Pluto and the IAU - What do you think?

[shredder]

Yeah, would have to agree with Leon....

Nobody asked me for my oppinion before downgrading it....

Now if an equal number of impressive scientists (or not so impressive as the case may be) go out and call it a Planet... where will that leave us. Say it wont happen???... well look at smoking, or the environment.....

But I still sit with Leon, they should have asked me first before making such a large decision.....

Or come up with a much better reason and explination for it.

[RB (Andrew)]

I was disappointed about the decision, I've always considered Pluto a planet.

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by shredder

Yeah, would have to agree with Leon....

Nobody asked me for my oppinion before downgrading it....

Now if an equal number of impressive scientists (or not so impressive as the case may be) go out and call it a Planet... where will that leave us. Say it wont happen???... well look at smoking, or the environment.....

But I still sit with Leon, they should have asked me first before making such a large decision.....

Or come up with a much better reason and explination for it.

Well an equally important consideration.... Why should they ask you?

We are talking about a scientific reclassification of an object. Pluto is still Pluto. It still orbits the sun, has it's own moons, has an atmosphere, it's position in space has not been changed........ Did the fact that Pluto was classified as a planet make it any more or less important to people?

Cheers

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

We are talking about a scientific reclassification of an object. Pluto is still Pluto. It still orbits the sun, has it's own moons, has an atmosphere, it's position in space has not been changed........

Good bit of commonsense there David. As far as widespread consultation/voting goes, it's not Big Brother! Pluto, it's time to leave the house....

Pluto has always been the odd one out, for a number of important reasons (one also being it is too dim & distant for my little telescope ). When scientific reclassification occurs, as it does regularly in all branches of science, the process is dictated by those with the necessary expertise, not the general population. Still, there's no reason we shouldn't miss the little fella in our planetary family, and I understand why half our voters have gone NO.

Cheers -

[OneOfOne (Trevor)]

I agree with the decision for a number of reasons:

1. If it was discovered now, it would not be called a planet.

2. The inclination of its orbit makes it appear different to all the other "planets".

3. Its orbit comes inside another orbit, also making it an odd man out.

4. If it was kept a planet, then we would have the potential in the future of being stuck with dozens of similar "planets".

The decision needs to be made by those with the knowledge to make an unemotional decision, if we were to leave decisions like this to the general public, would be still consider the world to be made up of combinations of the "four elements"? I am sure people missed the comfort they felt knowing that everthing could be described in such terms (in fact I am sure there are borderline fringe elements who still consider this to be "science"). What if we still had to consider the Earth to be flat just to keep the public happy? Mind you there are still plenty flat earthers out there!

It just happens to be the "first" of a myriad of such objects that was discovered, in a time before we had the knowledge to realise what we had truly discovered. I am sure the subject will need to be revisited when we have more examples of planetary systems, around other stars, with even weirder characteristics...maybe Jupiter will need to be reclassified as a mid sized gas planet rather than a "gas giant". Earth may need to be classified as a "marginal life supporting planet" if we discover other "earths" that have many forms of life based on different chemistry rather than our single GATC based DNA...

That's what sets science apart from its pseudo counterparts...they are stuck in a time warp while science marches on!

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

What we call something is not important. It is just a convenience. Whether we call Pluto a planet or a blyxl doesn't alter what we know about it or what we may discover about it in the future. Anyway, I suspect that in fifty years or so, nobody will be fazed by the fact that Pluto isn't a planet. After all, in the 19th century Ceres, Vesta, Juno and Pallas were all classified as planets and now nobody cares about them not being called planets . In fact, their story is much the same as Pluto--once we realised that they were just the biggest things in a whole bunch of trash, we stopped calling them planets.
Geoff

[shredder]

I think you guys missed my point, almost completely.

Pluto was named as a planet, by the scientific community, and then given to the world to add to the list of known planets, for all to know an use etc etc. It is written into every text book and science class. And it probably would have remained that way.... and so it came into popular and consistent use.

Now a few bodies further out were discovered that also looked remarkably like planets, did the scientific community name them as planets? Did they discount them as planets? No they decided to opt out of that debate almost entirely and instead change what was then an accepted (if somewhat incorrect) assignment of Pluto. And even then they didnt seem to manage to get a sound definition.

So while I dont care if its Pluto, Planet X or Dwarf Planet ABC.... I think there should be some consistency here, once they scientific community decides to put it out as a planet for all to use there should be more of a debate than what occured. Its not like they are changing the name / status of some obscure bit of research that know one knows about. Just imagine if the science community now said "well we dont like the name of Water, from now on it should be called Di-Hydrogen Oxide" quite correct, quite scientific, and quite unnecessary and stupid. So where is the difference here. Why should all school texts be rewritten just to call it a Dwarf Planet (for example)?

Also they are changing the status of 1 of 9 planets based on a sample size of 11 objects. So think about the statistics there, after sampling something 10 times would you go and discount 1 simply because it doesnt seem to quite fit the other 9? I think they were a bit too hasty to change this, especially with all flow on effects it will have, simply to avoid naming the other discoveries planets... an equally valid rule could have been "anything outside the orbit of Pluto is not a planet"... dumb but just as valid... with a sample set of 9 how do we know that it isnt right?

So considering the rushed decision to change the name of an accepted widely used term, for what are dubious reasons, well yes I think that consoltation and a better explination is warranted.

Folks in this thread might like to take the opportunity to ask Professor Alex Filippenko about the Pluto Demotion directly when he appears LIVE next week on the AAIRC Service as he is an executive member if the IAU
Bert

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by shredder

So considering the rushed decision to change the name of an accepted widely used term, for what are dubious reasons, well yes I think that consoltation and a better explination is warranted.

How do you defined rushed? They (the scientific community) have been debating this for more than a decade! (well in reality they have been debating it ever since the named it)

What makes the reasons dubious?

Cheers

[shredder]

I think you are just backing up my point David.

They have been debating if Pluto is a planet or not since its discovery, but saw fit to name it a planet while this debate continued.

Now they take a vote and its out, one vote, and overturn years of history and presumable legitimate argument.

The question is why now. What makes it less of a planet now than say 10 years ago? Its not like our images of Pluto are that great, or have improved even, Nasa's best images arent much more than a few fuzzy blobs, so where is this conclusive evidence that Pluto is no longer a planet? Did we all of a sudden discover a whole bunch of planetary systems identical to ours without Pluto or some such? On the contrary all evidence is pointing to the opposite, planets come in all sizes and orbits.

What it appears to me is that the scientific community was being pressured by those who discovered the outer "dwarf planets" to name them as planets as they were bigger than Pluto and had a Sun centric orbit. Essentially if Pluto is a planet then why arent these??? They were faced with a possibility of having a whole bunch of planets. So they made a rushed decision to stop the pressure and pre-empt someone managing to get one of those outer objects accepted as a planet. Hence I think it was a rushed descision.

As for being dubious, they didnt measure those outer objects on their own merrit, they decided simply not to have any more planets and so relegate everything else to a dwarf planet. Changed the rules to suit them selves. Its not like they even came up with a good explination or rule. So explain how that is scientific? Explain why everyone now needs to change their thinking because a group of scientists dont know what to do with a number of outer objects, and cant decide how to classify them properly.

Seems a rushed and dubious decision to me.

[higginsdj]

Well they took one vote and it was in - why complain when they took one vote to take it out?

One reason for doing it now is the large number of discoveries of objects so similar to Pluto. More than 800 discovered since Dave Jewett and Jane Luu discovered the first (well, the second now - Pluto being the first) 1992 QB1.

I agree it was likely pressure applied by JPL/NASA scientists to have their new discoveries classified as planets (would have done wonders for their budgets and public image) but it is more likely that it was a catalyst to force an outcome on an argument that had been going on for 70 years. It would have been just as easy to add the new objects to planetary status as to remove them so one can't actually blame the discovery of such objects on pulling Pluto's status!

I have to disagree with your last point. Prior to this 'ruling' what was the definition of a planet? For the very first time they actually made an attempt to provide some 'rules' for catagorising what a planet is, as well as those other objects in the solar system. As things stood, anything that orbited the sun could be called a planet. If fact everything except comets were called planets (asteroids were called Minor Planets!)

Cheers

David

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

While it upsets a lot of people, the scientific community in general are continually changing designations of things as more information becomes available. Take plants for instance. I work in the horticultural industry as a tutor and teacher and it is a nightmare trying to keep up with plant name changes at times. The reasons for changing their names are valid I suppose, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

btw in 1995 (I think) there were 85 botanical name changes to plants. On the Sunshine Coast ALONE!!!! Try explaining that one to students who one year learn a plant by one name, only to find out the next year they have to learn a totally different name.

[shredder]

Just because they rushed to make it a planet, is that any kind of justification for rushing to take it out? I also think the two circumstances were very different. When Pluto was discovered they were looking for a planet, all scientific evidence pointed to a planet, and so when something was found that resembled a planet it was named as such. No issue there. The circumstances for taking it out however were somewhat different.

I am not so sure that the number of discoveries was the issue (800, or 8,000 is a bit neither here not there) but the apparent size of the objects. With a few being bigger than Pluto and having better orbits they would have been under enormous pressure to name them as planets. The simple and obvious answer would be to address the issue of these outer objects, claim that not enough was known to justify calling them planets and leave it for 10 years and see.

As for the ruling, and the prior definition of a planet. I am not sure you would find too many non astronomical people calling an asteroid a minor planet. And this is where I have the biggest problem. They arent changing a purely scientific term or scientific definition, something that no one cares about outside the scientific community. The definition of a planet is not just a scientific issue. They are chaning part of every day speach, language and culture.

Anyway the ruling is made, and the decision is done, but most polls seem to indicate as this one does that most people are split over the issue. Wider consoltation, agreement, and a better definition would have possibly prevented this.

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

I have abstained from voting on the basis that I think the question (that the Poll is based on) is erroneous and misrepresents the truth. IMHO Pluto has not been demoted, it has simply been reclassified.

The meanings of these two words are very different. Demoted means to assign to a lower position or reduce in rank, whereas reclassify means to rearrange or order by classes or category.

There has been no dishonour or disgrace perpetrated on Pluto, it has just been placed in a category along with other like objects. It is where it belongs, and should it need to be reclassified again in the future so be it, this is responsible science by our scientists.

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by shredder

I am not sure you would find too many non astronomical people calling an asteroid a minor planet. And this is where I have the biggest problem.

And herein lies the apparent heart of the issue - Astronomers wanting to give an astronomical definition for an astronomical object. The public seems to have a concern only about the fact that Pluto is reclassified as a Dwarf Planet but not caring a hoot that the majority of the other 300,000 + Minor Planets are now officially called 'Small Solar System Bodies'. Should we call it - selective caring?

So it might appear that astronomers need to seek approval for reclassifying some things - just the ones the public care about!

Cheers

[Robster (Robert)]

I tend to agree with the decision for the reasons cited above, and I don't hear Pluto complaining about going from being the runt of the litter to being the head dog of the newly designated pack of "Dwarf Planets". Crikey - Pluto, Dwarves - am I in Disneyland or something? Maybe they could name a newly discovered KBO "Mickey" to keep "Pluto" company... Gotta keep some humour here.

Robster

[Chrissyo (Chris)]

Originally Posted by tailwag

I have abstained from voting on the basis that I think the question (that the Poll is based on) is erroneous and misrepresents the truth. IMHO Pluto has not been demoted, it has simply been reclassified.

The meanings of these two words are very different. Demoted means to assign to a lower position or reduce in rank, whereas reclassify means to rearrange or order by classes or category.

There has been no dishonour or disgrace perpetrated on Pluto, it has just been placed in a category along with other like objects. It is where it belongs, and should it need to be reclassified again in the future so be it, this is responsible science by our scientists.

Yeah, I very purposefully wrote the description of the poll like that, and I made sure to put ''' marks around the word demoted. I did it this way because at that point, everyone who was against it kept using that word, and so by putting it in the '''s I hoped to satisfy both the demoted view and the reclassified view (it might not have worked too well ). I am in agreeal with you that Pluto hasn't been dishonoured or disgraced (I think the IAU made a good decision with it, and a rose by any other name...).

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

I see the quotes now, thanks for pointing that out, two very small marks but they can make a great deal of 'difference'. I actually use the little buggers a fair amount myself, sometimes I even underline but when I really want to draw attention to something I use italics and sometime go BOLD and uppercase. I hope I did offend you with my remarks

[circumpolar (Matt)]

Astronomy Cast.

http://www.astronomycast.com/page/7/


This is a really good series of Podcasts. Scroll down to the bottom of the page a listen to the one on Pluto. You don't need an mp3 player to listen. Windows Media Player is all you need.

Just click on
'Download Episode 1 - Pluto's Planetary Identity Crisis (12.6MB)'

enjoy.

[Kal (Andrew)]

I voted yes - pluto should have been demoted.

Astronomy must be a flexible science such that as we discover more we cannot hold onto the old simply for posterity.