New Mexico Might Declare Pluto a Planet 328
pease1 writes "Wired and others are reporting that for New Mexico, the fight for Pluto is not over. Seven months after the International Astronomical Union downgraded the distant heavenly body to a 'dwarf planet,' a state representative in New Mexico aims to give the snubbed world back some of its respect. State lawmakers will vote Tuesday on a bill that proposes that 'as Pluto passes overhead through New Mexico's excellent night skies, it be declared a planet.' The lawmaker who introduced the measure represents the county in which Clyde Tombaugh, Pluto's discoverer, was born. For many of us old timers, and those who had the honor of meeting Clyde, this just causes a belly laugh and is pure fun. Not to mention a bit of poking a stick in the eye."
Fine (Score:5, Funny)
Well fine, I'm gonna start my own Pluto-recognizing state, with blackjack, and hookers!
In fact, forget the state, and the blackjack.
Re:Fine (Score:5, Funny)
So just Pluto-recognizing hookers?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fine (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I, for one... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never stopped considering Pluto a planet; the new definition is no more attractive than the previous hand-waving, and frankly, I like my definition better anyway:
Re:Fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, because marbles didn't (and wouldn't) naturally form themselves into spheres in space. I'd just call them "artificial debris."
There are lots more things, but most are pretty much unchanged - only the debate about what a planet is has really been stirring things up. For instance, if an object was formed by intelligent beings rather than nature, then it gets prefixed with "artificial." I also like "planetesimal" for planets too small to walk on, "planetoid" for planets that are very low mass (specific
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fine (Score:4, Interesting)
In my view, debris is the result of the actions of intelligence, so no, planets aren't made of debris. They are generally made of materials condensed out of a stellar (or proto-stellar) accretion disk, or otherwise naturally found in space.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your "views" just make no sense from a scientific stand-point. As far as the "atom" stuff goes, you do know what you are really made from, correct? You do know what the Sun and Moon and Earth are mad from, correct?
All of your other posts were trying to separate celestial bodies by su
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't science. This is simply nomenclature that arises from entirely arbitrary attempts at classing. As for the rest, I decline to respond, as you have convinced me that you are being intentionally abrasive.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You originally used the term "artificial debris"; qualifying it like that
Re: (Score:2)
I think it already says that, I certainly intended it to:
"...has characteristics such that the main mass has formed a sphere or oblate spheroid and it will remain that way barring impact with something"
That allows for gas planets, rocky planets, and molten planets. The planet has to form on its own, or it is artificial.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, how many objects that you would call an asteroid have formed themselves into spheres or oblate spheroids? It takes quite a bit of mass for that to happen, because the thing has to basically crush itself into shape. That is a line that physics defines quite naturally for a mass of any given composition; for instance, there is no option whatsoever for the earth to be anything but a s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But "spheroidness" is also a continuum, and composition and history may affect it more than mass does. If we use spheroidness as the guide, then one still needs to pick an arbitrary boundary. Thus, it is not a signif improvement over mass or diameter. Plus, gas giants have no clear surface boundary. One would have to make an exception for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess my first reaction is, where did you get that number? We have 11 or so major planets, collectively they have a fair number of moons; once you remove those from the count, what and where are the other naturally formed spheres or oblate spheroids? Secondly... I'm not sure I have a problem with them being planets in any case, but as I am unaware of them, and I'm kind of a space bug, I don't see t
Re: (Score:2)
They arent planets though. Too small. Pluto isnt a planet for that reason too.
Re:So we have 15+ planets now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What about it? Half a dozen isn't any surprise to me. This sub-thread was started by a claim of 1000+, which is what got me interested, because it seems... optimistic. No one has backed the claim up yet, but the thread's life isn't over yet. Regardless, I'm all for discovering new planets. Even thousands of them, which would be absolutely fascinating. Let's do it!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So we have 15+ planets now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Making schoolchildren memorize arbitrary nomenclature is often useless and one of the many signs that our school systems are structured and run by the clueless.
As to why you'd have them memorize the names of any planets at all, you'd probably mention to them (not make them memorize) the first few discovered by our relatively limited earthbound observations as an unimportant but mildly interesting historical issue, and any beyond that which might be educational in and of themselves. I suspect you'd want to tell them how large the current planet count has become, again purely as a matter of interest, and as an intellectual fulcrum for you to inform them that said number is expected to change shortly, and often. Along with the asteroid count, the comet count, the satellite count, the star count, the galaxy count, etc.
There is no need for them to "memorize" any of these names and numbers until or unless they decide to focus on space science one way or another. And perhaps not even then. They just need to know that there are other planets out there in our system, and how planetary systems work, so they don't get caught up in superstitious nonsense.
On top of this, they need to know how to look things up so that when they want a fact for some reason, they can go get it with minimal fanfare.
Intellectual honesty, critical thinking skills, and the ability to use reference materials fluidly are all far more educationally valuable than canned, arbitrary information that came from a committee not entirely in internal agreement anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Its at quite a big angle compared to everything else.
Thats one reason why imho its not a planet.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I try not to get directly involved in activities where groups of people unqualified to deal with subjects I know something about can outvote me, or where I must vote on things I know considerably less about than others. The US political system is based on the insane idea that any two idiots can reasonably outvote a genius, and also that any two uninformed people can outvote an informed person. That is why it is such an awful mess, and the country itself as a direct consequence. I have better things to
Is that even possible? (Score:2)
Re:Is that even possible? (Score:4, Funny)
Read up on "Freedom Fries" for a good example of redefinition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know not everyone is a linguist but if you believe this you are mistaken. Freedom of speech and freedom of definition are very intimately linked.
For instance if I say George Bush is a traitor and the government changes the definition of the word such that me saying that becomes libel then they have very effectively limited my freedom of speech.
For this instance if I don't call pluto a planet in some situation that this law decrees I must call
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, this is exactly what you want legislators to do. Nothing. Remember the Douglas Adams' catchphrase "mostly harmless". We'd like to keep the legislators that way, thank you very much. Give them more time and then they're messing with the budget, your rights, the interns...
Re: (Score:2)
However I wonder if they will make sedna a planet too. Sedna is bigger than Pluto. -- Or how about the many moons of jupiter, some of them are bigger than pluto as well. Do they get planetship?
Similar & related:
Arkansas House passes resolution changing possessive of state's name to "Arkansas's" [signonsandiego.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The first ammendment states that noone can interfere with anyone calling Pluto anything they want, including a cartoon dog. If the state legislature decided that calling Pluto a Dwarf Planet violated the state constitution, that in turn would violate the US Constitution because as a New Mexico and a US Citizen, I would simultaneously be restricted f
Wikiality (Score:2)
What exactly gives this guy the idea that government should be involved in deciding to meddle in what is a politically approved "fact" or not?
Re:Is that even possible? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they're voting a friggin' name. Pluto is a big round ball of matter that orbits the sun at a mind-boggling distance, and no one's questioning that. NM just wants to call it a "planet", which is well within their prerogative. they could also pass a law whereby you would be referred to as "the one who does not understand the law", and that'd be just fine as well.
One of the basic functions of government is naming things. (Don't believe me? Go look at a street sign. And then pick up any package in the grocery store. The words on those things have meaning, essentially, only because the Government says so.)
Re: (Score:2)
Ancient Anglo-Saxon tribes had no conception of the potato--it is a New World crop.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only in France (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, there are some Representative jackasses in my country (Brazil) trying to push this etymology-purity agenda, forbidding any use of foreign expressions where a translation is available. Before anyone says that would violate freedom of speech, I should inform that this agenda is mainly lead by a Communist Party of Brazil representative. 'Nuff said.
I remember once a crappy CHI teacher I had, who said foreign/loan-words should be written in italics or quoted (this is right) and gave "deletar" as
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that doesn't make it a sane decision.
Pfft, this move is pure self-preservation. (Score:5, Funny)
Hurrah for New Mexico! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Petition your local representative for more planets and bigger telescopes, so all your favorite people can have a planet named after them.
Great (Score:2)
Well, at least it keeps her out of the streets, I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't be so sure of that; She is a politician after all. It's in her nature to whore herself out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
arrrrr? (Score:5, Funny)
Given the relative scarcity of larger bodies of water there, I did not realize that New Mexico had any pirates at all, let alone some in the legislature. Good work!
Also, pi = 4. Or maybe 3.2. The government has spoken, let it be written!
Re:arrrrr? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should learn about the subjunctive.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been laws passed (or maybe just bills proposed; don't remember) in 2 states defining pi = 4 and pi = 3.2, respectively.
Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. But you can petition your local government to declare that the world is flat.
Does it make a difference? It could depending on a few things, but such an arbitrary declaration would probably be symbolic today.
But it illustrates that quite a lot of what politicians do is arbitrary, though much of it has enormous implications. The proces
Who cares (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The big issue is that he is honoured for the wrong thing.
When Pluto was found it was the first *ever* Kuiper Belt object to be observed by mankind. A serious achievement, and a notable step in the evolution of astronomy.
Alas this real achievement has been mired in argument for decades, because people want Pluto to be something it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't have a problem with the bill if they were to strike the "Pluto is a planet" thing. As you point out, it's a short bill, and doesn't call for any money to be spent. Here's the bit I have a problem with (in bold):
If you remove the stuff in bold
Stop listening to scientists! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop listening to scientists! (Score:5, Funny)
Representative Joni Marie Gutierrez, Landscape Architect
I see a possible vested interest here. Pluto = planet = greater chance of manned mission = greater chance of human colonisation = opportunities galore for landscape architects. (I hear Pluto is in a very secluded location, but could benefit from some remodelling, and possibly an ornamental pond or two).
I'm glad ro see all of New Mexico's problems.... (Score:2, Troll)
Well, if the Tomato isn't a fruit then ??? (Score:4, Funny)
2) Pass a law declaring victory
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!!
Legally speaking, at one time tomatoes were not considered fruits.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here are a few summary pieces from the Westlaw headnotes:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Brilliant Idea! (Score:5, Funny)
In other news. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Oklahoma's legislature to say that eclipses really are dragons eating the moon.
North Carolina is considering a bill to re-instate earth, water, air, and fire as elements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the line between "planet" and "not planet" is vague and contrived, which is why the scientific community when from calling pluto "a planet" to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think tongue-in-che
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So some god went on a cosmic health kick and implemented a high fiber diet? And when he took a crap, he breathed life into the results and called them Humans?
The reason for this is obvious: (Score:2, Insightful)
Being enlightened slashdotters, most of us have little appreciation for how stu
Pluto and Astrology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not so fast... my threshold is set to -1, which means I have tremendous appreciation for how stupid people really are.
Planet or not? (Score:4, Funny)
The saddest thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Tombaugh is a local hero (The "do it yourself" guy that found a planet) to people there and having his discovery "watered down" is akin to going to someone that has three purple hearts and taking them away because of an "oversight".
So, the saddest thing is your complete lack of details as to WHY they want to do thi
Oh Come On (Score:2)
It is dumb to try and legislate it though, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But Pluto, subject to more anthropomorphizing than any planet should be, somehow gets to be the cute underdog, fighting for its rights against nasty scientists. Blech.
1. Exactly who is doing the anthropomorphizing here? Hint: you.
2. Some people from the New Mexico county in which Clyde Tombaugh (the tireless discover of said celestial body) was born wanted to honor him, in defiance of the slithy toves and slimy weasels that would deprive him of his hard-earned recognition. I'm not going to provide a link you probably won't follow anyway, but you might find that he deduced the presence of an unseen planet from perturbations of Neptune's orbit and found the tiny pinprick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, schoolbooks? (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
And Ketchup is a vegetable (Score:3, Funny)
which, by the way has more bearing on reality than the semantics of the word "planet".
this is *still* a non-story.
That... that's super. (Score:2, Interesting)
"I'm right and everyone else is wrong! I'm going to believe it MY way, and that's that."
I mean cripes... I wonder how many of them still believe the world is flat? Just because you say that it's true doesn't mean that it is.
Texas Two-step (Score:5, Funny)
One simple reason for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Clyde Tombaugh.
He found Pluto at a time when detecting planets was done with glass plate negatives and telescopes that were manually driven. He knew he was looking for a planet but where to find it was a matter of subjective debate. But he was the consummate scientist; as his wife noted after the demotion of Pluto, he would have been disappointed but he would have understood.
Re:One simple reason for this (Score:5, Interesting)
And in fact, when Tombaugh announced his discovery he didn't claim that it was a planet, only a Trans Neptunian Object.
Thank you New Mexico (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The PR campaign is working (Score:2, Funny)
Be glad they're focusing on this. . . (Score:2)
do you go to jail (Score:2)
Bad Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)
Compromise based on DST (Score:5, Funny)
The farce continues (Score:4, Informative)
This is what happens when a poorly thought definition change occurs. The dynamics of the Pluto orbit were known for a long time. There's been no sudden increase in scientific insight due to this capricious change. Let's look at the facts. Pluto was considered a planet for more than 75 years. In recent times, many Kuiper Belt objects (which by definition interact gravitationally with Neptune) were found, one which is probably even larger [wikipedia.org] than Pluto and at it's closest approach can be closer to the Sun than Pluto is at it's most distant. There may be many such objects larger than Pluto. So yes, if Pluto were discovered now (ignoring the new definition), it probably would not be considered a planet.
But let's look at the definition. Pluto satisfies the first two conditions, it is in orbit around the Sun and is massive enough to form a sphere. The third condition is that "it must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". That phrase has yet to be defined. So we're saying Pluto is not a planet even though we don't yet know the meaning of a critical term. Let me point out what should be obvious. Namely, if one defines the neighborhood of an orbit as a locus of the trajectory (in four dimensional space-time, eg, the space within distance d of the object at time t), then anything big enough to be round most likely has cleared an impressively large neighborhood of anything of similar mass. I assume reasonably that "cleared" means here that no amount of mass similar in order of magnitude routinely runs through this neighborhood. Also, it ignores the grief that the definition change causes to the outside world. Science textbooks need to be modified to reflect this new definition. Given that the definition is "official" yet is still mostly incomplete, the IAU will need to complete the definition of planet (and you can bet that Pluto == planet is still on the agenda). Finally, the definition explicitly only defines "planet" in the Solar System. The related definition of "dwarf planet" (ie, if it is massive enough to be rounded by gravity, it's a dwarf planet) does apply to exosolar dwarf planets (by a 2003 decision by the IAU).
So all this effort fails to apply to other star systems. This is quite relevant. First, the Solar System is a mature star system, more than 4 billion years old with no signs of recent perturbation. Second, all the orbits of the "planets" are circular. That's unusual. Most of the objects yet discovered have very elliptical (ie, large eccentricity) orbits. The definition would be hard to observe anyway since one would need to be able to account for most of the nonstellar mass in the star system before they could claim that anything has "cleared its orbit".
Finally, the decision was made with little concensus. The IAU is not an open-membership body. My impression is that it admits members directly by election only or at the behest of a "national member", a national level organization (like the US National Academy of Science's Board on International Scientific Organizations [nationalacademies.org]) which may have similar membership requirements. IMHO, IAU membership isn't constituted in a way conducive to concensus outside the astronomy community. Second, as noted before, only 5% of the members of the IAU actually voted on the definition in question. Further, only IAU officials had the power [space.com] to modify the definition when it was being voted on. Finally, no report of the actual vote has ever been made public, as far as I can tell. We know that 424 members voted on it (this is widely reported in the media), but I have never seen reported the actual vote tally.
In summary, a redefinition of a common term, "planet" which manages to remain ill-defined and to have little scientific value by an international body that failed to generate any concensus either inside or out on the decision.
Re:Pluto (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's part of a reciprocal agreement (Score:3, Funny)