The Pluto Issue

[Chesterton]

When you were talking about American reaction, I thought you meant reaction within the American scientific community. As Arnaut indicated, there really is not much of a public reaction. If you can judge from a picture, that tiny group of people you showed demonstrating look like they're out for a laugh as much as anything else. And as for the legislation someone else mentioned, I found a bill from California, and it's obviously a joke. Here's part of it:

WHEREAS, The mean-spirited International Astronomical Union decided on August 24, 2006, to disrespect Pluto by stripping Pluto of its planetary status and reclassifying it as a lowly dwarf planet; and

WHEREAS, Pluto, named after the Roman God of the underworld and affectionately sharing the name of California's most famous animated dog, has a special connection to California history and culture; and

WHEREAS, Downgrading Pluto's status will cause psychological harm to some Californians who question their place in the universe and worry about the instability of universal constants; and

WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet renders millions of text books, museum displays, and children's refrigerator art projects obsolete, and represents a substantial unfunded mandate that must be paid by dwindling Proposition 98 education funds, thereby harming California's children and widening its budget deficits; and

WHEREAS, The deletion of Pluto as a planet is a hasty, ill-considered scientific heresy similar to questioning the Copernican theory, drawing maps of a round world, and proving the existence of the time and space continuum; and

WHEREAS, The downgrading of Pluto reduces the number of planets available for legislative leaders to hide redistricting legislation and other inconvenient political reform measures; and...etc.
​

 

[Spacewyrm]

Ok, I know this is already a bit of a necro. But I just read a rather interesting article (here - it's in German, though) about the history of Pluto's discovery.
The article suggests that the anger over the "degradation" of Pluto is mostly a matter of hurt American pride. Pluto is/was the only planet discovered by a US-American. And Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer became a bit of an American hero (according to the article - please correct if wrong), a role he would have fit quite well as a hard-working member of the common people (and not an aloof college graduate). So the recent degradation of Pluto to a dwarf-planet also implicitly degraded the work of the hero Tombaugh.
That would explain why the agitation about Pluto's degradation is mostly an American phenomenon. Here in Europe people may have been a little irritated, but noone considered it a big issue; it was hardly ever mentioned at the Institute for Astrophysics where I wrote my degree dissertation at that time.
Certainly noone over here went into the streets to protest for a smallish lump of rock in the Cuiper belt.

So, what do you people think? Is the discontent about the IAU's decision a matter of hurt national feelings? Or more generally speaking, is it an emotional cause, or a scientific one?

Personally, I think that the most vocally upset Pluto-is-a-planet people are probably making a case based on emotion rather than reason; otherwise I think they'd also be upset that Ceres and similar objects aren't planets. I'm not going to speculate about why people are so upset about it though.

I am also against Pluto's current classification, in a sense; but for me, it is less that Pluto is a "dwarf planet" and more that I don't like the way "dwarf planet" is defined. It seems to me, and I believe that laurele made the same point earlier in the thread, that if something is a dwarf planet, then that something should also be a planet. The name "dwarf planet" implies membership in a broader category: "planet". The fact that Pluto, Ceres, Eris, &c. can be dwarf planets and not planets is kinda dumb, in my opinion, especially since the differences between objects like Earth and Mars on the one hand and Jupiter and Saturn on the other are probably as great as the differences between any of those and either Pluto or Eris.

 

[PhoceanCity]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Sorry I was interrupting...

 

[Beechwell]

I am also against Pluto's current classification, in a sense; but for me, it is less that Pluto is a "dwarf planet" and more that I don't like the way "dwarf planet" is defined. It seems to me, and I believe that laurele made the same point earlier in the thread, that if something is a dwarf planet, then that something should also be a planet. The name "dwarf planet" implies membership in a broader category: "planet". The fact that Pluto, Ceres, Eris, &c. can be dwarf planets and not planets is kinda dumb, in my opinion, especially since the differences between objects like Earth and Mars on the one hand and Jupiter and Saturn on the other are probably as great as the differences between any of those and either Pluto or Eris.

Personally I find the criterium to have "cleared its orbit" to be a pretty good one. The only difference between Pluto and smaller Cuiper belt objects is their size, and that is only a matter of degree. I see no qualitative difference, so it makes sense to me to group them together, rather than with actual planets.
Implicitly the same criterium is used for moons. Otherwise one would need to classify all the particles of planetary rings as moons as well.
And I find it simply more convenient to be able to comprehensly list all planets of our solar system, than having to say "Well, there are four big ones, four smaller ones, and quite a few more within asteroid belts."

But I'm just repeating the older discussion in the threat. Since so far noone has confirmed any emotional bond to Pluto I'll discard the theory for now.

 

[Spacewyrm]

Personally I find the criterium to have "cleared its orbit" to be a pretty good one.

Well, I think that that is a fine criterium for being a "planet" vs. a "dwarf planet". As I said, my main problem is that "dwarf planet" isn't considered a subset of "planet" even though it sounds like it should be.

The only difference between Pluto and smaller Cuiper belt objects is their size, and that is only a matter of degree. I see no qualitative difference, so it makes sense to me to group them together, rather than with actual planets.

I don't know if its only a matter of degree. Objects considered to be dwarf planets are distinguished from other asteroids and Kuiper belt objects by being massive enough to be squished round by gravity. I don't see why this isn't a good minimum criterium for planethood, and then split the planets into the major planets that have cleared their orbits and the dwarf planets that have not.

Implicitly the same criterium is used for moons. Otherwise one would need to classify all the particles of planetary rings as moons as well.

I don't know about that, some kind of size minimum might be a good enough criterion to decide where to draw the line there. Something arbitrary I guess so we don't have to count dust, but I don't see any reason why a particularly large object orbiting inside one of, say, Saturn's rings shouldn't be classified as one of its moons.

And I find it simply more convenient to be able to comprehensly list all planets of our solar system, than having to say "Well, there are four big ones, four smaller ones, and quite a few more within asteroid belts."

I'm not sure why that's more convientient. It's just a matter of classification. Right now you say, "there are four big planets, four smaller planets, and quite a few things that aren't planets." I mean, whether or not its easy to list all the planets seems like a poor reason to limit the number of objects called planets. Nobody cares about memorizing all the asteroids or even all the moons in the Solar System. I'd rather go on physical characteristics, and I don't see how clearing its orbit is really all that important for deciding what an object is.

I do admit that my own way of doing things would be a bit unorthodox, since if I had my way, everything massive enough to be a "dwarf planet" would be a type of planet, even if orbiting another planet. Then it's just a matter of what type of planet you're talking about (major planet, dwarf planet, satellite planet, &c.). I suppose a reasonable compromise though, would require the object to orbit a star to be considered a planet.

But I'm just repeating the older discussion in the threat. Since so far noone has confirmed any emotional bond to Pluto I'll discard the theory for now.

OK. Personally, I don't mind the thread revival. It wasn't that old of a thread, and I kind of like the discussion about how to classify things.

No matter what Pluto is though, I can't wait for New Horizons to get there in 2015. It's more frustrating waiting for close-up pictures of Pluto now that there's something on the way there than it was before they'd launched it, in my opinion.

 

[Kristin E]

I just can't believe it's not even considered a Planet no more

 

[LightHorseman]

I just can't believe it's not even considered a Planet no more

Don't forget, the fact its no longer a planet, proves evolution is false.

 

[Kristin E]

Don't forget, the fact its no longer a planet, proves evolution is false.

How does it prove that?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I just can't believe it's not even considered a Planet no more

First I have heard of it

 

[AV1611VET]

First I have heard of it

When Jesus was crucified, the common people went to bed that night, and had just barely gotten up in the morning to see Jesus on the cross.

The scientists [of the day], had Him arrested, tried and hung on the cross before the common man even knew what was going on.

They still try it today -- (in effigy) -- but this time, we're armed with the word of God.

 

[Split Rock]

When Jesus was crucified, the common people went to bed that night, and had just barely gotten up in the morning to see Jesus on the cross.

The scientists [of the day], had Him arrested, tried and hung on the cross before the common man even knew what was going on.

They still try it today -- (in effigy) -- but this time, we're armed with the word of God.

Sanctimonious drivel.

1. Are you claiming the common people did not have the word of god? What was the Torah?
2. According to "The Documentation," the common people yelled "Crucify Him," and were happier letting a thief go rather than Jesus.
3. You complain about re-defining terms when you have changed the term "scientist" to mean "anyone who ever did anything bad ever in history." Really?

Give us all a brake.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sanctimonious drivel.

1. Are you claiming the common people did not have the word of god? What was the Torah?
2. According to "The Documentation," the common people yelled "Crucify Him," and were happier letting a theif go rather than Jesus.

Give us all a brake.

Sad but true

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Lazarus

John 19:15 Those yet cry out "take-away! take-away! crucify! Him".
Pilate Is saying to them "the King of ye I shall be crucifying?".
Answered the Chief-priests "not we are having a King except Caesar

Revelation 14:11 And the Smoke of the tormenting of Them is ascending into Ages to-Ages.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

More Americans also disbelieve in evolution than do Europeans.
.... .

Had Darwin been American, might that not be so?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Had Darwin been American, might that not be so?

That's like saying if Jesus would have been Chinese, Chinese would believe in Jesus [but then again, perhaps not ]

 

[matthewgar]

I really don't get the whole argument from defintion, planet, planetoid, small object, moon, what ever you want to call it, nothing has changed but the name of it, it's not like Pluto no longer being a planet means it's shrunk 90% or become something completly new.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really don't get the whole argument from defintion, planet, planetoid, small object, moon, what ever you want to call it, nothing has changed but the name of it, it's not like Pluto no longer being a planet means it's shrunk 90% or become something completly new.

Like I said before -- if nothing has changed but the name of it, then I'm sure no one will mind if we leave Pluto as our 9th planet?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Like I said before -- if nothing has changed but the name of it, then I'm sure no one will mind if we leave Pluto as our 9th planet?

'We' won't. Only you and a few other morons that actually care will. Continue doing this and eventually people will have no idea what you're talking about when you open your mouth.

Why does this bother you so much?

 

[AV1611VET]

'We' won't. Only you and a few other morons that actually care will.

A "few" others?

Someone needs to read the Wikipedia article, doesn't he?

Three states care -- one cares enough that it's in legislation.

In addition, the word "Pluto" was made the 2006 word-of-the-year to mock the decision.

So the next time scientists rig a vote, and anyone who dares disagree with that rigged vote -- (including the scientists who voted, "nay") -- is considered a "moron", I'll wear that badge as a title of respect.

(You just gotta love scientists. Agree with them, or you're a 'moron'.)

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

A "few" others?

Someone needs to read the Wikipedia article, doesn't he?

Three states care -- one cares enough that it's in legislation.

WOW! 3 whole states in comparison to the 7 billion in total on the planet today! That is sooooooo many people. Those states must consists of BILLIONS of people!... oh wait... they can't... because the US only has 300 million or so people total... oh... so not that many after all. It just sounds like a lot when you say 3 WHOLE STATES!

In addition, the word "Pluto" was made the 2006 word-of-the-year to mock the decision.

So the next time scientists rig a vote, and anyone who dares disagree with that rigged vote -- (including the scientists who voted, "nay") -- is considered a "moron", I'll wear that badge as a title of respect.

(You just gotta love scientists. Agree with them, or you're a 'moron'.)

This isn't about agreeing with scientists it's about not caring. Nobody cares. You're not a moron if you disagree with the scientists, you're a moron if it you care vehemently about how we define Pluto. Who cares. It isn't an issue.

I ask again: Why do you care so much about how we define Pluto? How does this actually directly influence your life (or the lives of anyone around you) in any way?

 

[Cabal]

3. You complain about re-defining terms when you have changed the term "scientist" to mean "anyone who ever did anything bad ever in history." Really?

Give us all a brake.

Especially ironic given that the people who actually crucified Jesus were overtly and proudly sanctimonious and insisted that their interpretation of the Bible was the right one despite the input of someone who knew much better.

These modern Pharisees can take a long hike.