

In defense of dwarf planets

Randy Muller, Roseville, CA — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 16:11:42 GMT

By any definition, a planet should be in some sense a major body of the solar system. Pluto simply doesn't fit any such reasonable definition.

Michael Brown, the discoverer of the dwarf planet formerly known as Xena has this to say:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/eightplanets/

In defense of dwarf planets

Des Emery — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:11:59 GMT

Definitions (by definition) must accurately describe what is being defined. Everything that orbits a star can be lumped into one category. i.e., planetary. That includes Pluto. But refining the category results in different kinds of planets, and other objects, and that includes Pluto also. Using only one of many definitions does a disservice to both user and used when multiple refinings can separate true planets from all the other bodies in orbit.

In defense of dwarf planets

Doug Reiss Memphis, TN — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:47:53 GMT

I believe that Neptune was discovered by Sir William Herschel in the 19th century on the basis of calculations that could not account for a disturbance, or perturbation in the orbit any other way than by postulating the existence of another planet that caused the aberration in its orbit. In a similar way, Pluto was discovered by Percival Lowell in the 1920's. Rather than clearing out a neighborhood, why doesn't the IAU use the criterion of sufficient mass and influence to cause a regular, observable and calculable difference in a planet's orbit as the basis for planethood?

In defense of dwarf planets

James Buchanan — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:56:04 GMT

"Cleaned out the neighborhood" is a patently arbitrary definition which means whatever the IAU wants it to mean. It has no definitive cut off. There are 50,000+ asteroids SHARING Jupiter's orbit, not cross, but in the same orbit. Does this not count as uncleared? Neptune has a growing number of known trojan asteroids as well captured from the Kuiper. The inner asteroid belt has hundreds of members which cross Earth's orbit, and lets not even think about the number that cross Mars's.

The clearing of the neighborhood is the IAU's way of capping the number of planets in this solar system to a number which has some historical significance, as if the idea of Earth being one of two dozen possible planets would be too much to handle.

As someone outside of the astronomical community, I'm be offended. They're telling me I can't handle big numbers.

In defense of dwarf planets

Joshua Earl, Las Vegas, Nevada — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:22:43 GMT

I would like to see them all as "planets" and have subcategories of planets such as the 8 "Prime" planets and "Dwarf" planets.

This way children could be taught the 8 prime planets in elementary school and learn the dwarf planets in junior high.

“Dwarf” should be a subtype in the broader definition of “planet”

In defense of dwarf planets

Dave Boyle, Fox River Grove — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:15:33 GMT

While folks are bending over backwards to keep Pluto in the "planet" family, I'm wondering if they realize they do this at the expense of diminishing the importance of the one they're living on. Personally, I feel better belonging to one of the eight, as opposed to one of the twelve..., and over time, one of hundred and twelve. There should be some level of speciality to being a planet. Ceres doesn't have it, and neither does Pluto. They are most definitely two of the many. Because a mistake was made back in the 30's is no reason to continue it into the future. Acknowledging and correcting mistakes - in this instance demoting Pluto - is called learning.

In defense of dwarf planets

James Buchanan, Laurel, MD — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:49:01 GMT

Give it a rest, were that the case, Earth is already diminished by the fact that its one of over 200 confirmed planets orbiting one of trillions of stars in one of an equally mindboggling number of galaxies in the universe, of which we can only see a small fraction of to begin with.

You think that's harsh on the old girl, then you'd better pray they're wrong about the possible propensity of star systems with epistellar jovians having waterworlds like Earth, or you'll wake up one day to looking into the sky and realizing every third star you see has a planet just like this one, and how special will we be then?

Pretty damned insignificant. Better get over it, looks like Earth might have come out of a Xerox machine.

In defense of dwarf planets

Chris Tomlinson, Madison, AL — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:53:26 GMT

To think that Pluto being designated a planet, along with any/all others that fit into whichever definition of the day we're using, will make Earth insignificant is a little naive. Anyone that's been through any form of higher learning pretty well knows that the likelyhood of Earth being the only life-bearing planet is very slim.

There does however need to be a set definition or atleast a set of guidelines so we're not changing what we think of as a planet every 5-10 years. I realize it's small now with one planet but what happens when we have 20 and you take away 1, that could make smaller children question whether they were being taught the right thing to begin with. And that's the last thing we need is more children questioning the education they receive

In defense of dwarf planets

Russ mojave,ca — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:22:10 GMT

Pesonally I think clasifing the planets is very important.I dont belive that dwarf planet is an appropate name for the category that pluto fits into. The name dwarf implies that it is small,any size planet may fall into this catagory.It's important to have these classifications so we all can easily comunicate what we are talking about.In the distant future there will be hundreds of millions or billions or even more known planets.With out well thought out classifications it would be impossible to sort them all out.This debate is a step in the right direction and will probabaly never end with the discovery new and unuasual planets to come.