The Pluto Issue

[AV1611VET]

Here a three questions for you?

I got time off for this, and we're not going over this again.

 

[AV1611VET]

And nothing of value was lost.

Except integrity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Except integrity.

Not really.

 

[sjastro]

I got time off for this, and we're not going over this again.

And yet you continue to perpetrate the myth that astronomers who voted to demote Pluto are crooks.
Here are my questions again.

(1) Why is an astronomer who voted to demote Pluto is automatically labelled a crook?
(2) If the vote was based purely on technical reasons for both the yes and no cases how is the vote rigged?
(3) If the vote was not rigged then explain the why the voting population which constituted 4-5% of the total population who could vote is not considered to be statistically valid to represent the views of the total population?

 

[Hans Blaster]

And they'll determine who agrees upon it, won't they?

From the OP:

You complained that the "planetary scientists" weren't there, but as the material from the (12 year old) post you quoted in the OP notes:

Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter.

That's right, the people you are so concerned can't participate in astronomical nomenclature, aren't astronomers.

 

[Opdrey]

I'm second to none in bringing up the flying squirrel.I doubt it.

I think they knew something we don't.

That's why they rigged it.And the ends justified the means, didn't it?Academia attempts that.

The problem is, they think they can succeed.

Virtually nothing you say in response to any of these leads me to believe you are interested in an actual converstion. You have your opinion which cannot be changed or moved or even reconsidered.

Your position is predicated on a fundamental lack of understanding of the science (I cannot yet tell if it is WILLFULL lack of understanding or if you honestly just can't understand the words being said to you).

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really.

Sounds like it to me.

Yes, it seems that even astronomers cannot have an election without messing around with the process. Such is sadly now the case as the vote in Prague by the International Astronomical Union to demote Pluto from planet to dwarf planet has been exposed as a fraud.

SOURCE

Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, derided the IAU resolution, stating that "the definition stinks, for technical reasons".

SOURCE

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy".

SOURCE: op cit

The Illinois 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."

SOURCE: op cit

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sounds like it to me.

I see a lot of laypeople complaining about something that has absolutely zero effect on their day to day lives.

 

[sjastro]

You complained that the "planetary scientists" weren't there, but as the material from the (12 year old) post you quoted in the OP notes:



That's right, the people you are so concerned can't participate in astronomical nomenclature, aren't astronomers.

The initial draft submitted which concluded that Pluto should retain its planetary status along with including Ceres, Charon and Eris did have involvement from planetary scientists.

The IAU decided to create a committee to gather opinions from a broad range of scientific interests, with input from professional astronomers, planetary scientists, historians, science publishers, writers and educators. Thus the Planet Definition Committee of the IAU Executive Committee was formed and quickly went about preparing a draft resolution to put to the members of the IAU. After the final meeting in Paris the draft resolution was completed. One crucial aspect of the resolution is described by Professor Owen Gingerich, Chair of the IAU Planet Definition Committee: "On the scientific side, we wanted to avoid arbitrary cut-offs simply based on distances, periods, magnitudes, or neighbouring objects". (read more in the IAU GA Newspaper, starting on page 16 of the PDF)

This was rejected at Prague and Pluto lost its status as a planet.

The first draft proposal for the definition of a planet was debated vigorously by astronomers at the 2006 IAU General Assembly in Prague and a new version slowly took shape. This new version was more acceptable to the majority and was put to the members of the IAU for a vote at the Closing Ceremony on the 24 August 2006. By the end of the Prague General Assembly, its members voted that the resolution B5 on the definition of a planet in the Solar System would be as follows:

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.

(read more)

International Astronomical Union | IAU

 

[AV1611VET]

That's right, the people you are so concerned can't participate in astronomical nomenclature, aren't astronomers.

Doesn't matter.

Researchers on both sides of the debate gathered in August 2008, at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory for a conference that included back-to-back talks on the current IAU definition of a planet. Entitled "The Great Planet Debate", the conference published a post-conference press release indicating that scientists could not come to a consensus about the definition of planet. In June 2008, the IAU had announced in a press release that the term "plutoid" would henceforth be used to refer to Pluto and other planetary-mass objects that have an orbital semi-major axis greater than that of Neptune, though the term has not seen significant use.

SOURCE

Notice they "could not come to a consensus about the definition of planet"?

That, in my opinion, is what would have happened if the IAU vote had been done according to their own bylaws.

No demoted Pluto, no change in the dictionary definition of "planet."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No demoted Pluto, no change in the dictionary definition of "planet."

And yet, Pluto is still Pluto. It hasn't mysteriously disappeared, nor has it careened into the sun. So what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Virtually nothing you say in response to any of these leads me to believe you are interested in an actual converstion.

Then ignore me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see a lot of laypeople complaining about something that has absolutely zero effect on their day to day lives.

All's well that ends well ... right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All's well that ends well ... right?

Considering the world has not ended, nor God has some down to say "Pluto is a planet!", all is well as it could be in the world.

 

[sjastro]

Doesn't matter.

SOURCE

Notice they "could not come to a consensus about the definition of planet"?

That, in my opinion, is what would have happened if the IAU vote had been done according to their own bylaws.

No demoted Pluto, no change in the dictionary definition of "planet."

Here are the IAU bylaws.
Show me how the Pluto vote violated these bylaws.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, Pluto is still Pluto. It hasn't mysteriously disappeared, nor has it careened into the sun. So what?

Integrity.

At least Pluto kept it.

Too bad others couldn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering the world has not ended, nor God has come down to say "Pluto is a planet!", all is well as it could be in the world.

Yup -- the ends justifies the means, doesn't it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Integrity.

At least Pluto kept it.

Too bad others couldn't.

And yet, the world spins on, so does Pluto.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup -- the ends justifies the means, doesn't it?

You've said the same thing already.

In your mind, was what the 'end', and why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here are the IAU bylaws.
Show me how the Pluto vote violated these bylaws.

Take that up with Laurele.

If you can convince Laurele, Alan Stern, the California State Assembly, the New Mexico House of Representatives, the Illinois Senate -- AND the IAU publicly apologizes -- I'll think about changing my mind and extending them some consideration.