Pluto

[AV1611VET]

laurele's two posts? I did not see any posts by "laurele". I would very much like to review the source of such information.

Pluto

First Post:

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.

Second Post:

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.

 

[HitchSlap]

That would take a lot of work.

First, wait until all the engineers leave, then rig a vote not allowing them to voice any opinion, then pare the number of voters down to 4%, consisting of those who don't really deal with bridges, per se (cement workers, railing builders, painters), then cross your fingers and hope that most of the other 96%, will automatically agree, so you can call it "consensus of opinion".

Lol.
If you need a new mnemonic, I can help.

Try, "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nothing."

You'll be okay soon.

 

[lesliedellow]

Liquid sin.

The best sort.

 

[Heissonear]

Pluto ran into politics like climate science. Lol. Guess who won round one and gathered a following?

I sure hope another thread by AV is not locked. He has a record going.

 

[miknik5]

Genuine conversation is preferred.

But I am
And it is genuine

 

[Shemjaza]

Lol.
If you need a new mnemonic, I can help.

Try, "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nothing."

You'll be okay soon.

I prefer:
My Very Excellent Mother Just Serves Us Nachos

 

[MissRowy]

Some of AVs threads are actually quite interesting and then someone usually throws a spanner in the works and it gets closed. Can we not do that again??

 

[HitchSlap]

Some of AVs threads are actually quite interesting and then someone usually throws a spanner in the works and it gets closed. Can we not do that again??

What's one more Pluto thread from AV?

 

[MissRowy]

Valid point but some of them are interesting!! I can see where you are coming from though.

 

[RickG]

Pluto

Question, who is the author of complaint concerning Pluto. That is what IAU member(s)? Where was it published?

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists.

Source and verification for the claim? As for only 4% all members of the IAU would have known, it wasn't a last minute thing. There was an initial draft at the Paris meeting. A final draft was completed at the Prague meeting where it was put to the members for a vote where it passed.

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.

Not true and I speak from experience having belonged and attended various science organization conferences, though not the IAU. No members are required to attend but all are urged to do so and given advance notice up to a year in advance as to where, when, and agendas for those meetings. Those who do attend come at various times for specific areas of their interests and expertise.

No absentee voting was allowed.

If they don't attend they don't get to vote. All members know that.

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.

Not true. According to bylaws and protocol a committee was formed for the specific task at the previous years meeting in Paris and presented the first draft there. A year later a revised draft was formed and presented at the Paris meeting and voted on. There are no requirements for attending any of the meetings which all members know. If they didn't attend that is not the IAU's problem.

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.

Only members can vote. Why did they not obtain membership?

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 is the organization that provides guidelines for astronomical criteria, not those just described.

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.

Non members of the IAU have no say in the matter. Nothing is keeping them from obtaining membership. Here's a link to IAUs membership application procedure. International Astronomical Union | IAU


There is no substitution of fact checking and verifying through original sources. Here's a link to IAUs Resolutions Guidelines. International Astronomical Union | IAU

 

[AV1611VET]

Source and verification for the claim? As for only 4% all members of the IAU would have known, it wasn't a last minute thing. There was an initial draft at the Paris meeting. A final draft was completed at the Prague meeting where it was put to the members for a vote where it passed.

Rick, I rated your post INFORMATIVE, and I'm glad you took an interest in this, as it really bothered me that ... for years ... no one would respond to this with any amount of knowledge other than to auto-deny it.

However, you're coming across as if YOU WERE THERE, and you weren't.

And while Laurele admitted she wasn't either, I can't understand all the fiasco about this that has been going on since it happened.

You're making it look like everything was done aboveboard and legal, etc., yet it has sparked so much controversy in the way of state legislatures, dissenting astronomers, and the general public getting involved, that I have to believe there's more to this than you present.

I thank you for taking the time and interest in giving a scholarly reply; but I'm afraid it hasn't changed my thinking much at all.

 

[RickG]

Rick, I rated your post INFORMATIVE, and I'm glad you took an interest in this, as it really bothered me that ... for years ... no one would respond to this with any amount of knowledge other than to auto-deny it.

However, you're coming across as if YOU WERE THERE, and you weren't.

And while Laurele admitted she wasn't either, I can't understand all the fiasco about this that has been going on since it happened.

You're making it look like everything was done aboveboard and legal, etc., yet it has sparked so much controversy in the way of state legislatures, dissenting astronomers, and the general public getting involved, that I have to believe there's more to this than you present.

I thank you for taking the time and interest in giving a scholarly reply; but I'm afraid it hasn't changed my thinking much at all.

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. Just one thing more.

IAU is the internationally recognized organization for assigning designations to celestial bodies recognized by the greater scientific community. Downgrading Pluto to a dwarf planet is not a law that any country must observe. No group or individual is required to abide by their decisions, however few reject them. Also, if you sourced the link I provided for membership it is quite professional in what they do. IAU is an international association of professional astronomers at the PhD level and beyond, active in professional research and education in astronomy.

 

[AV1611VET]

IAU is an international association of professional astronomers at the PhD level and beyond, active in professional research and education in astronomy.

Then maybe they should act more professionally and not create a firestorm of legislation, public outcry, and dissention and be a little more lenient in letting their peers vote.

Even if it means taking a revote, if it will satisfy the storm.

(Unless, of course, they're enjoying the attention they're getting.)

 

[RickG]

Then maybe they should act more professionally and not create a firestorm of legislation, public outcry, and dissention and be a little more lenient in letting their peers vote.

Even if it means taking a revote, if it will satisfy the storm.

(Unless, of course, they're enjoying the attention they're getting.)

Well, whether you agree with it or not, try looking at it from a scientific point of view. That is, let's 'take a hike with science'. When Pluto was discovered it fit the description of a planet and remained that way until recently. So what changed? Technology and the ability to observe and understand things we never have before. With this new information it was suddenly realized that, hey wait a minute. If Pluto is a planet, we are going to have to recognize about thousand other planets in our solar system. Thus the reason for specifically defining the criteria for a planet. Our moon is larger than Pluto, do we call it a planet? The earth made up of countless asteroids, do we call it giant asteroid. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the earth was once viewed to be the center of the universe with everything revolving around it. Copernicus came along and said no, we and everything else in the sky revolves around the sun. And so on and so on as new information and understanding becomes available; etc., etc., etc.. Enjoy the hike?

 

[AV1611VET]

If Pluto is a planet, we are going to have to recognize about thousand other planets in our solar system.

Fine with me if they want to present their case that way.

Just let all the qualified professionals vote.

I challenge them to take a revote.

Unless, of course, they want to stick to the letter of their law and declare the matter closed, so they can enjoy the publicity.

The International Astronomical Union is, in my opinion, a union of shyster scientists who are nothing more than cowards and afraid to take a revote.

You can put them up on a pedestal if you want, but as for me, if I didn't already think the Antichrist is going to be a biologist from the tribe of Dan, I would probably think he was going to be an astronomer from the tribe of Ephraim.

 

[Loudmouth]

Didn't read laurele's posts, did you?

Didn't read my posts, did you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fine with me if they want to present their case that way.

Just let all the qualified professionals vote.

I challenge them to take a revote.

Unless, of course, they want to stick to the letter of their law and declare the matter closed, so they can enjoy the publicity.

The International Astronomical Union is, in my opinion, a union of shyster scientists who are nothing more than cowards and afraid to take a revote.

You can put them up on a pedestal if you want, but as for me, if I didn't already think the Antichrist is going to be a biologist from the tribe of Dan, I would probably think he was going to be an astronomer from the tribe of Ephraim.

Why is it so important to you that Pluto be called a planet?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it so important to you that Pluto be called a planet?

Ask NASA.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ask NASA.

I asked you. Why do YOU think it is so important that Pluto be called a planet?

 

[AV1611VET]

I asked you. Why do YOU think it is so important that Pluto be called a planet?

Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine -- The Beatles