Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pluto Decision Meets with Frustration

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the tiny-grey-different dept.

fuzzybunny writes "The BBC reports that the IAU's controversial Prague vote on demoting Pluto from planet status was irregular. 'There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon.'" On a less serious note, lx writes "Nonplussed by Pluto's recent downgrade from Planet Status, Fox News's own John Gibson does an incredible Stephen Colbert impersonation to correct the 'revisionist history' of the IAU's decision. Exemplifying 'truthiness,' from the article: 'Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?' "

10 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Pluto by WizADSL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are people so frustrated with this? I typically resist change, but I'm ok with this. If the definition of planet has been refined (that's my understanding) and pluto no longer fits the criteria, then this is fine.

  2. How about this? by dtfinch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We keep the new definitions, but still call Pluto a planet, just as an honorary title.

    1. Re:How about this? by Rancidlunchmeat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FACTS? If this were actually about facts, there wouldn't be anything to VOTE on, would there?

  3. We got it wrong by Mwongozi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?

    Because we were wrong. It's orbit is incredibly un-circular, it wildly off the plane of the solar system, and it's smaller than the moon! It never belonged in the pigeon-hole we've labelled "planet".

    Part of science is accurate classification. We can't label something just because we want to.

    1. Re:We got it wrong by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because we were wrong.

      Exactly! It's like saying "I learned the earth is the center of the universe and I see no reason to unlearn it." It's plain and simply factually *wrong*, and people who react this way betray an alarming inability to accept new facts, instead clinging onto their pre-existing notions with near *religious* ferver.

      Yes, that last bit was flamebait. ;)

  4. Re:No reason to unlearn it? by jdray · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only thing "incredible" about that "Stephen Colbert impersonation" is how bad it was.

    --
    The Spoon
    Updated 6/28/2011
  5. Re:No reason to unlearn it? by IdahoEv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?' "

    Oh yes dear me, because information never changes and people should not EVAR be required to use their brains after their youthful indoctrination.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  6. orly by sam.thorogood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?

    Before five hundred years ago I learned that the Earth was flat and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?

  7. NASA's new mission: to set foot on a planet by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The exact wording of Resolution 5(a) is:
    (1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

    (2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2 , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

    There are several problems with (1). In particular:
    • Extrasolar planets are no longer "planets" since they don't orbit the Sun.
    • Jupiter is not a planet, because it has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit - it has asteroids at the Trojan points.
    • Earth is not a planet, because it has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit -- there exist Near-Earth asteroids and Earth-crossing asteroids. (One might argue that this is getting worse, what with all the space debris we keep flinging into near-Earth solar orbit).

    (2) looks OK, but the IAU folks have taken the (IMHO) insane view that a "dwarf planet" is not a subtype of "planet" at all (contrast "dwarf pine tree" or "dwarf sunflower" or "dwarf hippopotamus", all of which are subtypes of their source nown). That destroys a potential way to finesse the Pluto issue -- by calling it a dwarf planet, they could have let everyone have their semantic cake, and eat it too.

    On a different note, another scientist friend of mine just told me his six-year-old daughter burst into tears when she found out Pluto isn't to be considered a planet anymore. :-(

  8. Never should've been a planet anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guys, it's called science, and science revises itself over time to accomodate new data. Gravitational perturbations of Neptune first led astronomers to seek a ninth planet. When Tombaugh found it in 1930 Pluto was thought to be Earth-sized and similarly massive. Over the decades its size and mass kept getting revised downward as new scientific discoveries were made. The perturbations turned out to not exist-- another example of science refining itself.

    Now we've discovered UB313, Sedna, Ixion, Quoar and others, and it's clear that Pluto's only the most prominent representative of the Kuiper belt, just as Ceres is the most prominent member of the asteroid belt. The media that are causing this furor are ignorant of the real issues involved and seem merely interested in running stories about Mrs. Johnson's 3rd grade class being upset about Mickey's dog.

    Pluto is still there. It's still the same size and mass it always was, and New Horizons is still going to visit it. But it never would be called a planet if it were discovered today.