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

[dilo]

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

About your example of two Mars- (or Neptune-!) sized objects in similar orbits, I doubt this would be a stable configuration... anyway, example doesn't apply to Pluto because, in this case, you should consider at least 3 other objects with similar dimensions and orbit (and we all know this number will grow in the few nest years!).
In this plot, I reported distance from Sun of all known Centaurus and Trans-Neptunian objects vs their absolute magnitude, so biggest objects are on the left (points represent semi-major axis while bars show range covered due to orbit eccentricity-note the logarithmic scale):


PS: Mercury wasn't really "discovered" and the same dicothomy occurred for Venus (Greek astronomers believed the planet to be two separate objects, one visible only at sunrise, the other only at sunset).

[ngunn]

Nice diagram, but what is the object that appears further out than Sedna with an aphelion beyond 1000 AU?

[dilo]

Nice diagram, but what is the object that appears further out than Sedna with an aphelion beyond 1000 AU?

Good question.
It's name is 2000 OO67 (des. number 87269). This object exhibit a=537AU and e=0,961 (both higher than Sedna); this means an aphelion distance of 1053AU!
Voyager-1 will need more than 250 years to reach this distance...

[ljk4-1]

What is really amazing is that - as far as 2000 OO67 is - the *nearest* star
system to Sol is 272,000 AUs distant. Voyager 1 would take about 77,000
years to get that far at its current speed.

[ngunn]

Good question.
It's name is 2000 OO67 (des. number 87269). This object exhibit a=537AU and e=0,961 (both higher than Sedna); this means an aphelion distance of 1053AU!

Mmm - interesting orbit, but with perihelion well within the giant planet zone at only 20.8 AU no real mystery about how it got there. I wonder if it grows a tail?

[dilo]

I have same suspect, ngunn... considerng also the size (probably not more than few tens Km) it seems a cometary object.

[ljk4-1]

NOVA on PBS-TV recently replayed "Einstein's Big Idea", which was a dramatic
recreation of historic events that led to his famous E-mc2.

This passage from the transcript below reminds me of how the general public
is reacting to the decision of the IAU on Pluto:

JEANE MANSON (Dramatization): Let me guess, Marat. The King's scientific despot has decreed that your invention does not conform to the version of the truth as laid down by the Academy.

JEAN-PAUL MARAT: Lavoisier, he talks about facts; he worships the truth.

JEANE MANSON: Listen to me, my friend. They are all the same, the Royal Academies. They insult the liberty of the mind.

JEAN-PAUL MARAT: They think they are the sole arbiters of genius. They are rotten to the core, just like every other tentacle of the King. The people, it is they who will determine right and wrong.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3213_einstein.html

I can understand the public's reaction to Pluto being "demoted", but anyone who
compares Pluto between the KBOs and the eight major planets is going to see
the difference, and it is not slight.

Pluto has not disappeared or suddenly changed. It is part of a large collection of
objects in the outer Sol System quite unlike what is found further in. That alone
is worthy of study by space probe. I don't think New Horizons is going to be
called back.

Public is support is fine and even necessary, but when they start getting all worked
up over an object that is 3 billion miles from Earth and is essentially a big chunk of
frozen gases that can't even be seen without a powerful telescope, then I'm afraid
their judgement in this case is left wanting.

The same public reaction might have happened with Ceres if only it were known
for decades before finding its fellow planetoids. And had a cartoon dog named
after it.

[David]

I can understand the public's reaction to Pluto being "demoted", but anyone who
compares Pluto between the KBOs and the eight major planets is going to see
the difference, and it is not slight.

No, it's not slight; I mean, Mercury is 210% the size of Pluto -- a tremendous difference! Whereas the difference between Mercury and Jupiter is insignificant -- Jupiter's only a measly 29 times Mercury's size.

Don't these rabid Plutonists have any sense of proportion?

[laurele]

[font=Times New Roman][size=4]

I strongly object to the demotion of Pluto by a small group of scientists voting based on very narrow criteria. There is no way I will accept this decision. If children I know are taught in school that there are eight planets in our solar system, I will correct this misinformation and teach them that there are nine (at least). This is revisionist history that would make George Orwell proud. Pluto orbits the sun and has three moons. The requirement that its orbit be on the same plane as Earth's is just one more example of human arrogance. In the long run, I believe this decision will be overturned. In the meantime, please count me in as an advocate who will do whatever I can to restore Pluto's rightful place in our solar system. You can also view my blog posting "In Defense of Pluto" at http://laurele.livejournal.com

[ugordan]

to restore Pluto's rightful place in our solar system.

It's not like anyone actually kicked Pluto out of our solar system or anything. Why don't you stand in defense of Ceres being reinstated as a planet, too? The decision to demote it could have also been considered "revisionist history". Why stop at Pluto? Why is it so special?

[Guest_Sedna_*]

Teens and children here, Spain, are fortunately being already taught that the Solar System has just 8 planets.

[laurele]

It's not like anyone actually kicked Pluto out of our solar system or anything. Why don't you stand in defense of Ceres being reinstated as a planet, too? The decision to demote it could have also been considered "revisionist history". Why stop at Pluto? Why is it so special?

I have no problem with Ceres being reinstated as a planet. In fact, I think the 12-planet scheme originally considered by the IAU is much more appropriate.

[ugordan]

I have no problem with Ceres being reinstated as a planet. In fact, I think the 12-planet scheme originally considered by the IAU is much more appropriate.

Then why aren't you pushing for that, instead of demanding that only Pluto be reinstated?

[laurele]

Then why aren't you pushing for that, instead of demanding that only Pluto be reinstated?

First, I would like to see this travesty of a decision by the IAU overturned, as I see it as a giant step backwards. I do and will advocate for the 12-planet alternative. Dr. Alan Stern is convening a conference of over 1,000 astronomers next summer to address this issue, and I'm pretty certain this scheme will be considered.

[ugordan]

The way I see it you're pushing for a petition to reinstate Pluto, not demanding the IAU to make a better definition. If the petition was for a better, less sloppy definiton of a planet, I'd gladly sign it. This merely looks like someone god pi**ed about their favourite pet planet not being a planet anymore. How's that for "human arrogance"?

IMO, the time of a nine-planet solar system has passed. Either we have 8, hack it down even more to 4 or we have 12 or more. Pushing for Pluto only is wrong and IMO shows you're not interested as much in a good planet definition, but are interested in Pluto only.