Posted on 09/02/2006 5:47:21 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
Despite being only 0.9 arcsecond apart, the "dwarf planet" Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, appear well separated in this Hubble Space Telescope image snapped in 1994. R. Albrecht (ESA/ESTEC) and NASA. It's not over yet.
In the past week a small but growing group of scientists made their first formal attack against the International Astronomical Union's August 24th resolution that left the solar system with eight planets and downgraded Pluto to a new class of objects known as "dwarf planets."
On Thursday two heavy hitters in the planetary-science community — Mark Sykes, director of the Planetary Science Institute, and S. Alan Stern, an executive director of the Southwest Research Institute and leader of the Pluto-bound New Horizons mission — unveiled a petition formally disputing the new definition. The petition, signed by more than 300 of the world's leading space scientists, states, "We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU's definition of a planet, nor will we use it."
The signatories call for a "better definition" of a planet and ask that the method to determine that definition includes more input from the global astronomical community. According to the petitioners, only about 4% of the IAU's nearly 10,000 members were present in Prague to vote on the resolution. In a prepared statement Sykes wrote, "A more open process, involving a broader cross section of the community engaged in planetary studies of our own solar system and others, should be undertaken."
Says Stern, "From the number of signatories that the petition received in a few days, it’s clear that there is significant unhappiness among scientists with the IAU’s planet definition and that it will not be universally adopted by scientists and textbook writers."
Other battle lines are being drawn as some scientists are questioning the IAU's authority in this matter altogether. The director of the Center for Space Exploration Policy Research, Mark Bullock, released the following statement: "A key public-policy question is who has the social mandate to alter the definition of something as fundamental as a planet. Scientists have in the past vested the IAU with authority to name asteroids and other planetary objects. However, the word 'planet' has cultural, historical, and social meaning and as such requires much broader discussion and consensus than those required for the naming of astronomical bodies."
Meanwhile the chair of the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences, Richard G. French (Wellesley College), urged the group's more than 1,200 members to recognize the authority of the IAU to render their decision and reiterated that refinements to the definition are desired. In a letter to the DPS community, he writes, "There is still work to be done, too, in constructing a definition that is generally applicable to extra-solar planetary systems. These and other changes, radical or moderate, presumably will be addressed at the next IAU General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro in 2009, and the DPS community will continue to be involved in all stages of this process."
You can read the Sykes-Stern petition, including the list of signatories, at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest.
It ain't over till they convince me that it's not a planet.
If it has a moon, it's a planet.
Unfortunately that leaves mercury and venus out.
Couldn't it be a dual-planet system?
In the meantime, IIRC, these were (some of ?) the criteria..
1. A (generally) circular orbit generally in line with other planets (plane of the ecliptic ?) orbiting the sun.. ( a star )
2. Sufficient mass that the body assumes a spherical shape.. ( Pluto satisfies this requirement..)
3. Center of gravity for any orbiting satellites.. ( Pluto does not quite satisfy this requirement.. Technically, Pluto and Charon are binary planets under this definition..)
As for the last definition, I can live with it either way, and 2 out of 3 ain't bad..
My vote is for planetary status..
If some "esteemed" astronomical society classified it as a "minor" planet I guess I wouldn't mind terribly, as long as it's still a planet..
See? It's not just me.
(How mean can you get?)
I believe that Pluto, now newly classified as a "dwarf planet", is now eligible for inclusion under the Americans With Disabilities Act. He can file a lawsuit for protection, rights, free healthcare, welfare, and a parking ramp to be installed at his home. He'd better be driving with a blue tag dangling from his SUV rearview mirror.
Pluto, call the ACLU, darlin'...they'll assist you. And why not push for the development of a Congressional Dwarf Planet Caucus?
Why not have David Boyce sue the IAU in the Florida Supreme Court for a recount in Pluto leaning counties in south Florida?
BUMP
Pluto not a planet? That's just Goofy.
I'd like to tell those guys "Hey, is your head up (insert name of planet next to Neptune here)?
Well I am on record as being with the guys that built the temples at Teotuican that recognized 10 planents. Our astronmmical community still has one to find and recognize.
hmmm do we get to see the anarchists protest the IAU's attempted one world astronomy body power grab?
(in the good old days there would be an SNL skit about rioting astronomers in the street. Now we have some manish woman mumbling something on their fake newscast.)
Since this definition change has a "political" aspect to it, why can't we just "grandfather" Pluto to let it continue as a planet?
http://ray.rayandlaura.com/images/pluto-astroid.jpg
Watch out. Pluto might just get angry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
