Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Pluto Decision Meets with Frustration

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 25, 2006 06:31 PM
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?' "
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] IAU Demotes Pluto to 'Dwarf Planet' Status 424 comments
davidwr writes "It's official. Pluto's been demoted. It's now one of several 'dwarf planets.' I guess we can drop the 'Period' from 'Mary's violet eyes make John stay up nights.'" (Of course, no one says you have to privately agree with the International Astronomical Union.) Several readers have contributed links to the BBC's coverage of the downgrade, as well as the usefully illustrated story at MSNBC.
[+] Pluto Making a Comeback 439 comments
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."
[+] "Xena" To Be Named Eris 167 comments
rdwald writes, "After over a year of hanging in maybe-planet limbo, newly-classified 2003 UB313, nicknamed Xena, now has a permanent name: Eris, goddess of strife. Its moon will be named Dysnomia, after the goddess of lawlessness — in Greek mythology, Eris's daughter — certainly not a reference there... I don't think I'm alone when I say, 'Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!'" In the same IAU announcement (PDF), Pluto was given its official minor planet number: 134340.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Snarfangel (203258) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:33PM (#15982326) Homepage
    He must have a hard time when we elect a new President.
  • Pluto (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WizADSL (839896) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:35PM (#15982337)
    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.
  • How about this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dtfinch (661405) * on Friday August 25 2006, @06:36PM (#15982343) Journal
    We keep the new definitions, but still call Pluto a planet, just as an honorary title.
    • by User 956 (568564) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:38PM (#15982361) Homepage
      We keep the new definitions, but still call Pluto a planet, just as an honorary title.

      Much like how the United States still refers to Canada as a soveriegn nation, instead of a 51st state.
    • by s20451 (410424) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:55PM (#15982480) Journal
      To: Pluto "luto@planets.org"
      From: Punctual D. Industrious "fastdegrees@spam.net"
      Subject: PLANETARY STATUS FAST based on your LIFE EXPERIENCE

      Are you being held back because you don't have STATUS? Is NASA ignoring you? Not getting name recognition you deserve from grade schoolers?

      You may already qualify for PLANETARY STATUS based on your LIFE EXPERIENCE. Prestigious non-accredited astronomy associations want to give you the life you deserve.

      Gas Giant or Terrestrial Body status available. Acceptance guaranteed. No exams or essays. Fast delivery of official certificate worldwide.

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

    Don't fret it. Long ago Romans learned it was a god. They didn't have to unlearn it. Their empire simply collapsed.
  • We got it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mwongozi (176765) <slashthree@@@davidglover...org> on Friday August 25 2006, @06:38PM (#15982366) Homepage

    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.

    • Re:We got it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Abcd1234 (188840) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:53PM (#15982466) Homepage
      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. ;)
        • by alienmole (15522) on Friday August 25 2006, @07:18PM (#15982609)
          We stopped believing that the Earth is flat because better observations and measurements of the Earth contradicted the definition of "flat". However, what they're doing with Pluto is changing the definition of "planet". This is an entirely arbitrary process, and the definition they've come up with is entirely arbitrary. It has much less to do with science than with human psychology.

          The people who want to stick with Pluto as a planet are at least as rational and justified in their belief as the people who want to change it.
  • Recount (Score:5, Funny)

    by kirun (658684) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:50PM (#15982448) Homepage Journal
    Don't worry, Diebold has just announced the results of the recount, and 3,134 of the 2,700 delegates voted to make Pluto stay as a planet.
  • orly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sam.thorogood (979334) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:55PM (#15982484)
    Long ago I learned it was a planet and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?

    Before five hundred years ago [wikipedia.org] I learned that the Earth was flat and I see no reason to unlearn it. Why should I?
  • by meburke (736645) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:56PM (#15982492)
    Whether Pluto is or is not considered a planet is not as important to me as the integrity of high-level guidance among senior scientists. When the arguments for or against a decision depend on popular vote rather than rational consensus, scientists reduce themselves to the level of lawyers. When the objectivity of scientific thought is bypassed by special interest groups and politics, science is no longer Science. This whole process has been a shameful exhibition of politics.
  • by daddyrief (910385) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:57PM (#15982493) Homepage
    I usually don't comment much, but when a nationally-recognized news anchor makes stupid comments, I feel obliged.

    He says, "All of a sudden Ringo isn't a Beatle? All of a sudden somebody changes a standard and Curly isn't a stooge, or Zeppo isn't a Marx, or Ari isn't one of the "Entourage"? Actually I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly."

    My god. Yeah, because Ringo Starr's status as a Beatle hinges on statistics and his orbital ellipse, just like Pluto's. Look out for that 'Two Stooges' DVD also. John Gibson sounds like a prick -- if our understanding of the universe evolved John Gibson's way, we might still be afraid to fall off the edge of the world, or the Sun might still rotate around the Earth. The changing of 'standards' is inevitable as a better understanding of the universe becomes available. The more technologically advanced we become, you can bet laws, theories, and yes, even TEXTBOOK PRINT may become outdated.

    (Note: this rant directed toward John Gibson's stupid 'rebuttal,' regardless of the IAU decision whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not.
  • Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kaenneth (82978) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:57PM (#15982497) Homepage Journal
    I'll tell you why.

    Ever look at the price tag on a Textbook?, those things are expensive.

    To pay for the textbook publishers political action committee.

    Think of the money that will need to be spent by schools for new science textbooks; just after they got done replacing them to give equal space to 'Intelligent Design'.

    You might think it's unimportant, but when the federally mandated standardised test asks how many planets are in the Solar System...
  • by Vellmont (569020) on Friday August 25 2006, @07:04PM (#15982535)
    Here's a copy of a letter I sent off to myword@foxnews.com. I wonder if anyone there will get it:

    That article about Pluto not being a planet has to
    be one of the funniest things I've seen you produce yet.
    I couldn't stop laughing! The notion of having to
    "unlearn" something just kills me. What a perfect
    example of Truthiness, and how appropriate that it
    appears on your print version of "The Word".

    I also have a question for you. How long have you
    been writing under the pen name "John Gibson"? Or
    is John Gibson your real name, and Stephen Colbert
    is your stage name? Just curious.

    Keep up the good work, and I'll be sure to catch
    you on The Report.
  • 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. :-(

    • 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).


      To quote a response from Wikipedia: Even if you don't neglect the Trojan asteroids and other such objects, all the gas giants have cleared their orbits. The Trojans are at very specific points along Jupiters orbit that are defined by Jupiter's gravity. If Jupiter hadn't cleared its orbit they would not be restricted to those points. A massive body collects all bodies near it either into itself, its orbit, its L4 and L5 points with the sun, into resonant orbits, or it ejects them. Its just like cleaning your room. It doesn't mean nothing is in your room, but simply that it's all neatly put away.

      Also, I highly recommend that you read this paper [arxiv.org].
  • Back in the day (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ndansmith (582590) on Friday August 25 2006, @07:17PM (#15982604)
    Gibson would've said the converse when they added Pluto:

    "I grew up with eight planets. Now some know-nothing radicle tells me there are nine? This 'planet' Pluto is nothing but a rock of ice in space."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2006, @07:34PM (#15982695)
    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.
  • by Aqws (932918) on Friday August 25 2006, @07:45PM (#15982756) Journal
    I know of a way to end this debate once and for all, lets blow up pluto
    • Re:Considering... (Score:5, Informative)

      by tygt (792974) on Friday August 25 2006, @06:47PM (#15982422)
      They're apparently in a fairly stable orbital situation such that ne'er will their paths cross.

      As such:

      Pluto is locked in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune; i.e. Pluto's orbital period is exactly 1.5 times longer than Neptune's. Its orbital inclination is also much higher than the other planets'. Thus though it appears that Pluto's orbit crosses Neptune's, it really doesn't and they will never collide.
      See this [nineplanets.org] for more.
    • by yali (209015) on Friday August 25 2006, @07:03PM (#15982532)

      Actually I don't know why Pluto got itself unmade as a planet. I didn't even read the rest of the story, frankly. The headline was all I needed...

      Wait, I'm confused. Is this guy copying Colbert or slashdot?