Fight for Pluto !, A Campaign to Reverse the Unjust Demotion Options

[karolp]

I count 4--I repeat: at least 4--of these use Ganymede as a generic icy world to represent Pluto. Now which planetary system ought we to be exploring?

The more informed you are, the more you realise Pluto is a KBO. No wonder they used Ganymede

[mars loon]

The more informed you are, the more you realise Pluto is a KBO.

This statment is not true for many scientists and astronomers.

Here is a link to an article on space.com titled:

300 Astronomers Will Not Use New Planet Definition
Author Robert Roy Britt
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/3...net-definition/

More than 300 astronomers have signed a petition denouncing the IAU’s new planet definition that demotes Pluto. The petition states simply:

“We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it. A better definition is needed”

and another from NASAWATCH on 1 Sep:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20725

Planet Definition by IAU Under Attack
Planetary Scientists and Astronomers Oppose New Planet Definition, Planetary Science Institute

"This petition gives substantial weight to the argument that the IAU definition of planet does not meet fundamental scientific standards and should be set aside," states petition organizer Dr. Mark Sykes, Director of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona. "A more open process, involving a broader cross section of the community engaged in planetary studies of our own solar system and others should be undertaken."

another quote from Dr. Mark Syskes : "I believe more planetary experts signed the petition than were involved in the vote on the IAU's petition."

At my upcoming science outreach events I will be circulating petitions for the public and scientists to sign if they wish as part of the campaign to restore Pluto to Full Planetary Status! Starting on Sep 12 in Princeton. Details will be posted soon.

ken

[karolp]

If I were a US scientist I would put forward a petition that the search for the real trans-neptunian planet should be better funded. But I am not. So I will just observe and sigh that a jupiter or neptune may still be lurking in the "no man's land" between the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud while the leading scientific community prefers to cry over spilled milk of the closer trans-neptunian regions. I also do not like the IAU definition - not because of demoting Pluto but because of adding the annoying stretch of "dwarf planets" to pretend to save if from demotion. But I am not going to argue about it any further with anyone, I only put it here as my personal view.

[marsman]

Here is a news article from CNN about an actual protest (withg signs!) on the decision to demote Pluto.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/09/02/p...t.ap/index.html

[volcanopele]

Even the California Legislature is now weighing in on this issue:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_..._introduced.pdf

Very nice read. Would be great if it passes, though there really is no teeth to it. Just condemns the IAU for its action. Though the wording has to make this the best piece of legislation I have ever read:

WHEREAS, Downgrading Pluto's status will cause psychological harm to some Californians who question their place in the universe and worry about the instability of universal constants

[odave]

Now that is an excellent example of government in action! Though I do have some sensitivity for the "Californians who question their place in the universe", as a father, it's the bit about obsolete refrigerator art that gets me going

To the Barricades!

[Greg Hullender]

volcanopele: Aren't you worried that it supports the idea that Science is "proven wrong" if it ever changes its mind about anything? This is a favorite argument of fundamentalist Christians opposed to evolution. Ability to change should be presented as a strength of science, not a weakness -- even if you happen to disagree with this particular change.

Or at least, that's how *I* see it. :-)

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

The last issue of Nature has an article about the IAU and Pluto, "The Backlash Begins". It's safe to say, the status of Pluto is not settled, and the fur will fly at the next IAU conference.

I think the result will be overturned, because people are angry now that the "dynamicists" voted in their definition after 90 percent of the delegates had left, at the very end of the meeting. Kind of a dirty trick.

[gpurcell]

Absolutely, it was a political hatchet job from start to finish. The "science" behind the definition is simply gloss to hide a naked policy preference.

Take it from someone in the dirty business of politics!

[tedstryk]

This statment is not true for many scientists and astronomers....

I'm glad to see this happening, regardless of what the final outcome is. I think that it is a travesty that the anti-Pluto as a Planet crowd scheduled a vote on the last day with less than a fifth of the delegates still there. Rather than coming as an authoritative decision, it instead did damage to the IAU. This needs to be taken up during the main portion of their meetings, not as an addendum.

[Guest_Sedna_*]

Even when discovered, it was doubted that Pluto was really a planet. Then, it was considered so "de facto". Now IAU's Assembly has corrected this historical mistake. Why did 90% of the delegates leave the Assembly before it had finished? It's their business... Pluto is NOT a planet. In addition, I think that Alan Stern's and company reaction is quite puerile...

[Jyril]

Based on various comments on blogs and such, I got the impression that most astronomers at the meeting were not a bit interested on this brawl.

But on the other hand, they're not planetologists...

[dvandorn]

But on the other hand, they're not planetologists...

Yeah, I can just imagine a guy who specializes in observations of distant galaxies thinking, "Why should I be concerned with such tiny little objects? I have whole galaxies to worry about!"

-the other Doug

[JRehling]

Even when discovered, it was doubted that Pluto was really a planet. Then, it was considered so "de facto".

When Mercury was discovered, it was doubted that it was a single object instead of two. Then it became a planet de facto.

Before the invention of the telescope, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars were lumped into a single category with Jupiter and Saturn... de facto, despite the gross difference in nature of these worlds.

Now IAU's Assembly has corrected this historical mistake.

If there has been a year with more fumbling of the issue than 2006, I'd like to know when. The current definition puts Mercury (comes within 0.25 AU of Venus) in a group with Jupiter (29 times its size) instead of with Pluto (comes at closest within 11 AU of Uranus and not even that close to Neptune; half Mercury's size). And it creates a definition such that if we find two Mars- (or Neptune-!) sized objects in similar orbits, they will neither be considered planets -- but be called "dwarf" planets despite their size.

It's their business... Pluto is NOT a planet. In addition, I think that Alan Stern's and company reaction is quite puerile...

The IAU is running into the buzzsaw of a community much larger than their few hundred and the lack of a mandate to tell people what "planet" should mean.

Mind you, I think the odds of a non-foolish outcome are long, but this vote hasn't settled anything except that the IAU is good fodder for comedians.

[Rob Pinnegar]

Mind you, I think the odds of a non-foolish outcome are long, but this vote hasn't settled anything except that the IAU is good fodder for comedians.

...Like for example the folks who came up with that piece of California legislation. I guess this is what happens when legislative types don't have anything to do on a Friday afternoon. Anyways, it was fun to read; it'll be a hoot if it passes, even though it won't mean anything. I can't wait for the first frivolous lawsuit.

I suppose that this is the sort of thing comedians must find totally irresistible: a major scientific organization doing something that is so easy for the public to find ridiculous. The last time something like this came along would, I suppose, have been when the paleontology community renamed Brontosaurus to Apatosaurus (thereby rearranging the "furniture of the mind" of the public, as was pointed out here earlier).

In that particular case, though, the reasons for doing it seemed pretty clear-cut at the time: prior discovery and naming that everybody had ignored. Here what we've got is a fairly major change in nomenclature that was carried out while the debate over what should, or should not, constitute a "planet" was still going on at a pretty basic level. No wonder people are wondering whether Gilligan is in charge here.