Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip
Pluto of its status as a planet.
On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto
to a lesser category of object.

But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the
ruling, calling it "embarrassing".

And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a definition
implied that the vote had effectively been "hijacked".

The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day
General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for
astronomy since 1919.

Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting
took part.

An initial proposal by the IAU to add three new planets to the Solar
System - the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon and the distant world
known as 2003 UB313 - met with considerable opposition at the meeting. Days
of heated debate followed during which four separate proposals were tabled.

Eventually, the scientists adopted historic guidelines that see Pluto
relegated to a secondary category of "dwarf planets".

Drawing the line

Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to
Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition;
it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons.

"Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between
dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for
some arbitrary reason, like 'they tend to live in groups'.

"Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's inconsistent."

One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have
"cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the
Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it out
of the way with a gravitational swipe.

Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with
that of Neptune.

But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also
not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth
asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids
on its orbital path.

These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the
formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.

"If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.

Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto
reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to "Honk if Pluto is
still a planet" have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails circulating
about the decision have been describing the IAU as the "Irrelevant
Astronomical Union".

'Inconvenient arrangements'

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'."

Shaking hands

Robin Catchpole, of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, UK, said: "My
own personal opinion was to leave things as they were. I met Clyde
Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, and thought, it's nice to shake hands with
someone who discovered a planet.

"But since the IAU brought out the first draft resolution, I was rather
against that because I thought it was going to be very confusing. So the
best of the alternatives was to keep the eight planets as they are, and
then demote Pluto. I think this is a far superior solution."

The need for a strict definition was deemed necessary after new telescope
technologies began to reveal far-off objects that rivalled Pluto in size.

The critical blow for Pluto came with the discovery three years ago of an
object currently designated 2003 UB313. Discovered by Mike Brown and
colleagues at the California Institute of Technology, 2003 UB313 has been
lauded by some as the "10th Planet".

Measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope show it to have a diameter of
3,000km (1,864 miles), a few hundred km more than Pluto. 2003 UB313 will
now join Pluto in the dwarf planet category.

Mike Brown seemed happy with Pluto's demotion. "Eight is enough," he told
the Associated Press, jokingly adding: "I may go down in history as the guy
who killed Pluto."

George wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip
Pluto of its status as a planet.
On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto
to a lesser category of object.

But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted the
ruling, calling it "embarrassing".

And the chair of the committee set up to oversee agreement on a definition
implied that the vote had effectively been "hijacked".

The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day
General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for
astronomy since 1919.

Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting
took part.

An initial proposal by the IAU to add three new planets to the Solar
System - the asteroid Ceres, Pluto's moon Charon and the distant world
known as 2003 UB313 - met with considerable opposition at the meeting. Days
of heated debate followed during which four separate proposals were tabled.

Eventually, the scientists adopted historic guidelines that see Pluto
relegated to a secondary category of "dwarf planets".

Drawing the line

Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency's New Horizons mission to
Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: "It's an awful definition;
it's sloppy science and it would never pass peer review - for two reasons.

"Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between
dwarf planets and planets. It's as if we declared people not people for
some arbitrary reason, like 'they tend to live in groups'.

"Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's inconsistent."

One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have
"cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the
Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it out
of the way with a gravitational swipe.

Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with
that of Neptune.

But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also
not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth
asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids
on its orbital path.

These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the
formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.

"If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.

Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto
reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to "Honk if Pluto is
still a planet" have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails circulating
about the decision have been describing the IAU as the "Irrelevant
Astronomical Union".

'Inconvenient arrangements'

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'."

Shaking hands

Robin Catchpole, of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, UK, said: "My
own personal opinion was to leave things as they were. I met Clyde
Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto, and thought, it's nice to shake hands with
someone who discovered a planet.

"But since the IAU brought out the first draft resolution, I was rather
against that because I thought it was going to be very confusing. So the
best of the alternatives was to keep the eight planets as they are, and
then demote Pluto. I think this is a far superior solution."

The need for a strict definition was deemed necessary after new telescope
technologies began to reveal far-off objects that rivalled Pluto in size.

The critical blow for Pluto came with the discovery three years ago of an
object currently designated 2003 UB313. Discovered by Mike Brown and
colleagues at the California Institute of Technology, 2003 UB313 has been
lauded by some as the "10th Planet".

Measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope show it to have a diameter of
3,000km (1,864 miles), a few hundred km more than Pluto. 2003 UB313 will
now join Pluto in the dwarf planet category.

Mike Brown seemed happy with Pluto's demotion. "Eight is enough," he told
the Associated Press, jokingly adding: "I may go down in history as the guy
who killed Pluto."

Wow, even the professional ranks are full of cry babies!

CNJ999

90% of professional astronomers did not vote pluto out either.

On 25 Aug 2006 06:05:18 -0700, "CNJ999" wrote:

Wow, even the professional ranks are full of cry babies!

Consider what happened: the IAU created a committee to define the
nomenclature around "planet", an already controversial question. They
spent months doing so, but kept the definition to themselves until just
before the IAU meeting. Once it was public, many deficiencies were
immediately pointed out by other astronomers. As a consequence, a whole
series of revisions and compromises were developed and tweaked over just
a week. It is hardly surprising that the final result remains
problematic for many. This really was a failure of process, and IMO an
embarrassment for professional astronomy.

IAU definitions are only useful if they are actually used; it remains to
be seen if that happens in this case (not that I can recall, off hand,
any professional publication that has used the word "planet" in a way
that required precision).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"George" wrote in message
m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

A fierce backlash has begun against the decision by astronomers to strip
Pluto of its status as a planet.
On Thursday, experts approved a definition of a planet that demoted Pluto
to a lesser category of object.

But the lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission to Pluto has lambasted
the ruling, calling it "embarrassing".

I don't have a problem with tossing Pluto out as a planet, but the
definition they approved is ridiculous. Even if only 4% of professional
astronomers voted, it's still pretty sad that this is the best that they
could come up with.

George quoted the BBC:
The Harvard professor emeritus [Owen Gingerich] blamed the outcome
in large part on a "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study
the motion and gravitational effects of celestial objects.

Civil war in Iraq, the reemergence of the Taliban, and now a revolt by
dynamicists.

We should have seen this coming. I shudder to think what weapons might
be available to people who can cause planets to disappear with just the
power of their minds.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
George quoted the BBC:
The Harvard professor emeritus [Owen Gingerich] blamed the outcome
in large part on a "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study
the motion and gravitational effects of celestial objects.

Civil war in Iraq, the reemergence of the Taliban, and now a revolt by
dynamicists.

We should have seen this coming. I shudder to think what weapons might
be available to people who can cause planets to disappear with just the
power of their minds.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

LOL. As a geologist, I think it is obvious that we are living in the
ishouldhavecene epoch!

George

Chris L Peterson wrote:

IAU definitions are only useful if they are actually used; it remains to
be seen if that happens in this case (not that I can recall, off hand,
any professional publication that has used the word "planet" in a way
that required precision).

There's more than professional publications involved. New semesters are
starting. Students are sitting in their Intro Astronomy courses, bright
eyed and bushy tailed, and are expecting this planet thing, which is in
the news, will be explained. But you can't really teach it, because the
supposed "definition" is unintelligable. It uses undefined terms.

If you try to explain that Xena is not a planet because it hasn't
cleared out the Kuiper belt, then you also need to explain why the
Earth is not a planet because it hasn't cleared out the inner solar
system, which is a hell of a lot smaller. Ceres is not a planet because
it hasn't cleared out space junk, but then neither has the Earth.
Jupiter is especially well supplied with space junk, much of which is,
more or less, actually *in* its orbit. Ceres and Vesta may both qualify
as dwarf planets, but then Ceres can't be a real planet since it has a
semimajor axis of 2.766 and Vesta of 2.361, which is too close. Except,
of course, that the inclinations differ by quite a bit, and 2.766-2.361
= 0.405, greater than the semimajor axis of Mercury. And Xena is even
worse. What the hell is in the "neighborhood" of the orbit of Xena,
except Xena itself and satellites? How are people supposed to teach
this if students start to ask questions?

There's more than professional publications involved. New semesters are
starting. Students are sitting in their Intro Astronomy courses, bright
eyed and bushy tailed, and are expecting this planet thing, which is in
the news, will be explained. But you can't really teach it, because the
supposed "definition" is unintelligable. It uses undefined terms.

If they are using the paper by Steven Soter as supplement to the
definition, then the IAU definition is merely the intuitive sense of the
criterion. The Soter criteria don't look anything like the definition
because they apply celestial mechanics and perturbation theory to arrive
at a formula. The observational evidence is certainly suggestive that
this formula successfully discriminates between gravitationally dominant
objects and non-dominant ones. What remains to be seen is whether or
not research papers will actually be affected by this distinction.

My guess is that specialization is so rampant in the planetary science
field that it will make only a small difference to only a small number
of researchers. Where this definition will see the most use, if it sees
any at all, will be in explaining to the public why "we" are or aren't
going to call something a planet. (And I use "we" advisedly.)

--
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

wrote:

There's more than professional publications involved. New semesters are
starting. Students are sitting in their Intro Astronomy courses, bright
eyed and bushy tailed, and are expecting this planet thing, which is in
the news, will be explained. But you can't really teach it, because the
supposed "definition" is unintelligable. It uses undefined terms.

Students should be able to grasp the concept that if you're
not big enough to clear out the 'hood, you don't count.

S.