IAU updates scientific definition of planet to match current knowledge

I posted this because I had to see at least one thread header in this
newsgroup that states what the IAU did in the positive light that it
intended, instead of the negative media spin of the "IAU dumped Pluto."
That postive light was, to quote the preamble of the resolution
(appended): "Contemporary observations are changing our understanding
of planetary systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for
objects reflect our current understanding."

Among the things that science should do is (1) accrue new knowledge and
advance our understanding of the natural world, and (2) husband the
general public's conventional wisdom about the natural world.

The story is not the "IAU made the general public and school children
feel uncomfortable by changing the definition of planet and demoting
Pluto as a planet." The story is: "members of the IAU advanced our
knowledge and understanding of the structure of the solar system. Based
on more observations with new satellites and better telescopes over the
last 70 years, scientific terminology to describe our better
understanding of solar system structure is being improved to match this
improved understanding."

Science should not bow to popular linguistic whims of the general
public. What will be next? Something like: "We need to keep the
definition of 'evolution' within 'safe' boundaries, so we don't upset
the children and inconvenience textbook manufacturers."

The best gift that we can give to subsequent generations is an expanded
view of the natural world with an improved depth of understanding of
how the natural world works. To do otherwise is a disservice to the
next generation, regardless of whatever transient inconvenience it may
cause to them, to textbook manufacturers, to the builders of
planetarium displays, or to our own natural human desire to feel secure
in an familiar and stable view of the world around us.

Clyde Tombaugh is probably spinning in his grave on this, but not
because Pluto was demoted. He would be spinning in his grave because
retaining Pluto as a planet is - based on our improvements in our
understanding the solar system's structure over the last 70 years - bad
science. Tombaugh spent all those hours at the blink comparator in
order to advance our knowledge of the solar system. 70 years later his
efforts bore significant fruit, no doubt in part through the many
future astronomers that he inspired while teaching at New Mexico State
University from the 1950s to the 1970s.

I never met him or heard him lecture, but if alive today, he would
probably be dismayed at an attempt to cling to an outdated model of our
solar system. If alive today, rather than hand-wringing over the loss
of "his planet," Tombaugh would probably be expending his engergies to
get a peak into the eyepiece that Mike Brown (co-discover of 2003UB313)
is looking through.

Science marches on and I, for one, gladly will march with it.

- Canopus56

-----------------------

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.ia...603/index.html

RESOLUTIONS

Resolution 5A is the principal definition for the IAU usage of "planet"
and related terms.

Resolution 6A creates for IAU usage a new class of objects, for which
Pluto is the prototype. The IAU will set up a process to name these
objects.

IAU Resolution: Definition of a Planet in the Solar System
Contemporary observations are changing our understanding of planetary
systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect
our current understanding. This applies, in particular, to the
designation 'planets'. The word 'planet' originally described
'wanderers' that were known only as moving lights in the sky. Recent
discoveries lead us to create a new definition, which we can make using
currently available scientific information.

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar
System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet"1 is 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.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is 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)
shape2 , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and
(d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be
referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----



1 The eight planets a Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune.

2 An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into
either dwarf planet and other categories.

3 These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most
Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


IAU Resolution: Pluto

RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as
the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.1

canopus56 wrote:
I posted this because I had to see at least one thread header in this
newsgroup that states what the IAU did in the positive light that it
intended, instead of the negative media spin of the "IAU dumped Pluto."
That postive light was, to quote the preamble of the resolution
(appended): "Contemporary observations are changing our understanding
of planetary systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for
objects reflect our current understanding."
snipped

I, for one, am perfectly happily they "dumped" Pluto from the "major"
planets list on some sensible self-consistent ground. What I find
amusing is the amount of people posting nonsense when outright BS or
feel offended by what the IAU did. At any rate they have
zilch/zero/null influence on the outcome of IAU comitee and thank
goodness it is the way it is.

Andrea T.

The Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere is due to rotational
dynamics of the molten/flexible interior,it means that it is a
continuing dynamic influencing planetary structure and especially the
motion of the surface fractured crust.


The sudden meaningless fuss over definitions is fine,perhaps they
should define an 'astronomer ' first before they tackle celestial
structures.It is the presence of the rare type of astronomer that is
needed to restore a balance when the discipline is dominated by silly
cosmologists and astrophotographers -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [viasplanetarum
apparentes] and the record of their motions is especially the task of
the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true
and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas] is . . .the task of
contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines correct
images of those true motions may be depicted on paper is the concern of
the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

When Kepler wrote that there were no celestial sphere geometers
justifying the Ra/Dec system so things are presently at a nadir.



canopus56 wrote:

I posted this because I had to see at least one thread header in this
newsgroup that states what the IAU did in the positive light that it
intended, instead of the negative media spin of the "IAU dumped Pluto."
That postive light was, to quote the preamble of the resolution
(appended): "Contemporary observations are changing our understanding
of planetary systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for
objects reflect our current understanding."

Among the things that science should do is (1) accrue new knowledge and
advance our understanding of the natural world, and (2) husband the
general public's conventional wisdom about the natural world.

The story is not the "IAU made the general public and school children
feel uncomfortable by changing the definition of planet and demoting
Pluto as a planet." The story is: "members of the IAU advanced our
knowledge and understanding of the structure of the solar system. Based
on more observations with new satellites and better telescopes over the
last 70 years, scientific terminology to describe our better
understanding of solar system structure is being improved to match this
improved understanding."

Science should not bow to popular linguistic whims of the general
public. What will be next? Something like: "We need to keep the
definition of 'evolution' within 'safe' boundaries, so we don't upset
the children and inconvenience textbook manufacturers."

The best gift that we can give to subsequent generations is an expanded
view of the natural world with an improved depth of understanding of
how the natural world works. To do otherwise is a disservice to the
next generation, regardless of whatever transient inconvenience it may
cause to them, to textbook manufacturers, to the builders of
planetarium displays, or to our own natural human desire to feel secure
in an familiar and stable view of the world around us.

Clyde Tombaugh is probably spinning in his grave on this, but not
because Pluto was demoted. He would be spinning in his grave because
retaining Pluto as a planet is - based on our improvements in our
understanding the solar system's structure over the last 70 years - bad
science. Tombaugh spent all those hours at the blink comparator in
order to advance our knowledge of the solar system. 70 years later his
efforts bore significant fruit, no doubt in part through the many
future astronomers that he inspired while teaching at New Mexico State
University from the 1950s to the 1970s.

I never met him or heard him lecture, but if alive today, he would
probably be dismayed at an attempt to cling to an outdated model of our
solar system. If alive today, rather than hand-wringing over the loss
of "his planet," Tombaugh would probably be expending his engergies to
get a peak into the eyepiece that Mike Brown (co-discover of 2003UB313)
is looking through.

Science marches on and I, for one, gladly will march with it.

- Canopus56

-----------------------

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.ia...603/index.html

RESOLUTIONS

Resolution 5A is the principal definition for the IAU usage of "planet"
and related terms.

Resolution 6A creates for IAU usage a new class of objects, for which
Pluto is the prototype. The IAU will set up a process to name these
objects.

IAU Resolution: Definition of a Planet in the Solar System
Contemporary observations are changing our understanding of planetary
systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect
our current understanding. This applies, in particular, to the
designation 'planets'. The word 'planet' originally described
'wanderers' that were known only as moving lights in the sky. Recent
discoveries lead us to create a new definition, which we can make using
currently available scientific information.

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar
System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet"1 is 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.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is 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)
shape2 , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and
(d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be
referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----



1 The eight planets a Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune.

2 An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into
either dwarf planet and other categories.

3 These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most
Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


IAU Resolution: Pluto

RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as
the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.1

Not so fast....

You mean you didn't get the memo?

This isn't finished yet by a long shot.

There are about 10,000 or so professional astronomers
and only 370 voted on the resolution (according to Phil Plait aka "The
Bad Astronomer"
187 for to 183 against.

So you are telling me that 5 people have the right to demote Pluto or
to decide any other thing for the rest of humanity? Egads, girl, please
get a life. How would you like 5 strangers to tell you what to do? I
sure wouldn't.

This is not over according to Dr. Alan Stern, chief scientist of the
New Horizon's Pluto Mission. He is already working on a petition to
overturn the ruling. And as a Co-Coordinator of the JPL/NASA Night Sky
Network for BMAA., Inc. I have already asked if
Night Sky wants to circulate a petition of support for this effort
among other Night Sky members.

Touche!

Ed wrote:
Not so fast....

I thought what he wrote was positive and inspiring. Your continued
diatribes seem rather petty in comparison. Why not let it rest?

Talk about minorities making decisions... it is your point of view that
is the real minority, no matter how loudly you proclaim otherwise.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

canopus56 wrote:
I posted this because I had to see at least one thread header in this
newsgroup that states what the IAU did in the positive light that it
intended, instead of the negative media spin of the "IAU dumped Pluto."
That postive light was, to quote the preamble of the resolution
(appended): "Contemporary observations are changing our understanding
of planetary systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for
objects reflect our current understanding."

Among the things that science should do is (1) accrue new knowledge and
advance our understanding of the natural world, and (2) husband the
general public's conventional wisdom about the natural world.

The story is not the "IAU made the general public and school children
feel uncomfortable by changing the definition of planet and demoting
Pluto as a planet." The story is: "members of the IAU advanced our
knowledge and understanding of the structure of the solar system. Based
on more observations with new satellites and better telescopes over the
last 70 years, scientific terminology to describe our better
understanding of solar system structure is being improved to match this
improved understanding."

Science should not bow to popular linguistic whims of the general
public. What will be next? Something like: "We need to keep the
definition of 'evolution' within 'safe' boundaries, so we don't upset
the children and inconvenience textbook manufacturers."

The best gift that we can give to subsequent generations is an expanded
view of the natural world with an improved depth of understanding of
how the natural world works. To do otherwise is a disservice to the
next generation, regardless of whatever transient inconvenience it may
cause to them, to textbook manufacturers, to the builders of
planetarium displays, or to our own natural human desire to feel secure
in an familiar and stable view of the world around us.

Clyde Tombaugh is probably spinning in his grave on this, but not
because Pluto was demoted. He would be spinning in his grave because
retaining Pluto as a planet is - based on our improvements in our
understanding the solar system's structure over the last 70 years - bad
science. Tombaugh spent all those hours at the blink comparator in
order to advance our knowledge of the solar system. 70 years later his
efforts bore significant fruit, no doubt in part through the many
future astronomers that he inspired while teaching at New Mexico State
University from the 1950s to the 1970s.

I never met him or heard him lecture, but if alive today, he would
probably be dismayed at an attempt to cling to an outdated model of our
solar system. If alive today, rather than hand-wringing over the loss
of "his planet," Tombaugh would probably be expending his engergies to
get a peak into the eyepiece that Mike Brown (co-discover of 2003UB313)
is looking through.

Science marches on and I, for one, gladly will march with it.

- Canopus56

-----------------------

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.ia...603/index.html

RESOLUTIONS

Resolution 5A is the principal definition for the IAU usage of "planet"
and related terms.

Resolution 6A creates for IAU usage a new class of objects, for which
Pluto is the prototype. The IAU will set up a process to name these
objects.

IAU Resolution: Definition of a Planet in the Solar System
Contemporary observations are changing our understanding of planetary
systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect
our current understanding. This applies, in particular, to the
designation 'planets'. The word 'planet' originally described
'wanderers' that were known only as moving lights in the sky. Recent
discoveries lead us to create a new definition, which we can make using
currently available scientific information.

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar
System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet"1 is 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.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is 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)
shape2 , (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and
(d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be
referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----



1 The eight planets a Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune.

2 An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into
either dwarf planet and other categories.

3 These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most
Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----


IAU Resolution: Pluto

RESOLUTION 6A
The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as
the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.

Very well put. Mike Brown happily gave up 15 potential planets with
the rejection of last week's proposal.

I'd respond to "They took Pluto away!" with "No they didn't, they added
the rest of the Kuiper Belt."

Don't Be Evil wrote:
I'd respond to "They took Pluto away!" with "No they didn't, they added
the rest of the Kuiper Belt."

Sounds like a wedding blessing. "You're not losing a planet, you're
gaining a plutino (or several dozen)."

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Oh, I forgot you are always right and never wrong!

Tyranny of the Minority at the IAU meeting.

"Ed" wrote in message
oups.com...

Not so fast....

You mean you didn't get the memo?

This isn't finished yet by a long shot.

There are about 10,000 or so professional astronomers
and only 370 voted on the resolution (according to Phil Plait aka "The
Bad Astronomer"
187 for to 183 against.

Isn't this the democratic system that the US is fighting for?
How many more people voted for your president than against him?

Terry B