Is Gravity About To Get Plutoed?

[AV1611VET]

Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter."

SOURCE

 

[Lilly Owl]

I'm not a scientist but I'd think that implying a hypothetical about dark matter can replace the law and theory of Gravity is a stretch.

The Pluto issue was ridiculous. A group of people after all these years voting that Pluto doesn't qualify as a planet. God complex much?

 

[Adaephon]

I'm not a scientist but I'd think that implying a hypothetical about dark matter can replace the law and theory of Gravity is a stretch.

The Pluto issue was ridiculous. A group of people after all these years voting that Pluto doesn't qualify as a planet. God complex much?

Umm, how on earth is reclassifying an astronomical body based on new definitions in any way indicate a "god complex"?


Seriously, people need to stop whining and acting like scientists are being unreasonable because we actually do our jobs instead of catering to the sentimental whims and superstitions of the masses.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not a scientist but I'd think that implying a hypothetical about dark matter can replace the law and theory of Gravity is a stretch.

The Pluto issue was ridiculous. A group of people after all these years voting that Pluto doesn't qualify as a planet. God complex much?

The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Umm, how on earth is reclassifying an astronomical body based on new definitions in any way indicate a "god complex"?


Seriously, people need to stop whining and acting like scientists are being unreasonable because we actually do our jobs instead of catering to the sentimental whims and superstitions of the masses.

Is this how you do your job?

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.


The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.


Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.

One argument often used in favor of demoting Pluto is the fact that another planet was discovered beyond Pluto and that with many more possible small planets in the Kuiper Belt, we could end up with "too many planets" in our solar system. Well, there is no such thing as too many planets. At one point, we thought Jupiter had four moons. Now we know it has 63, and more may be found. Should we limit the number of moons because otherwise, there will be too many to memorize? Should we limit the number of elements in the Periodic Table because kids won't be able to memorize that many? The fact is, memorization is not a very useful learning tool. At one point, we knew little more about the planets than their names and order from the Sun. That is not true today. It is more important that kids understand what distinguishes the different types of planets.

If we use the alternate, broader term that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star--which many planetary scientists prefer over the IAU definition--we can then use subcategories to distinguish the types of planets. While we previously recognized two subcategories, the terrestrials and the gas giants or jovians, the new discoveries show us there is a third class-the dwarf planets. These are planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium--but of the dwarf subcategory because they are not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. In fact, Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet," never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. If this one area is amended so the IAU resolution establishes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, much of the controversy would evaporate.

 

[troodon]

Science isn't a democracy, and it doesn't typically care what the public thinks about an issue. Paleontologists aren't concerned with whether you or anyone else calls Apatosaurus Brontosaurus, they've decided the name should be Apatosaurus so that's its name.

 

[Lilly Owl]

Umm, how on earth is reclassifying an astronomical body based on new definitions in any way indicate a "god complex"?


Seriously, people need to stop whining and acting like scientists are being unreasonable because we actually do our jobs instead of catering to the sentimental whims and superstitions of the masses.

Do grow up.
It's an opinion! Not a whine. And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.
In fact those new scientists vomited all over their colleagues in the past when they as much as determined those who called Pluto a planet at one time had no right to, and didn't know what they were talking about. And they were talking, at the time Pluto qualified as a planet, from an educated perspective. Kind of funny when Scientists turn on other Scientists.
And then those who support Science condemn the public who has an opinion about Scientists that turned on other Scientists while turning on the evidence that at one time determined Pluto qualified to be called a Planet.
Don't look for enemies on the lay public. Scientists have enough among their own to keep them quite busy for quite awhile.

The whiners would be those who claim a group of scientists must be obeyed without question and anyone who opposes that opinion with their own is a whiner.That just reiterates the god complex!

 

[Adaephon]

Do grow up.
It's an opinion! Not a whine. And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.
The whiners would be those who claim a group of scientists must be obeyed without question and anyone who opposes that opinion with their own is a whiner.That just reiterates the god complex!

Of course it does. You can continue complaining over utter trivia if you want, just don't expect us to take it seriously or give it any consideration.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.

Quite correct.

In fact, notice how the public took it?

Reception to the IAU decision was mixed. While some accepted the reclassification, others seek to overturn the decision with online petitions urging the IAU to consider reinstatement. A resolution introduced by some members of the California State Assembly light-heartedly denounces the IAU for "scientific heresy", among other crimes. The U.S. state of New Mexico's House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Tombaugh, a longtime resident of that state, which declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day. The Illinois State Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009, on the basis that Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU.
Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it does. You can continue complaining over utter trivia if you want, just don't expect us to take it seriously or give it any consideration.

I really don't think it was trivial.

It was done by a group of unqualified scientists behind closed doors.

Those kinds of shenanigans could cause a space shuttle to blow up.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I really don't thing it was trivial.

Opinion noted -- and ignored.

It was done by a group of unqualified scientists behind closed doors.

Says the unqualified layperson.

Those kinds of shenanigans could cause a space shuttle to blow up.

How so, AV? Remember, lying is a sin.

 

[Elendur]

Why are you putting so much affection into a definition?

 

[AV1611VET]

Says the unqualified layperson.

Someone didn't read Post #9, did he?

And speaking of 'unqualified,' someone didn't read Post #5, did he?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are you putting so much affection into a definition?

Speaking of definitions, 'pluto' was made the IAU's word-of-the-year for 2006 in mockery of the demotion.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Do grow up.
It's an opinion! Not a whine. And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.
In fact those new scientists vomited all over their colleagues in the past when they as much as determined those who called Pluto a planet at one time had no right to, and didn't know what they were talking about. And they were talking, at the time Pluto qualified as a planet, from an educated perspective. Kind of funny when Scientists turn on other Scientists.
And then those who support Science condemn the public who has an opinion about Scientists that turned on other Scientists while turning on the evidence that at one time determined Pluto qualified to be called a Planet.
Don't look for enemies on the lay public. Scientists have enough among their own to keep them quite busy for quite awhile.

The whiners would be those who claim a group of scientists must be obeyed without question and anyone who opposes that opinion with their own is a whiner.That just reiterates the god complex!

Any particular reason you're fond of Pluto, and not the other 100,000 KBO's?

 

[RickG]

The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.

Hey AV, how many times has the Pluto gone around the Sun?

 

[AV1611VET]

Any particular reason you're fond of Pluto, and not the other 100,000 KBO's?

In Bible numbers, 9 is the number of divine completeness.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey AV, how many times has the Pluto gone around the Sun?

24 times.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

In Bible numbers, 9 is the number of divine completeness.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Oh, I see. You're sore because you want it to be a planet. Always wondered why you got in a tizzy about such a non-story.

 

[Tomk80]

Do grow up.
It's an opinion! Not a whine. And the public doesn't have to care or bow to what a group of scientists get together and decide about Pluto.
In fact those new scientists vomited all over their colleagues in the past when they as much as determined those who called Pluto a planet at one time had no right to, and didn't know what they were talking about. And they were talking, at the time Pluto qualified as a planet, from an educated perspective. Kind of funny when Scientists turn on other Scientists.
And then those who support Science condemn the public who has an opinion about Scientists that turned on other Scientists while turning on the evidence that at one time determined Pluto qualified to be called a Planet.
Don't look for enemies on the lay public. Scientists have enough among their own to keep them quite busy for quite awhile.

The whiners would be those who claim a group of scientists must be obeyed without question and anyone who opposes that opinion with their own is a whiner.That just reiterates the god complex!

That's a mighty big stick you've got up your behind there.

There was a simple reason Pluto is not a planet anymore, and that was that the word planet was not defined. So they did. The choice was between a definition of planet that included Pluto as well as many other small, planet-like objects, or one that excluded Pluto. They excluded Pluto, firstly because otherwise your kids would have had to learn the names of thousands of planets instead of just nine. Secondly, because they discovered that Pluto "behaved" differently in some respects than all other planets in our galaxy. So it was an object different from the 8 other planets.

No scientists "turned on each other". There was no disrespect whatsoever to previous scientists. New facts overturn old ideas. That is not disrespect, that is the inevitable result of having gathered more facts. All scientists know this. What I discover today will be criticized as soon as I publish it, and may be overturned tomorrow. Heck, everything I discover is already criticized in multiple ways by a number of collegues and peers I work with and do not work with even before I publish it. All scientists realize this, know this, and accept this. That is the game we play. And that is the very opposite of a God complex.

edited to add: And why are you so hung-up on this anyway? Seriously, I really do not get this in any way, shape or form. Pluto a planet or not, who freakin' cares? It's just an object in the sky, like there are thousands of others. It's not even very interesting, I mean it's basically a large asteroid with a lot of ice on it. It's not even the largest dwarf plant in our solar system (Eris is bigger). It seems such a petty thing to get hung up on? And look at the honour it got. Now a whole group of dwarf planets are called plutoids, because they share a lot of features with pluto.