Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt

George quoted, in part:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

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

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

"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.

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'."

This raises a new factor.

I had carelessly assumed that the assembled astronomers simply found
the original proposal, to admit Ceres once again as a planet, and
recognize several new objects in the Kuiper Belt as full-fledged
planets, as simply too bold. And, thus, despite the fact that demoting
Pluto would seem a bold move to the man in the street, the consensus
was simply to go with traditionalism.

Whether things are as bad as they seem, though, depends on other
factors.

Of 2,700 astronomers in Prague, I hardly think they were composed of
424 dynamicists, and 2,276 planetary geologists. A few, for example,
might have been astrophysicists - which, I think, remain the most
numerous specialty within astronomy, even if planetary astronomy has
recovered from the desuetude that saw the planetary astronomy
consisting of one and a half astronomers (two thirds of which, of
course, were Gerard Kuiper).

Still, admirers of Pluto can take heart that it is entirely possible
that when the IAU next convenes, it just might reconsider its decision.

John Savard

wrote in message
ups.com...
George quoted, in part:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

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

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

"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.

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'."

This raises a new factor.

I had carelessly assumed that the assembled astronomers simply found
the original proposal, to admit Ceres once again as a planet, and
recognize several new objects in the Kuiper Belt as full-fledged
planets, as simply too bold. And, thus, despite the fact that demoting
Pluto would seem a bold move to the man in the street, the consensus
was simply to go with traditionalism.

Whether things are as bad as they seem, though, depends on other
factors.

Of 2,700 astronomers in Prague, I hardly think they were composed of
424 dynamicists, and 2,276 planetary geologists. A few, for example,
might have been astrophysicists - which, I think, remain the most
numerous specialty within astronomy, even if planetary astronomy has
recovered from the desuetude that saw the planetary astronomy
consisting of one and a half astronomers (two thirds of which, of
course, were Gerard Kuiper).

Still, admirers of Pluto can take heart that it is entirely possible
that when the IAU next convenes, it just might reconsider its decision.

John Savard


They are going to have to reconsider the definition.
I've had a think about this and came up with:
http://rogersplanetaryclassification...261 63909.htm

Which I'm very proud of!
Pluto is still a Planet - its just not a primary planet.

Nathan.

wrote in message
ups.com...
George quoted, in part:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

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

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

"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.

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'."

This raises a new factor.

I had carelessly assumed that the assembled astronomers simply found
the original proposal, to admit Ceres once again as a planet, and
recognize several new objects in the Kuiper Belt as full-fledged
planets, as simply too bold. And, thus, despite the fact that demoting
Pluto would seem a bold move to the man in the street, the consensus
was simply to go with traditionalism.

Whether things are as bad as they seem, though, depends on other
factors.

Of 2,700 astronomers in Prague, I hardly think they were composed of
424 dynamicists, and 2,276 planetary geologists. A few, for example,
might have been astrophysicists - which, I think, remain the most
numerous specialty within astronomy, even if planetary astronomy has
recovered from the desuetude that saw the planetary astronomy
consisting of one and a half astronomers (two thirds of which, of
course, were Gerard Kuiper).

Still, admirers of Pluto can take heart that it is entirely possible
that when the IAU next convenes, it just might reconsider its decision.


And their leadership too I bet. Maybe they should some of their own
....lane clearing.

Our local astronomer, Jack Horkheimer, was bemoaning the other day
how he had just put up a new 12 planet display. "It's coming down"
he said. I wonder if he put up an 8 planet display yet?

He should keep them both, probably be something for the smithsonian
someday.




John Savard