Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday July 19 2015, @05:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the we-changed-the-rules,-we-can-change-them-back-again dept.

After nearly a decade in the wilderness of celestial classification, Pluto is on the rise again. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted to adopt a new definition of what makes a body a planet, and to specifically demote Pluto to the status of dwarf planet. Now, with new data and images streaming in from New Horizons showing that Pluto is not only a little larger than previously thought, but also home to some remarkable geological features (including what may be some of the solar system's youngest mountain peaks, reaching to 11,000 ft/3,353 m high), many are saying it's time to restore the ninth planet to its previous station.

Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the most prominent advocates for Pluto are scientists working on the New Horizons mission, which reached the closest point of its long-awaited Pluto fly-by on July 14.

"We are free to call it a planet right now," Philip Metzger, a planetary scientist on the New Horizons mission, told DW.com. "Science is not decided by votes ... the planetary science community has never stopped calling bodies like Pluto 'planets'."

Really, isn't it time to re-classify Pluto as a dog?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19 2015, @04:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19 2015, @04:15PM (#211108)

    The IAU "decision" was as political a decision as any you'll find. The definition shoe-horned through makes no sense unless you want to demote the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Neptune (that whole clearing the neighborhood thing), and there are no other planets anywhere in the Universe (it must be in a near circular orbit around the Sun, you know). You have a ten-day international conference where the vote was done on the last day. Out of 2700 people who attended the conference, only 400 or so were around on the last day, and 200-some voted. You were not allowed to vote unless you were present at the meeting, so out of 10,000 professional astronomers, only 200-some voted. Owen Gingerich, one of the people who was on the committee working on the definition of a planet, wasn't allowed to vote because he couldn't be in Prague that day [bbc.co.uk]:

    Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12.

    The Harvard professor emeritus blamed the outcome in large part on a "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study the motion and gravitational effects of celestial objects.

    "In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.

    "Their revolt raised enough of a fuss to destroy the scientific integrity and subtlety of the [earlier] resolution."

    He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is working on'."

    E-voting

    Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and therefore could not vote himself, said he would like to see electronic ballots introduced in future.

    Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus.

    "If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted to vote for President, we would have very different results because no one would vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision."

    He added that he could not see the resolution standing for very long and did not plan to change any of the astronomy textbook he was currently writing.

    But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official roster of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU's president of planetary systems science, commented: "Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we're not so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets crowded.

    "By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think people would have said 'my goodness, what a mess they made back in 2006'."

    Then we get to see headlines like "It's been settled!". But, Tyson and Brown have gotten a lot of mileage the last ten years going around proudly proclaiming they "killed" Pluto. It makes them feel like they're scientific rebels.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2