Slashdot Mirror
Pluto Making a Comeback
anthemaniac writes "Space.com reports that the American Astronomical Unions Division of Planetary Scientists recognizes the IAU's authority to make a new planet defintion but expects it to be altered. Separately, 300 astronomers have signed a petition saying they won't use the definition. All this stems from the discontent over how only 424 astronomers voted on the proposal that demoted Pluto. Looks like this little dog is on the comeback trail."
it seems like any vote on the future of pluto ought to wait till after the prob gets there in a few years. We do not even have good pictures of the planet, or a lot of solid date (if the wikipedia entry is good). I say wait to make any changes until than, anything else would be jumping the gun
Mikey
I've always been the kinda guy to fall for the girl dressed like an eskimo.
...in other news today, doctors tried to demote any penis that is not at least 7 inches long to 'dwarf penis' status.
If they were real scientists, they'd accept the new designation. That's how science works. You modify your model of the universe as new information becomes available. Clyde Tombaugh found the first of an unknown class of objects because Pluto happened to be the closest and easiest to see. They just called it a planet because they lacked the information we have. But now we know about the Kuiper Belt, and have adjusted the definition of Pluto accordingly. Mode me a troll, but stop with the sentimental bullshit. Rather than :losing" a planet we've gained a whole new neighborhood of the Solar System to explore.
Well, the trouble is that there is no old definition at all, save perhaps "there are nine of them, these nine." It's a planet because it's been called a planet in the past. That definition doesn't work when you start trying to classify the bodies in another solar system, of course. The reason Pluto has been left out of the formal definition is that it's too small. Way too small. And irregular. Any definition that included pluto would also be including three other bodies... and schools would have to teach TWELVE planets, not eight or nine. The trouble started way back when Pluto was discovered. It was discovered by an American, and as you know, Americans are a proud lot. So a few years later when it was discovered to be far smaller than first suspected, noone wanted to back down and admit it wasn't really a planet at all. In other words, they had to invent a defintion of a planet, and no definition that they could come up with included Pluto, but excluded the three other Pluto-like bodies.
So... What is a Planet Again?
the issue centers on one the IAU itself says it hasn't addressed with it's new definition of a planet: extrasolar systems. as new telescopes come on line with more resolving power, our bestiary of planets is going to grow by leaps and bounds. it will render the debate over pluto moot
i think a definition of planet should be:
-round, with a significant atmosphere
-this is distinct from a gas giant, which should be considered closer to stars than to planets (round, mostly gas: really just stars without enough critical mass to ignite fusion)
-and distinct from a moon (no atmosphere, but still round)
-asteroids, comets, etc make up the miscellany
and notice, most importantly, i said nothing about what something orbits. what something orbits is really secondary in consideration to what something is composed of. if we find an earth-like "moon" orbiting a gas giant in another solar system, is what it orbits really the first consideration in picking what to call it? no, composition should come first, orbit second. so you could have a moon of the sun (pluto), or a planet of saturn (titan), or an asteroid of mars (deimos/ phobos, etc.)
so this system demotes not only pluto, but also mercury. while promoting titan. so our solar system is composed of:
-4 planets (venus, earth, mars, titan)
-4 gas giants (jupiter, saturn, neptune, uranus)
-and countless moons (of the sun and the planets)/ asteroids (of the sun and the planets)/ comets/ ring systems/ kuiper belt, oort cloud objects/ etc
really, as we see more and more exotic arrangements in extrasolar systems as new telescopes come on line, this debate about pluto will look more and more pedantic. and the IAU should really begin focusing on a more rigid definition no matter what, something they said they weren't doing at their last congress. we will soon have a vastly larger catalogue of strange orbital objects/ arrangements out there. pluto is small potatoes... literally
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The death of Pluto as a planet is going to be a watershed moment in my, albeit sad, life. No longer can I dwell in childish thoughts of a small comet like body with an excentric orbit being a planet. There are definitions after all. Definitions are an important part of adult life. I can't carry on wearing a cape and claiming to be superman anymore. Its time to stop pretending that my stick is a sword and my coconut percussion is a hourse. Yes, its time to put away such childish thoughts that led to Pluto's planetary status. A world of progress and commerce awaits us bold explorers who dare to stare into the blindingly obvious truth and confront it for what it is. Changing the definition is out of the question. We've matured now, ripped off the band-aid of addolesence in one quick, but fluid motion. As much as we would like to remove the bitting sting of pulling out a dozen arm hairs, we know deep in our hearts that we are better off as we are than as we were. Alas poor Pluto, I hardly knew thee, but though hast gone to a better place. A place where you can be amougnst your own kind. You were my favorite Planet, its true, but now you start a new life abielt less a less glamourus one. You'll forever be my favorite planet, dwarf or otherwise. I'll think of you fondly and call you every other weekend.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Too late, solar system already took Pluto off of his Friends List.
Whether or not Pluto is recognised by these asscociations, Schools will continue to teach that the solar system has nine planets and Pluto is the ninth planet. They wont be changing that basic lesson everytime there is a fight in astromy associations.
At least the shitty schools, anyway. Maybe your statement is an indictment on how shitty the school system is.. unfortunately, I don't think so. I understand your point that schools have alot of switching costs, and that the 9 planets concept has alot of inertia, but if scientists decide Pluto isn't a planet, then it's not a planet.. I expect my child's school to teach them that. I expect my child's school to teach my children about what real scientists do, and what real science is going on, and even about what real scientists are arguing about. Once scientists finally agree on what is a planet, and who the planets are, I expect my school to keep up. If science changes... schools are supposed to change with it. This idea that you shouldn't have to keep up with science because it's inconvinient... well, don't make me invoke the intelligent-design drama If you aren't going to teach kids the things that science agrees is correct, then what exactly _are_ you going to teach them? Whatever you feel like? Whatever you were taught?
That scientific "fact" can be changed by petition.
Yes, I know that this whole planet thing is just taxonomy, but do they? Do the politicians really understand that, either?
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
For those of you at home who are playing along, here's the score so far:
~800 bc - Roman god of the underworld.
05-01-1930 - New planet. Also Mickey's new canine companion. Retains position as god of the underworld.
08-10-2006 - Still a planet. And a dog. Takes time off as god of the underworld to "spend more time with his new ceslestial family".
08-24-2006 - Demoted as a planet. Reclassified as a "dwarf planet" (or as they prefer to be called "Little planetiods"). Resumes job as god of the underworld.
Today - A planet again. Maybe. Title of "Roman god the the underworld" undisputed. Still a dog.
(ps. Tomorrow - Profit ???)
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
The rest of the world can use the metric planets that evolved in our solar system.
There. Everyone happy now?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Dear distinguished ladies and gentlemen of letters,
Humanity has arrived at an inflection point in our history, one whose influence will steer our course for decades, or, more likely, centuries. The post-millennial rise of both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism tears at the very skirts of the Enlightenment.
Your fellow citizens have twice elected an inarticulate and violent demagogue as President, a man who has expressed deep personal doubts about the validity of the scientific method and its relevance in America's primary-school classrooms. Three-fourths of the adult population profess a belief in angels; two-thirds believe the Christian Bible is the literally-true word of their God. Over half state that humans were created by God in their present form.
One American adult in one thousand can state the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Meanwhile, to the elected representatives of this singularly-unenlightened population, you, America's scientists and engineers, have cheerfully handed control of several thousand thermonuclear weapons.
And now you're bickering endlessly about... whether or not Pluto is a planet.
Cut this shit out. Now. I don't want to live in another Dark Age, or worse, die upon the threshold of one.
Let Pluto be Pluto, whatever Pluto is, and let's put our heads together and figure out how to deal with the delusions we've created for ourselves here on Earth. We need intellectual leadership, not semantic panem et circenses.
Answers? Sorry; you're the scientists, I'm just some obviously-unlaid AC, ranting into the night on Slashdot's nickel. If I had any suggestions, believe me, I'd be making them, but I don't.
But come on. We've got to do something productive here.
Common human consensus had Pluto as a planet and pretty much still does today.
Geez, you make it sound like they're just some random cranks who got together. This was a meeting of the IAU. Common human consensus had tomatoes as not being fruits and dolphins as fish before people sat down and came up with a consistent definition.
Pluto's essentially grandfathered in from a time when we hadn't yet found other objects in its size class. I hope you realize that Pluto is only about 2300 km across while our own moon is about 3500 km across. Are we in a double-planet system, or is there some logical reason you can think of for making a smaller object than our moon a planet while our moon is undeserving of the status?
I think it's high-time we demoted it as nothing more than an oversized trans-Uranic asteroid. I mean, it doesn't even operate on the same elliptic plane as the planets do and it has a "moon" that's half its size. The only reason anyone cares is a knee-jerk anger over having some childhood lesson overturned.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
When Aristotle pointed out that the Earth wasn't flat, it pissed off a lot of people. When Darwin published The origin of species, it pissed off a lot of people. When climate scientists pointed out the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, it pissed off a lot of people. When they found that Pluto, like Ceres, was within a belt of similarly sized objects, it pissed off a lot of people.
I suspect the reason these people were pissed off is because they can't fathom that new observations means that what they were taught before was wrong, and that the new information gives a better approximation of reality.
I think the books should be changed to indicate that Pluto's planet status is just a "theory", and give equal time to different scientific definitions.
>Geez, you make it sound like they're just some random cranks who got together. This was a meeting of the IAU. Common human >consensus had tomatoes as not being fruits and dolphins as fish before people sat down and came up with a consistent definition.
Are you suggesting that witches are not actually made out of wood?
Oh but it is, it's very important. A precise terminology is critical to get anything done in any field.
:)
Nostalgia or neat names your kids like are no reason to violate the rules of your field. AIDS was orginally categorized as a form of cancer, but then we found that it's not a cancer, so we stopped calling it a cancer. It's simple, really. Once you disprove something, it makes no sense to go on believing it.
The simple truth is that if you call Pluto a planet, then you also have to call Ceres and potentially hundreds of bodies in the Kuiper belt planets as well. Pluto does not dominate its orbit around the sun, it shares it with Charon, they spin around each other, one is not a moon of the other. None of the other planets in the solar system have such a symbiosis, they all have moons that orbit them. What shall we do when we manage to spot specific planetary bodies in distant solar systems? "let's see... hrm, that's a class-M planet, that's a gas giant, that's a dead rock, all of these have moons and they're spherical and dominate their orbits, but hey, here's a neat looking body there dancing with another body, I guess that's a planet too, let's call it Mickey and forget the thing it's spinning with." Where does it end? We need a concise definition that works every time, no exceptions.
As it is, with that gold disc in the voyager spacecrafts showing the planets of our system, it's doubtful ET will find us now since he'll see our system has only 8 planets but his directions said there would be 9. If he stumbles into the system anyway, and finds that's he's got the right place, he's going to think we're a bunch of retards for saying we have 9 planets
I am a profesional astronomer and in my experiance most of my collegues could not really care less about this. For evidance, the fact that so few people voted shows that most astronomers are more interested in real science, not pointless naming conventions.
(bad) alien: "BOW BEFORE ZOD!"
IAU: "i hearby reclassify you from bad alien to good alien"
**poof**
(good) alien: "E.T. Phone home..."
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...I just don't get why this is raising such a fuss.
When I was a kid, there were Baltimore Orioles. Then they decided that they were really the same species as Bullock's Oriole and both of them got renamed the "Northern Oriole." Then molecular genetics studies suggested they were really all that similar and now there are Baltimore Orioles again.
My science teachers were old enough to remember when _their_ sciences teachers had said "There are ninety-two elements. There have always been ninety-two elements. There will always be ninety-two elements." And "elementary" particles? Don't get me started...
The horseshoe crab was Limulus polyphemus. Then it was Xiphosura polyphemus. Now it ''seems'' to be Limulus again... or is it?
Classification is prescientific activity. It's very important but it's always arbitrary and subject to change.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!