How many planets are in the solar system?

May 28, 2013 by Fraser Cain, Universe Today
The Solar System. Image Credit: NASA

I'm just going to warn you, this is a controversial topic. Some people get pretty grumpy when you ask: how many planets are in the Solar System? Is it eight, ten, or more?

I promise you this, though, we're never going back to nine … ever.

When many of us grew up, there were nine planets in the Solar System. It was like a fixed point in our brains.

As kids, memorizing this list was an early right of passage of nerd pride: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and .

But then in 2005, Mike Brown discovered Eris, an icy object thought to be about the same size as Pluto, out beyond its orbit.

That would bring the total number of planets to ten. Right? There's no turning back, textbooks would need to be changed.

In order to settle the dispute, the met in 2006, and argued for, and against Pluto's planethood. Some astronomers advocated widening the number of planets to twelve, including Pluto, its moon Charon, the Asteroid Ceres, and the newly discovered Eris.

In the end, they changed the definition of what makes a planet, and sadly, Pluto doesn't make the cut:

How many planets are in the solar system?
Makemake. Credit: NASA

Here are the new requirements of planethood status:

1. A planet has to orbit the Sun. Okay fine, Pluto does that.

2. A planet needs enough gravity to pull itself into a sphere. Okay, spherical. Pluto's fine there too.

3. A planet needs to have cleared out its orbit of other objects. Uh oh, Pluto hasn't done that.

For example, planet Earth accounts for a million times the rest of the material in its orbit, while Pluto is just a fraction of the icy objects in its realm.

The final decision was to demote Pluto from planet to dwarf planet.

But don't despair, Pluto is in good company.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

There's Ceres, the first asteroid ever discovered, and the smallest of the dwarf planets. The surface of Ceres is made of ice and rock, and it might even have a under its surface. 's Dawn mission is flying there right now to give us close up pictures for the first time.

Haumea, named after the Hawaiian goddess of fertility, is about a third the mass of Pluto, and has just enough gravity to pull itself into an ellipsoid, or egg shape. Even though it's smaller, it's got moons of its own.

Makemake, a much larger Kuiper belt object, has a diameter about two-thirds the size of Pluto. It was discovered in 2005 by Mike Brown and his team. So far, Makemake doesn't seem to have any moons.

How many planets are in the solar system?
Makemake. Credit: NASA

Eris is the most massive known dwarf planet, and the one that helped turn our definition of a planet upside-down. It's 27% more massive than Pluto and the ninth most massive body that orbits the Sun. It even has a moon: Dysnomia.

And of course, Pluto. The founding member of the dwarf family.

Want an easy way to remember the eight planets, in order? Just remember this mnemonic: my very excellent mother just served us noodles.

How many planets are in the solar system?
Pluto. Credit: ESO

For all you currently writing angry tweets to Mike Brown, hold on a sec. Changing Pluto's categorization is an important step that really needed to happen.

The more we discover about our Universe, the more we realize just how strange and wonderful it is. When Pluto was discovered 80 years ago, we never could have expected the variety of objects in the Solar System. Categorizing Pluto as a helps us better describe our celestial home.

So, our now has eight planets, and five dwarf planets.

Explore further: Cassini watches mysterious feature evolve in Titan sea

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Astronomers Measured Mass of Largest Dwarf Planet

Jun 18, 2007

Aptly named after the Greek goddess of conflict, the icy dwarf planet, Eris, has rattled the general model of our solar system. The object was discovered by astronomer Mike Brown of Caltech in the outer reaches ...

Recent news on the debate over Pluto's planethood

Nov 29, 2010

Earlier this month, Eris -- the distant world first discovered by Caltech's Mike Brown and colleagues back in 2005, paving the way for the eventual demotion of Pluto from planet to dwarf planet -- passed fortuitously ...

The Kuiper Belt at 20

Sep 03, 2012

Planetary science is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the discovery of the Kuiper Belt. That came in 1992, when the first Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) was discovered.

Dwarf planet mysteries beckon to New Horizons

Sep 05, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- At this very moment one of the fastest spacecraft ever launched -- NASA's New Horizons -- is hurtling through the void at nearly one million miles per day. Launched in 2006, it has been in ...

Picking Planets from Potatoes

Apr 26, 2010

New research indicates that there may be many more dwarf planets similar to Pluto in our solar system than previously thought. Studying these distant objects can help astrobiologists understand the basic properties ...

Recommended for you

US-India to collaborate on Mars exploration

6 hours ago

The United States and India, fresh from sending their own respective spacecraft into Mars' orbit earlier this month, on Tuesday agreed to cooperate on future exploration of the Red Planet.

Swift mission observes mega flares from a mini star

6 hours ago

On April 23, NASA's Swift satellite detected the strongest, hottest, and longest-lasting sequence of stellar flares ever seen from a nearby red dwarf star. The initial blast from this record-setting series ...

Sandblasting winds shift Mars' landscape

11 hours ago

High winds are a near-daily force on the surface of Mars, carving out a landscape of shifting dunes and posing a challenge to exploration, scientists said Tuesday.

PanSTARRS K1, the comet that keeps going

13 hours ago

Thank you K1 PanSTARRS for hanging in there! Some comets crumble and fade away. Others linger a few months and move on. But after looping across the night sky for more than a year, this one is nowhere near ...

User comments : 258

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

geokstr
1.1 / 5 (8) May 28, 2013
The Kuiper Belt was only discovered 20 years ago, and there are supposed to be trillions of bodies in the Oort Cloud. Anyone want to bet that we find LOTS more dwarf planets, and even full size planets out there as our technololgy advances and we find how and where to look for them?

Interstellar space is being found to be filled with real matter of all kinds: red and brown dwarves with their own systems, rogue planets, Oort Clouds around every star, huge masses of hitherto unseen dust and gas. A recent Physorg article discussed the finding that in one of the largest galactic clusters, 10% of its total mass was in rogue stars that had been torn from galaxies by collisions and proximity. Each of those will have its own planets and Oort Clouds.

I think the "voids" between clusters will soon be found to be loaded with normal matter of all kinds as well. Eventually, we may find so much real matter we can't detect now that "dark" matter will no longer be needed.
ScottFavor
5 / 5 (6) May 28, 2013
This is a very good article, but the top picture is of Ceres, not Makemake. Hubble doesn't have the capacity to expand the outer dwarf planets into detailed globes. I'm sure if you go back and look you'll find that it is in fact Ceres.
laurele
2.2 / 5 (19) May 28, 2013
Fraser, once again you are being disingenuous in stating one interpretation of the solar system as fact when that is not the case. First, Mike Brown did not discover Haumea, Makemake, and Eris by himself. He was part of a team of three including Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz. Significantly, David Rabinowitz is one of the many professional astronomers who continues to reject the IAU planet definition. Our solar system does NOT have only 8 planets, no matter how many times you repeat that. Changing Pluto's cateogorization did NOT have to happen. What really has to happen is recognition that we have 3 rather than 2 classes of planets. Dwarf planets are simply small planets that do not gravitationally dominate their orbits. However, compositionally and structurally, they are very much the same as the larger planets with geology and weather. The question isn't about going back to 9 planets; it's about recognizing the solar system made many more planets than we learned about in school.
laurele
2.3 / 5 (20) May 28, 2013
Using the equally legitimate geophysical planet definition, a planet is defined as any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star or that once orbited a star and was ejected from that orbit. According to this definition, our solar system has a minimum of 14 planets and counting: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon (a binary planet system), Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Let's not forget that only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial 2006 definition; most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was opposed in a formal petition of hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, which can be found here: http://www.ipetit...protest/
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (15) May 28, 2013
I'm sure if you go back and look you'll find that it is in fact Ceres.


Yep, that is ceres:

http://solarsyste...ID=10723

Here's the best color photo of makemake:

http://solarsyste...MakeMake

It is a little better than a dot, but not much.
JohnGee
3.1 / 5 (17) May 28, 2013
Laurele, please leave the Pluto nonsense to your blog, Thank you.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (18) May 28, 2013
the equally legitimate geophysical planet definition, a planet is defined as any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star or that once orbited a star and was ejected from that orbit.


Sure that maybe be a legitimate geophysical definition. Start a club & use it. Why should the the IAU be subject to the whims, agendas, petty musings of outsiders? It's a private organization. Your club can make it's definitions but your club can't dictate that everyone use your definitions. There are no laws that state the IAU is THE maker of definitions for everyone to use. Outsiders use them by choice.

If ya don't like the IAU's proceedings,, join the IAU & plead your case. We form definitions that we feel promotes an orderly dissemination of information & research among the members & professional community. Not for emotional lay dilettantes. Thanks, but we don't your wisdom (touchy-feely new-agey as it may be, it's not scientific.)
laurele
1.8 / 5 (20) May 28, 2013
Laurele, please leave the Pluto nonsense to your blog, Thank you.


JohnGee, the only "Pluto nonsense" is the one that refuses to that Pluto's planet status is an ongoing debate. The need to make ad hominem attacks is a clear indicator that you have lost the argument. Dream on.
laurele
1.9 / 5 (18) May 28, 2013
Sure that maybe be a legitimate geophysical definition. Start a club & use it. Why should the the IAU be subject to the whims, agendas, petty musings of outsiders? We form definitions that we feel promotes an orderly dissemination of information & research among the members & professional community. Not for emotional lay dilettantes. Thanks, but we don't your wisdom (touchy-feely new-agey as it may be, it's not scientific.)
[/q

I am no "outsider" and certainly no "emotional lay dilettante." I am a member of the astronomy community whether you like it or not. The IAU cannot claim to be a private organization and then expect the whole world to blindly follow its dictates. Science doesn't work that way. We could use a planetary science organization, not to dictate, but to promote discussion on these issues. The geophysical planet definition has a strong scientific basis and is already used by many astronomers. You can't just banish people with opinions you don't like.
JohnGee
3.6 / 5 (14) May 28, 2013
The IAU doesn't force anyone to do anything. People follow them out of convention. Christ knows no one is stopping you from calling Pluto a planet. The lengths some people will go to to feel persecuted amazes me.
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (17) May 28, 2013
We form definitions that we feel promotes an orderly dissemination of information & research among the members & professional community.


Hot gas!
Inspector Spacetime
2.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2013
The IAU definition is short-sighted. At best, it can only be applied to the special case that was created around Pluto. There have already been found worlds much, much bigger than Pluto moving through disks of debris around other stars, failing to sweep orbits clean.

If they had wanted to impose some sort of size limit in order to keep the number of major planets lower, that would have been fine. Then they could have booted Mercury out of the big planet club, too. Unfortunately, they went with the very ad hoc "cleared its orbit" requirement, foisted on the rest of the world by some disgruntled dynamicists.

What's funny about this is that the controversy was born out of petty politics amongst attendees of an IAU meeting and justified as a means of keeping the number of planets manageable. Yet interested people will still be learning ALL the planetary bodies. And the rest of humanity will not even be able to keep Uranus and Neptune straight. In the end, it doesn't really matter.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) May 29, 2013
Changing Pluto's cateogorization did NOT have to happen.

Who cares whether it's a planet or a dwarf planet or whether there should be more or less planets on the list?
Does it make a difference to anything outside of people who get hung up on labels?

I'll go with Feynman on this:
You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.
runrig
5 / 5 (11) May 29, 2013
I'll go with Feynman on this:
You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.


A certain Mr Shakespeare beat him by around 400 years....

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet."

Romeo and Juliet
Act II
vlaaing peerd
4.5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2013
I was looking for an article from last year but can't find it on the bleedin' interwebz. It was about measuring objects in de Kuiperbelt, some of the objects were supposedly out of orbit, which could most easily be explained by a between Neptune sized object some 1500 astronomical units away and a smaller earthsized some 100 AU away.

It raised my interest a while and didn't see anything that debunked that idea. Maybe we do have 9 planets?

I'll post the link as soon as I found it.
alfie_null
4.3 / 5 (3) May 29, 2013
If nothing else, this controversy has certainly made a whole bunch of people who otherwise wouldn't be interested in astronomy sit up and pay attention. I hope you astronomers aren't scripting this whole thing ;-)
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) May 29, 2013
A certain Mr Shakespeare beat him by around 400 years....

Good catch... (Guess I'm readig more Feynman than Shakespeare ;-) )
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) May 29, 2013
I am no "outsider" and certainly no "emotional lay dilettante." I am a member of the astronomy community whether you like it or not. The IAU cannot claim to be a private organization and then expect the whole world to blindly follow its dictates. Science doesn't work that way.
I can assure that the IAU doesn't expect anyone to "blindly follow its dictates". Anyone, government, educational institutions, the public are free to use the IAU definitions or not use them. There are no legal constraints either way.

We could use a planetary science organization, not to dictate, but to promote discussion on these issues.
Start one, & then ya can dictate your own pet definitions, no one is preventing ya.

The geophysical planet definition has a strong scientific basis and is already used by many astronomers. You can't just banish people with opinions you don't like.

Nobody is banishing anyone. Non members & non voting members don't get to dictate to the IAU .
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (16) May 29, 2013
The IAU definition is short-sighted. At best, it can only be applied to the special case that was created around Pluto. There have already been found worlds much, much bigger than Pluto moving through disks of debris around other stars, failing to sweep orbits clean.


Ya are the one who is short sighted. Ya seem to have an emotional attachment to Pluto, and grasp at straws to tell the IAU what they should do, even though what they do could well be ignored by ya.

What's funny about this is that the controversy was born out of petty politics amongst attendees of an IAU meeting and justified as a means of keeping the number of planets manageable.


Wrong. See ya really don't know much about the issue. The controversy long pre-dated keeping the number of planets down, by decades. It began in the 40's, as a result of learning how unlike the other planets Pluto is. The controversy was over classifying/grouping similar objects, not how many their are of each..
Quarl
1.2 / 5 (6) May 29, 2013
If a "dwarf planet" isn't a planet to the IAU then it stands to reason that to the IAU a "dwarf human" isn't...?

And on another note, had Pluto been somewhere else within the Solar System it would have been classified as a planet. For instance, if it had been inside the orbit of Mercury the aforementioned planethood criteria would have been satisfied, right? The last survivor of the gravitational war within the Mercurial orbit would technically have cleared its orbit.

If it's not a "planet" then how about tacking on some kind of prefix or suffix to it...like "planetoid" or something like "planetesimal" or whatever. Just IMHO...
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) May 29, 2013
If a "dwarf planet" isn't a planet to the IAU then it stands to reason that to the IAU a "dwarf human" isn't...?

And on another note, had Pluto been somewhere else within the Solar System it would have been classified as a planet. For instance, if it had been inside the orbit of Mercury the aforementioned planethood criteria would have been satisfied, right? The last survivor of the gravitational war within the Mercurial orbit would technically have cleared its orbit.

If it's not a "planet" then how about tacking on some kind of prefix or suffix to it...like "planetoid" or something like "planetesimal" or whatever. Just IMHO...


The word "dwarf" is that suffix. Dwarf in a noun in this case, not an adjective.

"Planetesimals" is already used for another type of object.

"Planetoid" is too general & generic, "-oid" means no more than: like or similar,,,, so that could mean asteroid, meteoroid, planet, comet, dwarf planet, moon or any sub-stellar mass found anywhere.
panorama
2.3 / 5 (3) May 29, 2013
I was looking for an article from last year but can't find it on the bleedin' interwebz. It was about measuring objects in de Kuiperbelt, some of the objects were supposedly out of orbit, which could most easily be explained by a between Neptune sized object some 1500 astronomical units away and a smaller earthsized some 100 AU away.

It raised my interest a while and didn't see anything that debunked that idea. Maybe we do have 9 planets?

I'll post the link as soon as I found it.


This is from a few years ago, but I think it's similar to what you're referencing.

http://www.space....dge.html
Sowff
1.5 / 5 (15) May 29, 2013
Mike Brown lackeys are the touchy-feelie ones. Lying to boost his credentials is not scientific. He co-discovered Eris with two other men, one of whom feels dwarf planets should be planets. Why does Mr. Cain misrepresent the facts? The IAU demotion of Pluto was political. I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc. Do you call that scientific? The current definition of a planet is absurd. Earth shares its orbit with 19,500 other celestrial objects. The sun itself is a dwarf star, yet still a star. Dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Thusly, dwarf planets should be a third class of planet, as originally intended when the term was coined.
laurele
2.2 / 5 (17) May 29, 2013
The IAU doesn't force anyone to do anything. People follow them out of convention. Christ knows no one is stopping you from calling Pluto a planet. The lengths some people will go to to feel persecuted amazes me.


Actually, in this case, many astronomers do not follow the IAU. The most accurate position is to say that the definition of planet and the status of Pluto are matters of open debate.

I don't feel "persecuted." I am taking your comment regarding my "Pluto nonsense" (it's really Mike Brown who is full of nonsense), which essentially says, "go away," as the ad hominem attack it is. Why don't you respond to my arguments instead of just saying "go away?"
laurele
2.2 / 5 (17) May 29, 2013
I was looking for an article from last year but can't find it on the bleedin' interwebz. It was about measuring objects in de Kuiperbelt, some of the objects were supposedly out of orbit, which could most easily be explained by a between Neptune sized object some 1500 astronomical units away and a smaller earthsized some 100 AU away.

It raised my interest a while and didn't see anything that debunked that idea. Maybe we do have 9 planets?

I'll post the link as soon as I found it.


We have more than nine planets, whether or not this Neptune-sized planet is found, which I hope it is.
laurele
2 / 5 (16) May 29, 2013
If a "dwarf planet" isn't a planet to the IAU then it stands to reason that to the IAU a "dwarf human" isn't...?

And on another note, had Pluto been somewhere else within the Solar System it would have been classified as a planet. For instance, if it had been inside the orbit of Mercury the aforementioned planethood criteria would have been satisfied, right? The last survivor of the gravitational war within the Mercurial orbit would technically have cleared its orbit.

If it's not a "planet" then how about tacking on some kind of prefix or suffix to it...like "planetoid" or something like "planetesimal" or whatever. Just IMHO...


Planetoid is a synonym for asteroid, which Pluto is not. Planetesimal is a planet in the process of formation, which Pluto is not either. You're totally correct about the IAU definition being biased against planets further from the sun.
laurele
2.2 / 5 (17) May 29, 2013
The word "dwarf" is that suffix. Dwarf in a noun is this case, not an adjective.

No, it is not. The word "dwarf" is an adjective modifying the noun "planet." The IAU cannot just make up its own grammar.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (16) May 29, 2013
The word "dwarf" is that suffix. Dwarf in a noun is this case, not an adjective.

No, it is not. The word "dwarf" is an adjective modifying the noun "planet." The IAU cannot just make up its own grammar.


Why can't they? Ya can make up your own definitions of planets.

Classifying things by the similarities is the best way to organize anything, not by emotional attachment. This is all the IAU did in '06, work on establishing consistent groups of things based on their attributes. Did we get it perfect? By no means, it will always be a work in progress.

Things are most easily studied by organizing them in groups according to their attributes. Especially as the numbers of things being studied gets larger. It the same in all fields of science, biology, chemistry, Pluto is still Pluto, it's just not so very like it's 8 major siblings.

I love cats, & I love dogs, they both have fuzz & they both have four legs, they are found together in my house, can they be considered 1 species
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (16) May 29, 2013
@ Laurele (and anyone else).

Ya might want to look up "dwarf planet" it Oxford, Cambridge, American Heritage, or Webster's. Not "dwarf", not "planet". "Dwarf planet",,,,, ya'll find that "dwarf planet" is a noun,,,,,, not an adjective describing a noun, a two part noun.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (16) May 29, 2013
I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc. Do you call that scientific?


No, I would call that a great big lie. And ya are a great big idiot to think that anyone would believe that. I know many, many, many people who voted against it. They are all still very much respected and employed.

I was there, I know of and took part in the "hot" discussions before, during and after the change. No one was threatened to have their career destroyed. Only the emotional fringe could even come up with that kind of "conspiracy".

Where did ya hear that one? "Art Bell's Radio University of Gobbledegook"?

Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) May 29, 2013
Mike Brown lackeys are the touchy-feelie ones. Lying to boost his credentials is not scientific. He co-discovered Eris with two other men, one of whom feels dwarf planets should be planets. Why does Mr. Cain misrepresent the facts? The IAU demotion of Pluto was political. I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc. Do you call that scientific? The current definition of a planet is absurd. Earth shares its orbit with 19,500 other celestrial objects. The sun itself is a dwarf star, yet still a star. Dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Thusly, dwarf planets should be a third class of planet, as originally intended when the term was coined.


Aaah, Zephyr, I didn't recognize ya at first. "Thusly{sic}" dwarf planets are another class of things in a bound orbit of a star, as intended.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2013

Where did ya hear that one?

There must be some site like physorg that aggregates conspiracy theories. No way he could collect such a huge range of crazy on his own (AWT, cold fusion, see-through martians, mainstream science cabals that secretly hoarde mountains of cash, AWG lodges, chemtrails .. and now we have to add vinidcative plutonite-astrophysicists to the mix...man, is there a crazy idea he doesn't support?)
JohnGee
3.5 / 5 (13) May 29, 2013
It's funny to me, coming from a field with serious problems defining things, to see somebody get so worked up over something so uncontroversial in a field like astronomy with consistent terminology.

So what exactly is the problem here Laurele? In one topic you say the IAU is a bully and forcing people to use its unfair definitions. Then in another topic you make sure to tell any astronomers that aren't listening that they don't have to follow the IAU's definition. Then in another topic you'll say how the IAU is a big dummy because so many astronomers aren't using its definition.

If no one is required to use the IAU definition, as you have stated, and many credible astronomers aren't using the definition, as you have stated, why are you here wasting space on my screen telling me about poor Pluto's plight?
laurele
2 / 5 (16) May 29, 2013
Why can't they? Ya can make up your own definitions of planets.

I did not make up the geophysical planet definition. It is a legitimate scientific view held by many planetary scientists. The IAU did a terrible job in 2006, especially since they rejected the resolution created by their own committee and then violated their bylaws by putting a resolution on the floor that was not first vetted by the appropriate committee. The IAU was asked in 2009 by planetary scientists to reopen the debate and refused. They seem to be reacting emotionally to the fact that their definition remains controversial. As for Pluto, it is a lot more like the 8 bigger planets than like asteroids; it has geology, an atmosphere and is differentiated. Your cat and dog are both mammals just like Pluto and its larger siblings are all planets, just different subtypes. As for the man whose career was threatened, he is a reliable source.
laurele
2 / 5 (16) May 29, 2013
It's funny to me, coming from a field with serious problems defining things, to see somebody get so worked up over something so uncontroversial in a field like astronomy with consistent terminology.

The IAU needs to decide what its role is because it has conveyed contradictory messages. On the one hand, its leadership says its definitions are only for internal use, but on the other hand, it claims to be the only worldwide "authority" in astronomy. Science is not dictated by "authorities"; that's religion. Why is the IAU not listening to many of its own members who want the discussion reopened? Only 4% voted in 2006, and most were not planetary scientists. As an IAU member, you object to criticism of that vote, but please refrain from using terms like "worked up" or "emotional" when discussing my position on Pluto. I am here to say there are two equally legitimate sides to this debate, which the author did not acknowledge. As for my joining the IAU, be careful what you wish for.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) May 29, 2013
I did not make up the geophysical planet definition. It is a legitimate scientific view held by many planetary scientists.


So use it. But ya can't dictate it to the IAU.

The IAU did a terrible job in 2006,


I'm sure they are much bothered that ya think so. Why do ya care if they do a good job or terrible? Ya seem to tilting at windmills when it comes to the IAU.

The IAU was asked in 2009 by planetary scientists to reopen the debate and refused.


So, they refused. The IAU has that right.

They seem to be reacting emotionally to the fact that their definition remains controversial.


An outsider with an agenda would spin it that way. The truth is much simpler,,, members are tired of having so much of their time spent on a distraction from people OUTSIDE of the IAU. Ya are an outsider, ignore us rather than annoy us.

As for the man whose career was threatened, he is a reliable source.


I would hardly characterize Zephyr as a "reliable source".
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) May 29, 2013
The IAU needs to decide what its role is because it has conveyed contradictory messages. On the one hand, its leadership says its definitions are only for internal use, but on the other hand, it claims to be the only worldwide "authority" in astronomy.


Another disingenuous statement. The IAU only claims that it is RECOGNIZED as an authority. The claim is true, much to your displeasure. Lobby the "recognizers" not the "recognized".

As an IAU member, you object to criticism of that vote,


I object to your thinking that the IAU should act at the pleasure of a vociferous public. The IAU is doing just fine without your concern.

As for my joining the IAU, be careful what you wish for.


If ya had the credentials, I'm sure ya would already be known for your demeanor long past. Maybe that is why ya are so emotional, ya don't meet the requirements for full membership but think the requirements should be waived for someone as "dedicated" as yourself.
laurele
2.1 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
Another disingenuous statement. The IAU only claims that it is RECOGNIZED as an authority.

Actually, the IAU is not doing "just fine" and has lost much of its previous respect because of the Pluto debacle. Interestingly, Mike Brown is not an IAU member, yet he lobbied the IAU. If he can do it, so can I or anyone. 331 members voted against dwarf planets being a subclass of planets. 300 professional astronomers signed the petition rejecting that decision. Many others simply ignore it.

If ya had the credentials, I'm sure ya would already be known for your demeanor long past. Maybe that is why ya are so emotional, ya don't meet the requirements for full membership but think the requirements should be waived for someone as "dedicated" as yourself.

I do have the credentials; I don't need a waiver, and this has nothing to do with emotions. Your repeated personal attacks do not reflect well on your position.
laurele
1.8 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
No one can dictate to the IAU but neither can the IAU dictate to anyone else including the astronomy community. Don't be surprised if you hear of the formation of that new planetary science group. And if the IAU is doing so well, why the vociferous press release against Alan Stern's exoplanet naming project?

I am NOT an "outsider." You seem to want astronomy limited to a closed, "elite" self-selected community that keeps out the riff raff. That's not how astronomy is done today, and that approach will only turn people off. There are many professional astronomers who choose not to join the IAU. Ironically, when I did lobby the IAU, I was met with responses much more professional than yours. In 2009, I was asked by the Secretariat to write an article about Pluto for the GA newspaper, and in 2012, my petitions for reopening the debate led to the item being put on two separate committee agendas. I will continue to lobby for a geophysical planet definition both to the IAU and outside it.
laurele
1.8 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
The controversy long pre-dated keeping the number of planets down, by decades. It began in the 40's, as a result of learning how unlike the other planets Pluto is. The controversy was over classifying/grouping similar objects, not how many their are of each..


The controversy began in 1930 when Pluto was discovered and has gone on since then. However, the notion that "we cannot have too many planets" came into play with the discovery of Eris.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) May 30, 2013
Phys.org might want to rethink posting articles replete with factual inaccuracies and writers who launch ad hominem attacks on those who comment. Using a photo of Ceres and saying it's Makemake? Really? Saying Mike Brown discovered Eris alone? Really? Does Mr. Cain think fact-checking something before you publish it is passe'? If you want a decent article about Pluto, I suggest you let Laurel Kornfeld or Alan Stern or Alan Boyle publish something. Those people can be trusted to tell the truth about Pluto.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (3) May 30, 2013

This is from a few years ago, but I think it's similar to what you're referencing.
http://www.space....dge.html


not entirely, it was an article similar to this :http://www.geekos...-planet/

a rogue star in our system would be a little too fantastic. ;) thanks nevertheless!

@Laurele,

I agree, it's all the fault of the "we cannot have too many planets" conspiracy. Why are you so worried about the label? Pluto still is what it is, regardless of how one would classify it.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) May 30, 2013
I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc. Do you call that scientific?


No, I would call that a great big lie. And ya are a great big idiot to think that anyone would believe that. I know many, many, many people who voted against it. They are all still very much respected and employed.

I was there, I know of and took part in the "hot" discussions before, during and after the change. No one was threatened to have their career destroyed. Only the emotional fringe could even come up with that kind of "conspiracy".

Where did ya hear that one? "Art Bell's Radio University of Gobbledegook"?



I said I know that person. I heard it from him, right from the horse's mouth.
Sinister1811
2.8 / 5 (9) May 30, 2013
Actually, in this case, many astronomers do not follow the IAU. The most accurate position is to say that the definition of planet and the status of Pluto are matters of open debate.


Are you not aware that the term "dwarf planet" is a category? Just like "jovian planet" or "terrestrial planet". I don't understand why there's still controversy over Pluto being called a dwarf planet. I'm thinking it's probably due to emotional reasons.
Sowff
1.7 / 5 (12) May 30, 2013
Mike Brown lackeys are the touchy-feelie ones. Lying to boost his credentials is not scientific. He co-discovered Eris with two other men, one of whom feels dwarf planets should be planets. Why does Mr. Cain misrepresent the facts? The IAU demotion of Pluto was political. I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc. Do you call that scientific? The current definition of a planet is absurd. Earth shares its orbit with 19,500 other celestrial objects. The sun itself is a dwarf star, yet still a star. Dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Thusly, dwarf planets should be a third class of planet, as originally intended when the term was coined.


Aaah, Zephyr, I didn't recognize ya at first. "Thusly{sic}" dwarf planets are another class of things in a bound orbit of a star, as intended.


I am not Zephyr. "Thusly" is a word, dude. Why don't you consider responding to the points made?
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) May 30, 2013
I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc. Do you call that scientific?


No, I would call that a great big lie. And ya are a great big idiot to think that anyone would believe that. I know many, many, many people who voted against it. They are all still very much respected and employed.

I was there, I know of and took part in the "hot" discussions before, during and after the change. No one was threatened to have their career destroyed. Only the emotional fringe could even come up with that kind of "conspiracy".

Where did ya hear that one? "Art Bell's Radio University of Gobbledegook"?



I said I know that person. I heard it from him, right from the horse's mouth.


And I say it is a lie, yours or "his".
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) May 30, 2013
I am not Zephyr. "Thusly" is a word, dude. Why don't you consider responding to the points made


I did respond. I'll called that an absurd lie.

And ya are too Zephyr. The "International Bureau Of Mainstream Physics Protection" told me so. Their "Constabulary of Internet Conspiricy Theories" showed me the proof. IP addresses never lie. Unless Zephyr, natello, Valeria, and ya all use the same proxy servers. (And that would be just too much a statistical improbability to give seriously consider)
laurele
1.9 / 5 (14) May 30, 2013
I agree, it's all the fault of the "we cannot have too many planets" conspiracy. Why are you so worried about the label? Pluto still is what it is, regardless of how one would classify it.

It's not a matter of being "worried." It's that words are important; they shape our understanding of everything around us. A label that blurs the distinction between shapeless, tiny asteroids, and small planets is inaccurate and confusing. And how that label came about matters. Why should the whole world be forced to accept a label that was enacted through a flawed process for the wrong reasons? The notion that we cannot have "too many planets" has no scientific basis and should not be a reason for a supposedly scientific decision.
laurele
1.8 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
Are you not aware that the term "dwarf planet" is a category? Just like "jovian planet" or "terrestrial planet". I don't understand why there's still controversy over Pluto being called a dwarf planet. I'm thinking it's probably due to emotional reasons.

Dwarf planet should be a category of planet, but look at Q-Star's comment. According to the IAU (actually 333 members, not 331 as I erroneously said earlier), dwarf planets are not planets at all. That is the problem. If they amended this one thing, they would end this controversy once and for all.
laurele
1.9 / 5 (14) May 30, 2013
I don't know who Zephyr or any of these other people or groups are. I do know the inside stories I heard at the Great Planet Debate, held at JHUAPL in August 2008, about what took place in Prague, and it wasn't pretty or ethical. The person threatened with "consequences for their career" if they did not go to Prague and vote was a graduate student at the time. As a journalist, I have to respect the confidentiality of this source and not reveal their name. However, facts have been checked, and the story verified. It is not a conspiracy theory. If you view the video of the session where this vote was taken, you can see just how political, emotional, and unscientific those proceedings were.
JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2013
As a journalist

Do you report for any entity other than your blog? Do you receive pay for doing so?
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) May 30, 2013
I do know the inside stories I heard at the Great Planet Debate, held at JHUAPL in August 2008,


Inside stories? The Art Bell Institute of Gobbledegook has plenty of "inside" stories also. Are yours as meritorious as some of those?

The person threatened with "consequences for their career" if they did not go to Prague and vote was a graduate student at the time.


Sorry, but unless ya can provide some objective evidence, I will at best say ya were duped and mislead, at worst fostering a misrepresentation of the facts. (There have been more than a few failed graduate students with an axe to grind.)

As a journalist, I have to respect the confidentiality of this source and not reveal their name. However, facts have been checked, and the story verified. It is not a conspiracy theory..


Oh, then it must be true. No spin or "interpretation" or misrepresentation is assured. No ya may not look behind the curtain. Is that about right?
laurele
1.9 / 5 (14) May 30, 2013
As a journalist

Do you report for any entity other than your blog? Do you receive pay for doing so?


I am a freelance writer who works as an independent contractor, writing for various print and online publications. Yes, I do get paid for that writing. I am working on a book about Pluto.
laurele
1.8 / 5 (15) May 30, 2013
The Great Planet Debate was a legitimate conference held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in response to the IAU deision. I recommend you listen to its transcripts here: http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ . Dr. Owen Gingerich, original head of the IAU Planet Definition Committee, himself spoke about the shenanigans that took place in Prague and how he would not have left the conference early had he known the IAU would at the last minute substitute a resolution other than the one his committee drafted.

My source has advanced degrees in astronomy and planetary science, so he/she clearly did not fail a class or program and is not a disgruntled student. I checked my sources carefully and was not duped. There is more, but it would be unethical to reveal something told to me in confidence. The lack of professionalism in the session leading to the 2006 vote has been verified by other astronomers who were there.

Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) May 31, 2013
I recommend you listen to its transcripts here: http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ .


Done it, several times. It's a source of great drollery and amusement for me. And it's not very flattering of ya "Pluto is a Planet Nutters". The words "histrionics", "hyperbole", "over-wrought with outrage", and "childish outbursts" come to mind.

There is more, but it would be unethical to reveal something told to me in confidence.


It's unethical to make accusations or report misconduct without providing some objective evidence. If ya don't, then it's just an emotional misrepresentation and falsehood. And since ya don't realize that, ya can't claim to be more than a journalism poser. Just like ya a science poser. Mike got it right when he refers to ya as an "obsessed nutter".

Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) May 31, 2013
I am a freelance writer who works as an independent contractor, writing for various print and online publications. Yes, I do get paid for that writing.


Let me guess,,,,, Are ya paid by a "science group" who funds "science projects" by selling raffle tickets to name exoplanets?

I am working on a book about Pluto.


Completely superfluous statement that.

Ya are a Pluto blogger, and a Pluto character in film, and Pluto geophysicist, and a Pluto email spammer, and a Pluto themed poet, and a Pluto insert anything.

Ya did not need to tell anyone that ya are working on a book about Pluto. What would be singular is to hear that ya were not working on a book (or anything else) that wasn't Pluto.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) May 31, 2013
If anyone is a nutter, it's Mike Brown who lies about being the sole discoverer of Pluto, has beheaded Disney dolls of Pluto the dog, claims to have killed Pluto, and whose narcissistic behavior is an embarrassment to the scientific community. Ironically, he at first called Eris a planet. It was only after it became clear that Eris was not going to be dubbed a planet that he launched his irrational attack on Pluto. Not very professional. And, of course, Bruno Sicardy's data now strongly suggests that Pluto is larger than Eris and all other known KBOs by at least 12 kilometers or 7.4 miles in diameter. Dwarf planets should be considered planets. The case to deny them planet status is a weak one, even without all the backdoor politics and threats and unprofessional conduct by Mike Brown and the Executive Committee of the IAU. If you watch the session in Prague in which Pluto was demoted, you will see pro-Pluto speakers cut off and treated with contempt by Ms. Bell. Pluto deserves better.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (14) May 31, 2013
If anyone is a nutter,

Blah, blah, blah,,,, A long string of words repeated for the millionth time.


Zephyr, ya really are a poor parrot. Ya are much better with your original material.

If you watch the session in Prague in which Pluto was demoted, you will see pro-Pluto speakers cut off and treated with contempt by Ms. Bell. Pluto deserves better.


Don't need to watch. I was there. Ms. Bell treated no one with contempt. She did her job, or tried to too, she tried to maintain order when some people just wouldn't comport themselves in a civil or orderly way. If she hadn't done her job, everyone would still be there at this very minute enduring a seven year long filibuster.

Lying about things that are so very easy to verify doesn't help your agenda, it works against it. (The lesson that the Kornfield women best teaches, is how to shoot yourself in the foot, and then stick it in your mouth.)

Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) May 31, 2013
Q-Star, I see there is no point in engaging you in a rational conversation. Your ad hominems are dull. I saw Ms. Bell's behavior and it was atrocious. You were there, but obviously you were not observing her as closely as I was. Anyway, you, thankfully, are not the final arbiter of this issue.

Oh, and, I am not Zephyr. Do you approve of Mike Brown's behavior, too?
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) May 31, 2013
Q-Star, I see there is no point in engaging you in a rational conversation.


Zeph, I've been trying to explain that to ya for years. (Literally hundreds of others have also.)

I saw Ms. Bell's behavior and it was atrocious.


According to ya everyone in mainstream science is atrocious. I'm sure she will be pleased that ya include with they others.

You were there, but obviously you were not observing her as closely as I was.


How could I not observe her plight with all the delaying, obstructionism, filibustering, & childish tantrums going on?

Anyway, you, thankfully, are not the final arbiter of this issue.


No I'm not. And thankfully the IAU is standing firm in the face of the smear campaigns, internet stalking, endless spamming, & external interference that detracts from the work they would rather be doing.

Oh, and, I am not Zephyr.


Of course ya are.

Do you approve of Mike Brown's behavior, too?


Of course, why wouldn't I
Thrasymachus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2013
What's really stupid is arguing on internet comment boards and expecting that you'll convince anybody.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (15) May 31, 2013
What's really stupid is arguing on internet comment boards and expecting that you'll convince anybody.


Hopefully ya realize that I'm not one of those. Anyone who has spent as many days with Zephyr as I have would never harbour such expectations. But I have become rather fond of him, and he's entertaining in a perverse way.

Attempting to convince him would be the ultimate effort in futility. He's going to post regardless, ignoring him doesn't work,,,, reasoning with him certainly doesn't work,,,,, banning him doesn't work,,,,,, he'll never go away, so all ya can do is search for any entertainment value he might offer.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) May 31, 2013
Q-Star, must I outline, again, the reprehensible action of Mike Brown? Taking full credit for the discovery of Eris, and the other discoveries of the team, not his team, mind you, the team of which he is a member. Beheading a Disney doll of Pluto. Ad hominem attacks on Ms. Kornfeld, who is a fellow astronomer and whose arguments in favor of the replanetization of Pluto and Ceres are well-founded and fact rich. And, lastly, calling himself the "killer" of Pluto. If I did not know better, Q-Star, I would think you are a moron for supporting such behavior. But, I know you are a good guy and don't really mean what you say and share with all rational people utter contempt for that type of behavior. You are just pretending to be a lackey for Mike Brown to get my goat.
Thrasymachus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2013
Actually, ignoring him, and ryggeson, and Otto when he's in troll mode, does work. As long as nobody else posts anything in the thread whatsoever. Then, the thread just dies, and the science news moves on, like always. The only reason they're annoying is because they spam up the forums when someone asks a legitimate question or has a genuinely insightful comment to make. Engaging them makes it worse.
laurele
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2013
The Great Planet Debate was a professional, friendly conference led by some of the leading experts on Pluto in the world. No one there was a "nutter" or used histrionics. You obviously are incapable of respecting anyone who disagrees with you, even the PI of New Horizons.

It's unethical to make accusations or report misconduct without providing some objective evidence. Just like ya a science poser. Mike got it right when he refers to ya as an "obsessed nutter".

It's not unethical if the accusation is not directed at a specific person. This is how investigative journalism works.

So Mike Brown is allowed to be obsessed with "killing Pluto" but I cannot have a genuine interest in the subject? And if Mike is calling me that, he's the one who is being unethical and unprofessional.

[/

The Great Planet Debate was a legitimate conference held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in response to the IAU deision. I recommend you listen to its transcripts here: http://gpd
laurele
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2013

Lying about things that are so very easy to verify doesn't help your agenda, it works against it. (The lesson that the Kornfield women best teaches, is how to shoot yourself in the foot, and then stick it in your mouth.)

You cannot verify it didn't happen because the intimidation took place in a private conversation. Also, I will note that I am the only person here using my real name. How does anyone know you are really an IAU member or an astronomer or that you took part in the vote? You could be any troll sitting behind a computer screen. I do public presentations and talks about Pluto, and they are always well received, so this notion that I shoot myself in the foot exists only in your imagination (and maybe in Brown's, when he's not dreaming of killing a Disney character).
laurele
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2013
No I'm not. And thankfully the IAU is standing firm in the face of the smear campaigns, internet stalking, endless spamming, & external interference that detracts from the work they would rather be doing.

The IAU is acting like some medieval elitist priesthood by claiming an authority it does not have to make decrees for the entire world that must be accepted for all eternity and never changed. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and real scientists know that. The IAU is also acting like a spoiled child because they didn't get to have the last word on this subject and resent the worldwide backlash against their decision. No one is "stalking" them, and accusing people of crimes when they are doing the same type of lobbying that other scientists do is unethical. Do they really have such contempt for the public and for amateur astronomers? If so, they deserve to become irrelevant.
laurele
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2013
Let me guess,,,,, Are ya paid by a "science group" who funds "science projects" by selling raffle tickets to name exoplanets?

I am not paid by Uwingu, which is a genuine science group.

I am working on a book about Pluto.


Completely superfluous statement that.

Ya are a Pluto blogger, and a Pluto character in film, and Pluto geophysicist, and a Pluto email spammer, and a Pluto themed poet, and a Pluto insert anything.

It is a well known principle that anyone who has to resort to ad hominem attacks has already lost the debate.

Neinsense99
3 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2013
Can we all agree that there are too few spinning space habitats, and that however many official planets there may be, we need to get off our collective behinds and get out there?
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2013
Can we all agree that there are too few spinning space habitats, and that however many official planets there may be, we need to get off our collective behinds and get out there?


Yes, I can agree to that. Absolutely. The number of official planets issue needs to be resolved at an IAU GA, hopefully the next one in Honolulu. I hope to be there. Oh, and I do have a real name. I am Mike Wrathell from Michigan, an artist/writer/musician/attorney. I draw comics, too, sometimes, to boot.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2013
Q-Star, must I outline, again, the reprehensible action of Mike Brown?


Ad nuasium ad infinitum, ya will sure.

Taking full credit for the discovery of Eris, and the other discoveries of the team, not his team, mind you, the team of which he is a member. Beheading a Disney doll of Pluto.


See, I was right sure.

Ad hominem attacks on Ms. Kornfeld, who is a fellow astronomer


She harasses, abuses, and actively seeks him out for no purpose but to annoy him. Not a fellow astronomer. Dilettante, amateur astronomer (who has no astronomical interest in any object except Pluto.)

You are just pretending to be a lackey for Mike Brown to get my goat.


I'm no ones lackey, Mike Brown is a very nice person. Not obsessive, not passive aggressive, not histrionic, doesn't actively attempt to disrupt another person's every waking minute, and doesn't attempt to enlist the aid of anyone and everyone to do it on his behalf.

Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2013
Also, I will note that I am the only person here using my real name. How does anyone know you are really an IAU member or an astronomer or that you took part in the vote? You could be any troll sitting behind a computer screen.


What so I might be another person blessed with the sort of attention ya bless Mike Brown with? No thank ya madame.

I do public presentations and talks about Pluto, and they are always well received, so this notion that I shoot myself in the foot exists only in your imagination (and maybe in Brown's, when he's not dreaming of killing a Disney character).


The presentations always shift back and forth between vitriol for Brown and IAU, requests for your audience to help in disrupting their daily lives/work, and cries of being offended, and outraged.

Ya are an obsessive passive-aggressive type. And it's only been escalating these past few years.

Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2013
It's not unethical if the accusation is not directed at a specific person.


It's unethical to level any accusation if ya are unwilling to support it.

This is how investigative journalism works.


By the By: Madame, I plea with ya,,,, please put some of your journalism skills into practice when ya are formatting your comments here. Ya are making it difficult to decide what ya are quoting and what ya are trying to say as a response,,,,,,
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2013
Completely superfluous statement that.

Ya are a Pluto blogger, and a Pluto character in film, and Pluto geophysicist, and a Pluto email spammer, and a Pluto themed poet, and a Pluto insert anything.


See how easy it is to separate the quotes? That above is meself. This below is ya.

It is a well known principle that anyone who has to resort to ad hominem attacks has already lost the debate.


Now my response to ya saying that: Love that ad hominem thingy, do ya? Ya use it a lot. Be that as it may be: It's not ad hominen if I list the reasons for the comment. As in:

Completely superfluous statement that.


My comment. Which is not ad hominen, because I went on to point out,,,,,

Ya are a Pluto blogger, and a Pluto character in film, and Pluto geophysicist, and a Pluto email spammer, and a Pluto themed poet, and a Pluto insert anything.


Which ya have to admit, is truthful in every respect.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2013
Yes, I can agree to that. Absolutely. The number of official planets issue needs to be resolved at an IAU GA,


It has been. Have ya not received the press releases? They are several years old.

hopefully the next one in Honolulu. I hope to be there.


Ya'll be needing to add to the CV below to achieve your hope.

Oh, and I do have a real name. I am Mike Wrathell from Michigan, an artist/writer/musician/attorney. I draw comics, too, sometimes, to boot.


Hmmm, I just can't find the qualifying credentials there,,, but ya can join Ms Kornfield outside and do what ya can to disrupt the proceedings. Maybe draw her a Pluto comic or two for her placards.? (As long as intellectual property rights aren't an issue with ya.)
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2013
I am Mike Wrathell from Michigan, an artist/writer/musician/attorney. I draw comics, too, sometimes, to boot.


Are ya the Mike Wrathell from Michigan, artist/musician/attorney that flunked out of law school?

So ya are an "attorney" sort of like Ms Kornfield is an "astronomer",,,, by proclaiming ya are? Folks this internet tells all, ya know it right? Or do ya just hope we are all as lazy as ya are?
Moebius
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2013
So the answer is 8? I'm sorry, I was brought up with 9 and it's staying 9 for me. Just because they come up with one BS requirement, obviously specifically to eliminate Pluto, I don't have to change my definition of a planet. If it's big, round and orbits the sun it's a planet.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2013
Q-Star, feel free to call the State Bar of Michigan to verify that I am a member in good standing. I passed the Bar on the first try back in 1992. You sure are acting like a troll by going ad hominem on me. That does not help the anti-Pluto forces you're aligning yourself with, bucco.

I don't plan to be inside the Hawaii Convention Center. I hope to be outside, though, perhaps with a sign with a high res photo of Pluto taken a month earlier during the flyby. So who are you, bro? Or do you enjoy going troll too much to reveal your identity? Are you Mr. Cain? Are you beheading a doll right now?
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2013
The IAU doesn't force anyone to do anything. People follow them out of convention. Christ knows no one is stopping you from calling Pluto a planet. The lengths some people will go to to feel persecuted amazes me.

How true. This isn't even a 'First World problem' compared to what is going on out there in Earthly reality.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2013
Q-Star, feel free to call the State Bar of Michigan to verify that I am a member in good standing. I passed the Bar on the first try back in 1992. You sure are acting like a troll by going ad hominem on me. That does not help the anti-Pluto forces you're aligning yourself with, bucco.


A decent lawyer should know what ad hominem means. (Don't fret over that thing over much, Laurel doesn't either.) Ya brought up the fact that ya are an attorney. All I did was ask if ya were the one who failed out of law school? Nice attempt at diversion, but the question stands as "Are ya the Mike Wrathell who failed out of law school"?

I hope to be outside, though, perhaps with a sign with a high res photo of Pluto taken a month earlier during the flyby.


Oh, no, oh no.

Or do you enjoy going troll too much to reveal your identity?


Are ya so stupid that ya would think I'll bite at that bait? I've seen ya folks in action, no thanks.
ABoyle
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2013
I'm amazed that this issue still stirs up so much discussions ... not over astronomy, but over grammar and usage. I wrote a book called "The Case for Pluto" about all this, and I think the bottom line is that you can consider dwarf planets a class of planets, just as the IAU currently considers asteroids, etc., to be "minor planets." There are not four, or eight, or nine, or 13 planets. There are probably hundreds or thousands in our solar system, depending on how you classify them, and billions in our galaxy. No big deal. After that, it's just a question of how you define the pigeonholes. For more, check out thecaseforpluto website.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2013
Quite right, Moebius! Granted there are great problems here on Earth, but that doesn't excuse scientists who act like twits and change definitions based on if their panties are in a bunch.

Q-Star, don't believe everything you read on the Internet. I think you must have read a review of "the king of pluto" on FilmThreat.com. The reviewer wrongly states that I flunked out of law school. That was not the case. I think he misinterpreted certain statements I made in the documentary. I contacted FilmThreat.com and asked them to correct that sentence, but they did not. To my knowledge, I am the only Mike Wrathell who happens to be a lawyer. Happy now?

Oh, I am using the term "ad hominem" within proper boundaries of usage.

Nice comment, Mr. Boyle. I consider dwarf planets to be a third class of planets. So I stop at 14. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, Haumea, Makemake, and even Xena, oh, wait.....Eris.......
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2013
that doesn't excuse scientists who act like twits and change definitions based on

As opposed to to non-scientists who want to instruct scientists on how they should classify the objects they are studying?

The reviewer wrongly states that I flunked out of law school. That was not the case. I think he misinterpreted certain statements I made in the documentary. I contacted FilmThreat.com and asked them to correct that sentence, but they did not.

At least he didn't retract with ridicule, eh?

Oh, I am using the term "ad hominem" within proper boundaries of usage.

No ya are using it as a parrot would.Ya use it at every opportunity when ya are laureling on every site that mentions the word planet regardless of context.

By the by: Troll I am? Ya signed up here to laurelize Pluto & nothing else. I post here everyday on all manner of topics. If my comments offend ya then don't come trolling me. Ya aren't that smart. Boyo. Don't take me word for it, your turn
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2013
Q-Star, I don't really have anything more to say to you. I will accept your word that you are not a troll. I have bigger fish to fry than you. There are many scientists who feel the IAU wrongly demoted Pluto, including one of the co-discoverers of Eris. I have followed the matter and have an opinion. So are you a scientist? I would think your manners would be better if you are one.

Try to be nice, dude. Not everyone in this world is going to agree with everything you say. I guess your mommy never warned you about that?
laurele
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2013
Q-Star, I do not harass or seek out Mike Brown. I respond to anyone who presents one side of the Pluto debate as fact when this is not the case. My responses to Brown are objections to his calling himself "plutokiller" and saying he "killed Pluto," which I view as unprofessional. He co-discovered a planet, Eris, and should take pride in that.

I am an astronomer; claiming amateur astronomers are not astronomers insults the many past and present amateurs who do research, make discoveries, publish papers, etc. I studied astronomy at Swinburne University, where I will continue in the Masters program once I finish my book. My interest is in planetary science, including exoplanets. I have written about the Mars rovers, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Dawn mission, solar and lunar eclipses, and methods of exoplanet detection. I enlist only the aid of others who feel the way I do about Pluto.

I do not believe you are Fraser Cain; he is far too professional to write the things you do.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2013
Regarding the accusation that Ms. Kornfeld spams, I have read her posts in the comment sections of various articles about Pluto and wouldn't categorize them as spam at all. They are always thoughtful, fact rich, and persuasive. If anyone is a spam artist it is Mike Brown who titles a book with two lies. One that he is the sole discoverer of Eris, and two, that by solely discovering Eris, he killed Pluto. Then, on his book tour, nearly every reviewer repeated the lie that Mr. Brown was the sole discoverer of Eris and Mr. Brown never corrects them when he is interviewed. His book is a mountain of spam. Moreover, the computer program he uses to discover celestial objects was based on the method that Clyde Tombaugh laboriously used to discover Pluto. Mike Brown could be sleeping or beheading a doll when the computer finds a celestial object, then Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz have to do the leg work to verify the discovery. Yet, Mr. Brown acts like he is a gift to Astronomy. Not!
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2013
In fact, this definition sounds like something concocted cynically for the purpose of forcing a pre determined exclusion of Pluto. In fact, the term "planet" can rightly be said to apply only to those bodies which gave rise to the idea of objects moving in the heavens, which would include the sun and moon, but nor Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Among other things, does Pluto not clear its orbit because it is too small or because its region of movement is too big, it takes centuries to traverse it? And it's being replenished from the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud! Consider that a definition of "planet" might come from whether it would seem like a "world" in its own right, with its own distinct individual qualities. Huge conglomerations of cratered rock might not be considered so distinct with respect to each other, but, a body with its own surface processes, something that has or could have remodeled its own surface might.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2013
Q-Star, I don't really have anything more to say to you. I will accept your word that you are not a troll. I have bigger fish to fry than you.


One could only hope that is a true thing.

There are many scientists who feel the IAU wrongly demoted Pluto, including one of the co-discoverers of Eris. I have followed the matter and have an opinion.


So it wasn't true, I'm shocked.

So are you a scientist? I would think your manners would be better if you are one.

Try to be nice, dude. Not everyone in this world is going to agree with everything you say. I guess your mommy never warned you about that?


Oh my, not ANOTHER one. Where do ya get these "lessons" from?
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2013
Regarding the accusation that Ms. Kornfeld spams,


What happened to,,,,

Q-Star, I don't really have anything more to say to you.


Ask around, everyone will tell ya that I'll keep answering if ya keep poking me.

His book is a mountain of spam.


Do ya even know what the word spam means? Psst, it's not something a person has to voluntarily pay money to read.

Moreover, the computer program he uses to discover celestial objects was based on the method that Clyde Tombaugh laboriously used to discover Pluto.


Good grief man, I use Newton's methods to write stuff in mathmatica everyday. Should I feel shame?

Tombaugh, was looking for something that didn't exist, with methods that would not have worked in finding an object with Pluto's attributes. Serendipitous is the word that best describes his discovery. Hid method was not a practical method, because to the technology wasn't available to him that we have today.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2013
Q-Star, I do not harass or seek out Mike Brown. I respond to anyone who presents one side of the Pluto debate as fact when this is not the case. My responses to Brown are objections to his calling himself "plutokiller" and saying he "killed Pluto," which I view as unprofessional. He co-discovered a planet, Eris, and should take pride in that.


"plutokiller" is a label your champions used first, Mike just showed he has a sense of humor and took it up. Same with "killed Pluto".

Sort of like ya being so fond of the new word "laureling" to describe the activities off a person obsessed with some inconsequential thing is life and thinks the world must change before it ends.
Sowff
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 02, 2013
Q-Star, I had planned to leave things alone if you did, too; but your accusations that Ms. Kornfeld is a spammer got me to thinking and I concluded that that is not the case. Yes, she seeks out Pluto-related online articles and posts in the comment section of many of them (as I happily do, as well) with her insights. I don't see insights as spam. Mr. Brown,however, titled his book with two mistruths and is making people pay for his book. It may not meet the standard definition of spam, but one of the wonderful things about the English language is the ability for words to gain new a broader definition when in the hands of a skilled wordsmith. As a writer and poet, I sometimes resort to such methods to make my point. When someone called Laurel a spammer, the old maxim, "It takes one to know one" comes to mind. That is how I decided to write about Mr. Brown as a spammer.

Regarding Clyde Tombaugh, yes, he was a bit lucky; but he put the hard work into it to make his own luck.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2013
Nice comment, Mr. Boyle. I consider dwarf planets to be a third class of planets. So I stop at 14. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, Haumea, Makemake, and even Xena, oh, wait.....Eris.......


Is the famous Mr. Boyle author and science editor? Who joined the site at 6:03, spent 6 minutes answering his "free email" account. Joins into third day of discussion at 6:10, (with the gratuitous plug for his book) and ya answer him a couple of minutes later.

So Mr. Boyle was shameless plugging his book, spamming. Or ya are doing an impersonation of Mr. Boyle and thought mentioning the book would give ya gravitas. Sowff, ya aren't very good at this,,,,, and it will only stay the same for ya. I told ya that ya weren't that smart.......
PosterusNeticus
4 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2013
It astounds me that intelligent people can be so emotionally hung up on this matter. We're on the eve of having a greatly expanded catalog of planets and planet-like things that goes far beyond the few bodies found here in our own neighborhood. The only position worth taking is to accept that our working definition of what a planet is and is not is subject to change as we learn more. For now the IAU definition makes perfect sense and it's completely silly to get upset over it.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2013
As a writer and poet, I sometimes resort to such methods to make my point.


Deceit and disingenuous are your two fortes.

When someone called Laurel a spammer, the old maxim, "It takes one to know one" comes to mind. That is how I decided to write about Mr. Brown as a spammer.


Ya set yourself up so easy with that gem, I would feel ashamed to use, Ya get a pass for that comment.... Boyo, ya are as stupid as a moon rock.

Regarding Clyde Tombaugh, yes, he was a bit lucky; but he put the hard work into it to make his own luck.


It would be like me going out to search for the "big foot" and when looking for suitable sticks to make a fire,,,,, stumbling upon a gold deposit. Yeppers, I'd say that was being a bit lucky.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2013
@Q: stop arguing with the intelectually unarmed. It isn't worth your time.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2013
@Q: stop arguing with the intelectually unarmed. It isn't worth your time.


I will defer to a person I respect. For ya I will do so. He(s) is welcome to have the last word and I'll not respond. (Last means last. Word means, one comment, not several comments or a flood.)
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2013
Q-Star, since Mr. Tombaugh did find Pluto, and you didn't, your analogy of Big Foot I'm not sure is necessarily true. Sounds like you might be a bit envious of Mr. Tombaugh. You aren't Mike Brown by any chance are you?

As far as me being as dumb as a moon rock or intellectually unarmed, those are silly potshots unworthy of the Internet. Unfortunately, you and your respected compatriot (who cannot spell) think acting like trolls is somehow respectable. I urge you to look at yourself in the mirror and try to rise above trollery. It may be hard to do for you, you seem to enjoy it a lot; but I have faith that you can do it. You seem to have a modest amount of intelligence. Perhaps more. I am not going to judge you. Like I said, I have bigger fish to fry than you. I just came here to make a few points and defend Ms. Kornfeld from an ad hominem attack, not to insult people, even if they insult me. I am capable of turning the other cheek. Grow up, Q-Star. Act like an intelligent person.
beleg
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2013
" thinks the world must change before it ends. - Q"
All change is finite in a world that ends.
The assumption is nothing is static.

Romanticists envision changes for the better for as long as the duration of that period passing lasts.

This is aside from all exchanges of comments above that I never have, never can, and never will, fully understand. People not witnessing such exchanges can not be instilled with a notion that something happened as something they will find as missing in their lives in retrospection.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2013
Q-Star, believe it or not, that was Alan Boyle. Feel free to contact him and ask him if that was him. Don't take my word for it. You might want to ask a moon rock, though.
laurele
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 03, 2013
It astounds me that intelligent people can be so emotionally hung up on this matter. We're on the eve of having a greatly expanded catalog of planets and planet-like things that goes far beyond the few bodies found here in our own neighborhood. The only position worth taking is to accept that our working definition of what a planet is and is not is subject to change as we learn more. For now the IAU definition makes perfect sense and it's completely silly to get upset over it.


The IAU definition does not make perfect sense; it has many flaws, foremost among them a bias against planets in further orbits from their stars. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, it would not clear that orbit either. We have a definition where the same object can be a planet in one location and not a planet in another--hardly perfect sense. Opponents of the IAU definition are not "upset"; we simply want a better definition.
laurele
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 03, 2013
Mike Brown has publicly demeaned Tombaugh several times by saying he "was just a farmboy who got lucky." That is a ridiculous statement and a vicious insult to a dead man who is not here to respond. Tombaugh worked painstakingly for over a year both taking images and blinking them at Lowell Observatory, with a level of dedication and attention to detail that is rare. He was a brilliant man, and unlike Brown, never arrogant or egotistical. Interestingly, in spite of his having discovered a planet, Tombaugh was looked down on by some professional astronomers because his highest degree was a Masters and not a PhD. His reason for not getting a PhD was financial--he couldn't afford it. Yet he was an accomplished and well-loved astronomer and professor.
Spaceman Spiff
2 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2013
"I love cats, & I love dogs, they both have fuzz & they both have four legs, they are found together in my house, can they be considered 1 species"

Q-Star, interesting cat-egory.
If lions and tigers (oh my) are considered big cats, and then you chance upon pumas and ocelots, which are also cats, does that mean the fuzzy little domestic one in your house is NOT a cat, simply because it's a much smaller than a lion? No. It's still a cat. Just like pebbles are still rocks, even if there's a boulder sitting on the same mountain. Just like Pluto is still a planet, regardless of it being a dwarf planet.
Get it? It's very simple if ya think about it.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2013
I do think the cat must achieve hydrostatic equilibrium, though, Spiff.

Emerson once said, "Envy is ignorance." Let those who attack Mr. Tombaugh ponder that aphorism.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2013
All dwarf planets are planets just as terrestrial planets are planets. Imo, there's no difference here. The IAU realized that Pluto wasn't unique (after the discovery of Eris and Kuiper Belt), and made a new category for it. I don't get why there are still people criticizing the IAU for their decision.
Sowff
1.7 / 5 (14) Jun 03, 2013
Sinister1811, though seemingly innocuous at first glance, the rancid resolution of 2006 was actually an ad planetum attack on Pluto. It dumbly deemed that dwarf planets aren't planets, even though dwarf stars like our sun are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. That's the problem.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 03, 2013
If No. It's still a cat. Just like pebbles are still rocks, even if there's a boulder sitting on the same mountain. Just like Pluto is still a planet, regardless of it being a dwarf planet.


Objects orbiting the Sun: Planets, Dwarf Planets, Minor Planets

Planets: Earth and the other seven,,, but not Dwarf Planets or Minor Planets
Dwarf Planets: Pluto and the other four plutiods. But not Planets or Minor Planets
Minor Planets: Comets and Asteroids. But not Planets or Dwarf Planets (plutoids)

Mammals:

Felidae: Cats but not dogs.
Sub family: Pantherinae: Genus: Pantera: Your lions and tigers, but not house cats (or dogs.)
Sub family: Felinae: Genus: Felis: House cats, but not your lions or tigers (or dogs)
Canidae: Dogs but not cats.

Family Canidae: Sub familiy: Caninae: Genus: Dogs but not cats.

Pluto is not a planet. There are eight of those. It's a Dwarf Planet (a plutoid)
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 03, 2013
The IAU definition does not make perfect sense; it has many flaws, foremost among them a bias against planets in further orbits from their stars. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, it would not clear that orbit either.


Laurel, please quit using that absurd argument. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, we would not be having this conversation.

We have a definition where the same object can be a planet in one location and not a planet in another--hardly perfect sense. Opponents of the IAU definition are not "upset"; we simply want a better definition.


If we lived on Mars, and the Earth was in Pluto's orbit, perhaps we'd be having this argument. Ya assume that if Earth was in Pluto's orbit we would still be calling it a planet. That is called debating with a false a priori premise.

Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 03, 2013
All dwarf planets are planets just as terrestrial planets are planets. Imo, there's no difference here. The IAU realized that Pluto wasn't unique (after the discovery of Eris and Kuiper Belt), and made a new category for it. I don't get why there are still people criticizing the IAU for their decision.


No, Dwarf Planets are not planets, they are dwarf planets (plutoids). Ya would think the Plutonians would be happy. Pluto is the ruler of a group of objects. As a planet Pluto was merely a foundling, a red-headed stepchild, an oddity among planets. It has more status in the present system of classifying object.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 03, 2013
Q-Star, you never explain why it is okay for a dwarf planet not to be a planet when dwarf stars are still stars and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Why don't you put your supposedly significantly superior brain power to that question. We moon rock-brained inferiors await your pontifications.

Also perhaps you can explain to us why a dwarf dog like a Chihuahua or a min pin is still a dog.

Regarding the argument that if Earth was in Pluto's orbit, Laurel has a point. The further out planets are from the Sun, the harder it is to clear one's field. Obviously, the IAU's actions on August 24th, 2006 were an ad planetum attack on Pluto. The issue needs to be reopened. In the meantime, gloat away. Your day in the Sun is now. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 03, 2013
Q-Star, you never explain why it is okay for a dwarf planet not to be a planet when dwarf stars are still stars and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Why don't you put your supposedly significantly superior brain power to that question. We moon rock-brained inferiors await your pontifications.

Also perhaps you can explain to us why a dwarf dog like a Chihuahua or a min pin is still a dog.

Regarding the argument that if Earth was in Pluto's orbit, Laurel has a point. The further out planets are from the Sun, the harder it is to clear one's field. Obviously, the IAU's actions on August 24th, 2006 were an ad planetum attack on Pluto. The issue needs to be reopened. In the meantime, gloat away. Your day in the Sun is now. Enjoy it while it lasts.


I said one last word to me, not three. I'll pass once more, but only once more. Quit trolling me. Pluto is not a planet. Each year that passes, fewer and fewer people make up your "movement". Get over it.
JohnGee
2.3 / 5 (8) Jun 03, 2013
I think Prof. Regan got it right: http://www.youtub...BgZ6Bzbk
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 03, 2013
Q-Star....if you want me to not post, you need to stop calling me names like troll, dumb as a moon rock,etc., as well as stop insulting Ms. Kornfeld, who is a respected astronomer in her own right. Calling her a spammer is just mean and untrue. As far as trolling goes, you are the one who went searching for dirt on me and found an old movie review that wrongly said I had flunked out of law school and ran with it like you had just discovered gold in the Klondike.

I have the right to post on this thread,and I have tried to behave like a gentleman. Can the same be said of you? I would like to keep future posts here to a bare minimum and not respond to you at all unless provoked. I am not asking for an apology from you for your insults, as you are an anonymous poster who I assume doesn't want a code of honor applied to himself. So I will leave you to your own devices. However, if you call me names and set yourself up as superior to me, you are inviting a response. Enjoy the gloat time.
Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2013
All dwarf planets are planets just as terrestrial planets are planets. Imo, there's no difference here. The IAU realized that Pluto wasn't unique (after the discovery of Eris and Kuiper Belt), and made a new category for it. I don't get why there are still people criticizing the IAU for their decision.


No, Dwarf Planets are not planets, they are dwarf planets (plutoids). Ya would think the Plutonians would be happy. Pluto is the ruler of a group of objects. As a planet Pluto was merely a foundling, a red-headed stepchild, an oddity among planets. It has more status in the present system of classifying object.


That's what I meant. Pluto isn't the first or last of its kind, therefore, what makes it special and not its bigger brother Eris, or its asteroid cousin Ceres. As well as the few other oddballs they've discovered like Sedna, Quoar and MakeMake.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2013
Sinister 1811, perhaps you haven't heard: current data suggests quite strongly that Pluto is at least 12 km larger in diameter than Eris. Eris has more mass only. This was concluded as a result of a stellar occultation of Eris in November 2010 by Bruno Sicardy of the Paris Observatory, who published a paper on his findings.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2013
I have the right to post on this thread,and I have tried to behave like a gentleman. Can the same be said of you?


Ha! It's really quite obvious Q is nothing but a troll. Ad hominen and strawman are his M.O., and he claims affiliation to IAU, CTI, etc. He actually is a perfect example of the current state of space science(and others). Actually, he has mastered the usage of 'Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement' as his debate style. He tends to stay closer to the bottom of the pyramid, typically using the most juvenile of approaches. It's quite sad to say the least.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2013
Q-Star....if you want me to not post, you need to stop calling me names like troll, dumb as a moon rock,etc., as well as stop insulting Ms. Kornfeld, who is a respected astronomer in her own right. Calling her a spammer is just mean and untrue.


Well, okee doekee than, so we'll have different rules for ya and me,,,, I see. She is a spammer. That's not mean, it's what she does on most days, so it's just true.

I have the right to post on this thread,and I have tried to behave like a gentleman.


If ya want to post without my response, don't address me or my comments. Post all ya want, without reference to me.

I am not asking for an apology from you for your insults,


Victim and member of group targeted by conspiracy of mainstream science, read some of the other comment sections, ya'll find yourself in some "elite" company.

So I will leave you to your own devices.


I doubt that.

Enjoy the gloat time.


I will, Pluto is a dwarf planet, not a planet.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2013
I have the right to post on this thread,and I have tried to behave like a gentleman. Can the same be said of you?


Ha! It's really quite obvious Q is nothing but a troll. Ad hominen and strawman are his M.O., and he claims affiliation to IAU, CTI, etc.


Hey Sowff, ya've just been welcomed & accepted into the elite group. (Check my neg ratings for the full membership of this elite group. I encourage their ones.) Ya can now count yourself an equal to:

The Zephyr (et al) of Aether Wave Theory fame, &

The cantdrive (et al) of Plasma Cosmology & Electric Universe fame, &

The Anton/Reg/Reality (et al) of United Vortecii Theory & No Such Thing As Gravity fame.

In less than a week ya have risen to the top. Ya are now eligible for the Nobel Prize for Crackpottery & Crank Science. Congratulations.
laurele
2 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2013
If No. It's still a cat. Just like pebbles are still rocks, even if there's a boulder sitting on the same mountain. Just like Pluto is still a planet, regardless of it being a dwarf planet.


Objects orbiting the Sun: Planets, Dwarf Planets, Minor Planets

Planets: Earth and the other seven,,, but not Dwarf Planets or Minor Planets
Dwarf Planets: Pluto and the other four plutiods. But not Planets or Minor Planets
Minor Planets: Comets and Asteroids. But not Planets or Dwarf Planets (plutoids)

Objects orbiting the Sun: Planets, 3 subclasses: terrestrial, jovian, dwarf; Minor planets, 4 subclasses: protoplanet (Vesta & Pallas), asteroids, comets, centaurs.

Pluto is a planet because dwarf planet, a term created by Dr. Alan Stern, is a subclass of planets. It refers to planets large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium but not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits.

Planets: 4 terrestrials, 4 jovians, 6+ dwarf including Charon, binary with Pluto.
laurele
2 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2013
Pluto is larger (though marginally) than Eris; this was determined when Eris occulted a star in 2010. Ceres is not an asteroid because it is rounded by its own gravity. That makes it a small planet. The same is true for Charon, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, Sedna, Quaoar, etc. Almost no one uses the term "plutoids," which is superfluous and seen as a joke by many astronomers.

"Pluto is not a planet. Each year that passes, fewer and fewer people make up your "movement". Get over it."

Wrong. Each year that passes, more and more data is showing more and more people that the IAU definition is wrong and highly flawed. Pluto IS a planet. No one should "get over" a bad decision.

laurele
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2013
"Laurel, please quit using that absurd argument. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, we would not be having this conversation.

If we lived on Mars, and the Earth was in Pluto's orbit, perhaps we'd be having this argument. Ya assume that if Earth was in Pluto's orbit we would still be calling it a planet. That is called debating with a false a priori premise. "

Where we are is completely irrelevant. The fact remains that a definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another makes no sense. We cannot define an object by where it is while completely overlooking what it is.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2013
Pluto is a planet because dwarf planet, a term created by Dr. Alan Stern, is a subclass of planets.


Pluto is dwarf planet, a term adopted by the IAU to distinguish plutoids from real planets. Ya like Stern's definition. I like the IAU's. And ya can not dictate which I will prefer..

Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2013
Almost no one uses the term "plutoids," which is superfluous and seen as a joke by many astronomers.


Ha, ha, the jokes on ya.

Pluto IS a planet.


To ya, but to the IAU it is not. So then, ya'll just have to,,,,,,

"get over"


that.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2013
The fact remains that a definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another makes no sense.


Why not? If Pluto was in orbit around the Earth, would it still be a planet? No, it would not even be a dwarf planet.

We cannot define an object by where it is while completely overlooking what it is.


That's exactly what ya are trying to do. Overlook what it is in order to define it in the group of eight real planets.

"We cannot" is misplaced. I would think a "journalist" would realize that the IAU is a "we" that doesn't include ya,,,, ya should say "the IAU cannot". But that would false, because they can. And did. When Laurel is a member of the IAU, then she can use "we".
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2013
Each year that passes, more and more data is showing more and more people that the IAU definition is wrong and highly flawed.


The numbers in 2009, and 2012 reflect that your support in the IAU is declining. And as far IAU definitions goes, that is the only number that counts.

Sort of like that "law" ya wanted passed a few years back in the Congress. The US Congress to compel the IAU, an international, non governmental organization to revise their definition. "Tilting windmills" comes to mind.
Sowff
1.5 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2013
Q-Star, you called me a crackpot so I can tell you this. I have not behaved like one. It takes one to know one. You're acting closer to one that I am, but if I was going to call you anything I would dub thee "The Little Chihuahua of the IAU."

We are in agreement about something, though. You have the right to your opinion, and if you want to be the lapdog of the IAU, suit yourself. Ignore all the great arguments to reopen the issue and keep on parroting the IAU's position. Want a cracker, dude?
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (14) Jun 04, 2013
Q-Star, you called me a crackpot so I can tell you this. I have not behaved like one. It takes one to know one. You're acting closer to one that I am, but if I was going to call you anything I would dub thee "The Little Chihuahua of the IAU."

We are in agreement about something, though. You have the right to your opinion, and if you want to be the lapdog of the IAU, suit yourself. Ignore all the great arguments to reopen the issue and keep on parroting the IAU's position. Want a cracker, dude?


Oh yeah? Well I guess ya just gave me what for. But even after all that, Pluto is a dwarf planet. Plutoids are not planets. And ya have no real arguments for making them planets.

By the By: I will give ya a star for your determination in the face of certain helplessness. There are other words for that, but ya asked me to play nice.
Sowff
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2013

But even after all that, Pluto is a dwarf planet. Plutoids are not planets. And ya have no real arguments for making them planets.

By the By: I will give ya a star for your determination in the face of certain helplessness. There are other words for that, but ya asked me to play nice.



Gee, thanks, Q-Star.

Plenty of good arguments have been presented in this thread. You have responded to some of them. Anyway, I don't really expect everyone on Earth to support replanetization for Ceres and Pluto. I think the case is strong, however, and there are some heavy hitters who support it.

I agree that Pluto is a dwarf planet; but dwarf planets are planets, too. The IAU is wrong to deny a third class of planets. They need to admit the error of their ways and stop being arrogant and juvenile about the issue.
laurele
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2013
Pluto is a planet because dwarf planet, a term created by Dr. Alan Stern, is a subclass of planets.


Pluto is dwarf planet, a term adopted by the IAU to distinguish plutoids from real planets. Ya like Stern's definition. I like the IAU's. And ya can not dictate which I will prefer..


No one can dictate preference, so we have two different definitions, equally legitimate, existing side-by-side.
laurele
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2013
Almost no one uses the term "plutoids," which is superfluous and seen as a joke by many astronomers.


Ha, ha, the jokes on ya.

Pluto IS a planet.


To ya, but to the IAU it is not. So then, ya'll just have to,,,,,,

No, I don't have to "get over" anything. I just have to promote an alternate definition and inform people that this is an ongoing debate with two sides. Also, there are many IAU members who do not accept the 2006 definition, which was adopted by four percent of the group--meaning 96 percent who weren't in a particular room on the last day of a two week conference, had no say in the matter.

If Pluto were in orbit around the Earth, I would consider it a satellite planet, as I do all spherical moons of planets.
laurele
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2013
Each year that passes, more and more data is showing more and more people that the IAU definition is wrong and highly flawed.


The numbers in 2009, and 2012 reflect that your support in the IAU is declining. And as far IAU definitions goes, that is the only number that counts.

Sort of like that "law" ya wanted passed a few years back in the Congress. The US Congress to compel the IAU, an international, non governmental organization to revise their definition. "Tilting windmills" comes to mind.


What numbers in 2009 and 2012? There were no votes on planet definition in those years. But there were fewer and fewer IAU members attending General Assemblies. The IAU numbers or definitions do not count any more than any other numbers or definitions because science is not determined by decree. The IAU represents just one group among many. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
laurele
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2013
We cannot define an object by where it is while completely overlooking what it is.


That's exactly what ya are trying to do. Overlook what it is in order to define it in the group of eight real planets.


No, I am looking at what Pluto is and by those characteristics defining it as a type of real planet. I am not overlooking anything. Small planets are structurally and compositionally just like large planets, except for their size. But they are large enough to be spherical, and that is the only size that matters.

"We cannot" is misplaced. I would think a "journalist" would realize that the IAU is a "we" that doesn't include ya,,,, ya should say "the IAU cannot". But that would false, because they can. And did. When Laurel is a member of the IAU, then she can use "we".


By "we," I don't mean the IAU, but people in general. Interesting how you automatically assume everything is solely up to the IAU. It's not.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2013
I agree that Pluto is a dwarf planet; but dwarf planets are planets, too. The IAU is wrong to deny a third class of planets. They need to admit the error of their ways and stop being arrogant and juvenile about the issue.


When ya sneak in the "third" class of planets thingy, is it because ya don't realize the IAU has only "one" class of planets? Not "two". Or is that ya want people think that the IAU already has two so why a "third"?

Regardless, to answer your question,,,, The IAU will consider a "third" class of planets, but first let them define a "second" class. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

There are planets. (W/ misc jargon descriptors)
There are dwarf planets. (W/ misc jargon descriptors)
There are minor planets. (W/ misc jargon descriptors)

If ya are going to rail against the IAU, please be honest enough not to misstate their definitions (unintentionally or by purpose.)
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2013
@Laurel
@Sowff

Do ya two work in tandem by agreement? Or do ya just accidentally show together day after day, and several times a day?
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2013
No one can dictate preference, so we have two different definitions, equally legitimate, existing side-by-side.


Then why don't ya let the IAU have theirs? Oh, even though it's equally legitimate, it's not as "legitimate" as yours? Right?
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2013
What numbers in 2009 and 2012? There were no votes on planet definition in those years. But there were fewer and fewer IAU members attending General Assemblies.


Ya got to show up at the polls to complain about the elections. That is just the way a democratic process works. Fewer and fewer members are showing ANY inclination to revisit the issue. That is just a fact Laurel, and ya even admitted it on your blog earlier this year.

The IAU numbers or definitions do not count any more than any other numbers or definitions because science is not determined by decree. The IAU represents just one group among many. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.


The logical fallacy is that ya want to the IAU to respond to your decree, and that ya take great umbrage that they don't. Appeal to whatever authority ya wish, and allow others to do the same.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2013
Formatting please, this is gobbledegook,,,,

We cannot define an object by where it is while completely overlooking what it is.

That's exactly what ya are trying to do. Overlook what it is in order to define it in the group of eight real planets.

No, I am looking at what Pluto is and by those characteristics defining it as a type of real planet. I am not overlooking anything. Small planets are structurally and compositionally just like large planets, except for their size. But they are large enough to be spherical, and that is the only size that matters.
"We cannot" is misplaced. I would think a "journalist" would realize that the IAU is a "we" that doesn't include ya,,,, ya should say "the IAU cannot". But that would false, because they can. And did. When Laurel is a member of the IAU, then she can use "we".

By "we," I don't mean the IAU, but people in general. Interesting how you automatically assume everything is solely up to the IAU. It's not.

antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2013
Hmm..OK, I'll chime in on this one - because this seems to be a rather fundamental misconception:
because science is not determined by decree.

I hate to break this to you: but science isn't determined by democratic vote, either. Science is determined by what is most useful/sensible.

And the new definition is certainly more sensible than keeping Pluto in the list, since otherwise Pluto is either an exception (which isn't sensible) or we get a very long list (which isn't useful).

So it was a reasonable motion by the IAU to ditch it in order to keep definitions concise and consistent.

It's only a label, anyhow. It means nothing. Only to people who think that by learning a name they somehow have gained understanding of the thing the name is attached to.
...and anyone who thinks THAT way is certainly not a scientist (and has quite a ways to go before understanding what science is all about).
Sowff
1.7 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2013

Pluto is either an exception (which isn't sensible) or we get a very long list (which isn't useful).


Pluto is just as round as any another planet, and has moons like most other planets. It's orbit is a bit more elliptical, but not as much as many exoplanets. With dwarf planets rightly being a third class of planets (the other classes being Jovian and terrestrial), we only have 14 planets. Those who speculate that there might be hundreds more or thousands more are doing just that. Speculating. I, for one, am not big on speculating. I have never panned for gold in the Sacramento River or ridden in a dog sled to the Klondike, but I do like Klondike bars. Ironically, some who speculate as to some large number of undiscovered planets are pro-Pluto, but many use that as a rhetorical devise to try to scare people away from having more than 8 planets. Either way, I am not biting. 14 is the current count I have, which includes Charon.

Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2013


I hate to break this to you: but science isn't determined by democratic vote, either. Science is determined by what is most useful/sensible.


Pluto was demoted after a vote on August 24th, 2006 in Prague at an IAU GA. I agree that was not Science. It was staged on the last day of the GA, without proper vetting or notice, contrary to the by-laws of the IAU. While, I agree that Science is not democratic in and of itself, votes amongst scientists do occur now and then, as evidenced by the passing of said resolution. So, your point is muddled at best.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2013
@Laurel
@Sowff

Do ya two work in tandem by agreement? Or do ya just accidentally show together day after day, and several times a day?


It's a Plutonian thing. You wouldn't understand.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jun 04, 2013
Bah white noise! I like the dwarf planet designation, although I wonder why Sedna always seems to get left out.
laurele
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2013
Hmm..OK, I'll chime in on this one - because this seems to be a rather fundamental misconception:
because science is not determined by decree.

I hate to break this to you: but science isn't determined by democratic vote, either. Science is determined by what is most useful/sensible.

And the new definition is certainly more sensible than keeping Pluto in the list, since otherwise Pluto is either an exception (which isn't sensible) or we get a very long list (which isn't useful).

Pluto is NOT an exception, as it is much like the larger planets, just smaller. It turns out dwarf planets comprise the majority of planets in our solar system anyway. That means the larger planets are the misfits. You keep saying Pluto is an exception, but provide no support for that claim. Also, objection to a long list of planets is as anti-scientific as one can get. It's like saying Jupiter can have only 4 moons because no one can memorize 67. Convenience is not an argument.
laurele
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2013
"I hate to break this to you: but science isn't determined by democratic vote, either. Science is determined by what is most useful/sensible."

What is most useful and sensible is determined by the data, not by a vote or decree. No one voted that we have multiple galaxies instead of just one. The data on dwarf planets can be interpreted several ways depending on what one chooses to emphasize. The IAU is angry because they wanted to have the last word and cannot stand the fact that their definition remains the subject of a backlash to this day. I never said fewer IAU members are showing any inclination to revisit the issue. I said a split appears to be developing wherein those who reject the IAU definition are ignoring it and the IAU altogether.

We can appeal to the IAU to reopen the discussion and at the same time work around them. Meanwhile, the IAU can have its definition and so can objectors. The problem is articles like this promoting one view instead of reporting the debate.
laurele
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2013
"When ya sneak in the "third" class of planets thingy, is it because ya don't realize the IAU has only "one" class of planets? Not "two". "

Do you need the IAU to think for you? The fact that terrestrial and gas giant or jovian planets are two separate categories is common knowledge. However, if as you claim, the IAU has only one class of planets, that makes its definition all the more ridiculous. How can anyone put Earth and Jupiter in the same category while excluding Pluto? Earth has more in common with Pluto than with Jupiter. Jupiter is composed of hydrogen and helium like the Sun; has no solid surface, and has its own mini solar system of moons. Earth and Pluto are both rocky with solid surfaces; both have weather, atmospheres--and nitrogen in those atmospheres; both have geology and are layered into core, mantle, and crust; and both have large moons formed via giant impact.
DavidW
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2013
Quoting Q-Star:

ya
ya
ya
ya
ya
ya
ya
ya


Please stop the condescending tone. TY
beleg
1.4 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2013
Which of you have the exact solution to the N-body problem? Exactly. Case closed.
The body you change in space destabilizing the rest is a chaotic system, not solar.

Location is not interchangeable.



@W These are not your children
Sowff
1.4 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2013
Which of you have the exact solution to the N-body problem? Exactly. Case closed.
The body you change in space destabilizing the rest is a chaotic system, not solar.

Location is not interchangeable.



beleg, I don't think an exact solution to the N-body problem (whatever that is, please enlighten me) is necessary to advocate that dwarf planets are planets, nor to post here in favor of said categorization. Pluto's orbits the Sun, so it is just as "solar" as Mercury, et alii. Yes, its orbit is more elliptical, but so what? That was not one of the ad planetum new rules the IAU voted up on on the last day of the 2006 GA without proper notice or proper vetting, anyway. Pluto doesn't promote chaos. What promotes chaos is beheading Disney dolls of Pluto the Dog, bad mouthing Clyde Tombaugh, cutting off pro-Pluto speakers, intimidating pro-Pluto IAU members, ramrodding resolutions, and insulting pro-Pluto posters.

The location analogy was just that.


i
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2013
Which of you have the exact solution to the N-body problem? Exactly.

So? We don't have the exact solution to ANYTHING in physics. Does that mean that physics is useless? No.

But then again: What does "having the exact solution to X" vs. "being able to simulate X via numerical methods" (which we are able to do) have to do with anything?

Pluto is just as round as any another planet, and has moons like most other planets.

So? 'Round' and 'has moon' aren't part of the definition (or Venus and Mercury would have to be dropped). 'Round' is also a pretty relative term.

And as you say "most other planets" - which means you're starting to use definitions which would require exceptions (which isn't particularly sensible/useful in science - or in any other classification scheme for that matter)
laurele
2 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2013
Which of you have the exact solution to the N-body problem? Exactly.

So? We don't have the exact solution to ANYTHING in physics. Does that mean that physics is useless? No.

But then again: What does "having the exact solution to X" vs. "being able to simulate X via numerical methods" (which we are able to do) have to do with anything?

Pluto is just as round as any another planet, and has moons like most other planets.

So? 'Round' and 'has moon' aren't part of the definition (or Venus and Mercury would have to be dropped). 'Round' is also a pretty relative term.


Round means squeezed into a spherical or oblate spheroid shape by its own gravity. In other words, the object is in hydrostatic equilibrium. "Round and has moon are not part of the definition"--what definition is that? The one arbitrarily adopted by 4% of the IAU? Requiring an object to conform to this one definition is nothing more than an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2013
My bad. Yes, you are right. Having a moon is not part of the planet definition, but being in hydrostatic equilibrium, viz., round, is. Well, a planet needn't be perfectly round to be in such a state. Haumea is the least round planet, let alone dwarf planet, I believe.

We really should not be bickering about all this stuff. New Horizons will arrive at the Plutonian System in a wee more than two years. Can't we all come together instead of bitching about how Pluto deserves to be spanked by the IAU in the very year that the first rocket to Pluto was ever launched? Given the well-detailed, nefarious history of the rancid resolution, I would think than any reasonable person would admit the issue of planethood needs to be revisited forthwith. What if I gave you the name of the person who was threatened at the Prague GA? Would that make you happy? I could ask him/her if he/she would come forward on this thread. You would have to ask real nice.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2013
We really should not be bickering about all this stuff.


Then let it go.

Can't we all come together


That's a nice start.

bitching about how Pluto deserves


But "plutoids are planet" advocates are the ones doing the bitching.

to be spanked by the IAU in the very year that the first rocket to Pluto was ever launched?


Hmmm, yeppers, bitching.

Given the well-detailed, nefarious history of the rancid resolution,


Oh my, more bitching.

I would think than any reasonable person would admit the issue of planethood needs to be revisited forthwith.


Reasonable people moved on. They don't tilt windmills, or bitch.

What if I gave you the name of the person who was threatened at the Prague GA?


It would be a start.

Would that make you happy?


I'm already happy?

I could ask him/her if he/she would come forward on this thread.


That would certainly make him a real person.

You would have to ask real nice.


Please.
beleg
1.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2013
You can not swap or exchange planets to another planets orbit.
The solar system is longer stable. The solar system flies apart.
Every astronomer knows this.
Case closed. Move on.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2013
You can not swap or exchange planets to another planets orbit.
The solar system is longer stable. The solar system flies apart.
Every astronomer knows this.
Case closed. Move on.


beleg, Your argument to keep dwarf planets from being a subclass of planets is not as strong as you think it is; in fact, it is very obtuse and incomprehensible and I've never seen anyone use anything remotely like it. But I like that you feel strongly about it.

As you know, the Sun is a yellow dwarf star and is also considered a star. To me, this shows the IAU's actions in Prague were an ad planetum attack on Pluto and all other dwarf planets. To boot, dwarf galaxies are considered galaxies by the IAU. Case opened.

The entire Universe is sort of chaotic. But we have to deal with it. Sort of like a man has to deal with a mother-in-law when he gets married.



Sowff
1 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2013




Hmmm, yeppers, bitching.

Given the well-detailed, nefarious history of the rancid resolution,


Oh my, more bitching.

I would think than any reasonable person would admit the issue of planethood needs to be revisited forthwith.


Reasonable people moved on. They don't tilt windmills, or bitch.

What if I gave you the name of the person who was threatened at the Prague GA?


It would be a start.

Would that make you happy?


I'm already happy?

I could ask him/her if he/she would come forward on this thread.


That would certainly make him a real person.

You would have to ask rea
Sowff
1.4 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2013
Q-Star

I will see what I can do since you said please. Wow.

And, hey, one man's bitching is another man's ranting.
laurele
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2013
You can not swap or exchange planets to another planets orbit.
The solar system is longer stable. The solar system flies apart.
Every astronomer knows this.
Case closed. Move on.


But we could find a Mars-sized object or Mercury-sized object in the Kuiper Belt, and if that object is not considered a planet, we then have the absurdity of two objects with the same size, one a planet and one not, just because of where they are located. Saying "case closed" does not make it so. The fact remains there is no consensus among planetary scientists in favor of any particular planet definition. Go tell Mike Brown and the IAU to move on and stop being stuck in 2006 mode thinking they can "kill" a planet. We who know the IAU definition is seriously flawed have no intention of moving anywhere.
laurele
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2013
"Reasonable people moved on. They don't tilt windmills, or bitch."

You wish. No, reasonable people don't just "move on" and accept a bad decision because time passes. We are not "tilting at windmills"; our efforts have assured that seven years later, the IAU definition remains as controversial as ever instead of being blindly accepted the way some people thought it would be. You don't get to define what "reasonable" is. At this point, I have serious doubts as to your really being an IAU member at all. I have had dealings with the IAU, and none of their representatives were ever as rude and obnoxious as you are.
beleg
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2013
Non-interchangeability of celestial bodies with respect to their orbits supports an eventually unavoidable revision to the decision in question.
You can not hurry or instill insight others lack.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2013
Non-interchangeability of celestial bodies with respect to their orbits supports an eventually unavoidable revision to the decision in question.
You can not hurry or instill insight others lack.


beleg,

The IAU may very well move faster on revising the definition of a planet if there is an uprising. A Dwarf Planet Spring as it were. We have seen it in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, America in 1776. In fact, I may make a citizen's arrest of the entire Executive Committee in August of 2015 and conduct a citizens' trial holding them in contempt of Science. Would you like to be on the jury? You might want to brush up on your Hawaiian. Aloha, dude.
Sowff
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2013
Moderator, can you please delete my post where I just quoted Q-Star and had no comment? That was a mistaken post and I did not delete it in time, so now I can't. Thanks.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2013
We are not "tilting at windmills"; our efforts have assured that seven years later, the IAU definition remains as controversial as ever instead of being blindly accepted the way some people thought it would be.


There was less noise in 2009 then in 2006. Less in 2012 than in 2009. Negative momentum would imply moving backwards (or at best slowing down.) Pssst, that's what we call a 1st principle.

You don't get to define what "reasonable" is.


True I don't. I am relying on the standard definition. OED and such.

At this point, I have serious doubts as to your really being an IAU member at all. I have had dealings with the IAU, and none of their representatives were ever as rude and obnoxious as you are.


None? What about all the IAU miscreants who "threatened", were "disrespectful", were "unconscionable" & were "deceitful" when dealing with the plutoid partisans? Certainly they were at least as rude and obnoxious as me.

Your emotional rhetoric is a hoot.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2013
The IAU may very well move faster on revising the definition of a planet if there is an uprising.


Boyo, ya are becoming a caricature for your cause.

A Dwarf Planet Spring as it were. We have seen it in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, America in 1776.


Are ya on drugs? If ya are, ya might wish to have the dose adjusted. If not ya might see someone at the clinic.

In fact, I may make a citizen's arrest of the entire Executive Committee in August of 2015 and conduct a citizens' trial holding them in contempt of Science.


I think the drugs ya are on might get ya arrested in Hawaii.

You might want to brush up on your Hawaiian. Aloha, dude.


I'll just muddle through with my limited English. Most people know what I'm saying when I say "Pluto is a dwarf planet, not a planet."
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2013
Q-Star, I was talking to beleg, not you. He is so serious about the chaos of the Solar System.....wanted to see if he could relax for a moment.

I am not on drugs, dude. You must take yourself very seriously. So you can never joke around, huh? Okay, dude, well, stay away from that Maui Wowwie and Kona Gold going around in Hawaii, then.

Oh, I heard one can see Crux, aka The Southern Cross from Hawaii. That is cool.

Aloha to beleg and even Q-Star, my cybernemesis......
Sowff
1.5 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2013
Q-Star, I agree with you. Compared to Ms. Bell, and Thierry Montmerle, who replied to an email of mine once in a very arrogant and condescending way, you are almost a regular guy. Almost.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2013
Q-Star, I agree with you. Compared to Ms. Bell, and Thierry Montmerle, who replied to an email of mine once in a very arrogant and condescending way, you are almost a regular guy. Almost.


Jocelyn Bell-Burnell was arrogant and condescending to ya? Do ya know how much email a person of her stature receives? Of the variety in which the lay public is "schooling" her astrophysics?

If ya wanted a just cause to promote, ya might think of "demanding" the Nobel Prize Committee give Dr. Bell-Burnell the Prize she so rightly deserves for her discovery of pulsars which lead to the confirmation of the existence of neutron stars.

She is very high on the list people who I most esteem in modern astrophysics. Right up there with Peeples, Davies, Zwicky, Schmidt (both of them Maarten & Brian), Baade & Perlmutter.

She is everything a scientist should be and more. She's one of the greats in astrophysics. But not being in that field of study, ya could not appreciate her contributions.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2013
Q-Star, I agree with you. Compared to Ms. Bell, and Thierry Montmerle, who replied to an email of mine once in a very arrogant and condescending way, you are almost a regular guy. Almost.


By the By: Did ya address her as "Ms. Bell" in your email? If so that may explain why she was "arrogant" and "condescending" to ya. Unsolicted correspondence addressed to people of her stature should be "Doctor Bell-Burnell" or "Joclyn Bell-Burnell Ph.D." As ya don't seem to be well versed in things scientific, I can see why ya might make that faux pas, but now ya know.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2013
Q-Star, no, I emailed Dr. Thierry Montmerle. I may've addressed him with "Hey, Frenchie....."

Just kidding. I appreciate all of Dr. Bell-Burnell's contributions to the field. I hope she is not like "Pluto-killer" and sees Mr. Tombaugh as a "lucky farmboy."

I can try to dig up Frenchie's email to me when I have time.....by the way, I am part French, so can joke around like that.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2013
Just kidding. I appreciate all of Dr. Bell-Burnell's contributions to the field. I hope she is not like "Pluto-killer" and sees Mr. Tombaugh as a "lucky farmboy."


Bell-Burnell probably could care less about Pluto or plutoids. It's not even close to her area study. Astrophysics is not the general field that most people think. It's more diverse than, say, the subject of history and has more specialized areas of study than, say, medicine. Most professional astrophysicists teach general astrophysics to undergrads, and research and obsess over over a small group of phenomena or even a single phenomenon.

For me planets, (even with or without Pluto), as complex as they are, are not all that interesting. I prefer "looking" at bigger things. Galaxies and clusters. But to each his own. Ya like Pluto, but there is so much more out there, it's just one miniscule rock.

Sowff
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2013


Bell-Burnell probably could care less about Pluto or plutoids.



That may very well be the case; but from my viewing of a video of the session in Prague in which she presided over the "killing" of Pluto, she sure seemed to care a lot that the rancid resolution pass. I still remember her crossing her arms in complete contempt as she reluctantly let a pro-Pluto speaker address the audience. As is the case with Mike Brown, even though a person is renowned in their particular field, they can still behave like a cretinous cad. Unfortunately, the field of Astronomy is not exempt from this universal and eternal truth. Hopefully, she will see the error of her ways, but I am not holding my breath. Perhaps she has Pluto envy. It is so loved and her pulsars shall always play second fiddle in the hearts of the lay public.

I saw a star cluster once through a telescope (I've seen Pluto, too, in suchlike manner), and it was pretty cool. But you can't live on a star cluster, dude.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2013
That may very well be the case; but from my viewing of a video of the session in Prague in which she presided over the "killing" of Pluto, she sure seemed to care a lot that the rancid resolution pass.


Ya seem to see things I can't see in it. (Hyperbole?)

I still remember her crossing her arms in complete contempt as she reluctantly let a pro-Pluto speaker address the audience. Hopefully, she will see the error of her ways, but I am not holding my breath.


I see why she would respond to ya with contempt. (And anyone else ya plea your case to.)

Perhaps she has Pluto envy. It is so loved and her pulsars shall always play second fiddle in the hearts of the lay public.


That is problem with ya uninformed people, ya make up things that just aren't so. 99.99% of the lay public could care less.

I saw a star cluster once through a telescope (I've seen Pluto, too, in suchlike manner), and it was pretty cool. But you can't live on a star cluster, dude.


What?
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2013
I saw a star cluster once through a telescope (I've seen Pluto, too, in suchlike manner), and it was pretty cool. But you can't live on a star cluster, dude.


There was more to look at viewing a star cluster in a 'scope than looking at Pluto. (Even with the super 'scopes.) Pretty cool? I suppose with an abundance of imagination a speck could be pretty cool.

Who wants to live on a star cluster? I'm well suited for life on Earth. Do ya mean that ya might live on Pluto? Ya need to spend some effort to study this thing ya are obsessed with. When dealing with numbers (us physics people love to play with numbers), a ONE in 10^9 chance of something is not much more meaningful as a ONE is 10^10.

Living on Pluto verses Living in a star cluster. Maybe one order of magnitude (plus or minus) out of 10 orders of magnitude.

What odds are ya offering?

By the By: It's not the star clusters that enthrall me, it's the galaxy clusters, that is where all the interesting science is.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2013
That may very well be the case; but from my viewing of a video of the session in Prague in which she presided over the "killing" of Pluto, she sure seemed to care a lot that the rancid resolution pass.

Ya seem to see things I can't see in it. (Hyperbole?)


Did you attend the GA's rancid session and THEN watch it again on video? Wow, if you did, you must be a real glutton for punishment. I know what I saw. Her tone of voice was agitated when speaking to pro-Pluto speakers and she crossed her arms in utter contempt as she let one take the podium. She was absolutely horrid in her behavior, utterly undignified. She may be a great astronomer, but she didn't look like Miss Manners that day. The rancid resolution's days are numbered, Q-Star. Pluto huggers may be outnumbered by tree huggers; but we are in the right, and that matters. If we were in the wrong, the issue would go away, but it won't until it's rectified.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2013
There are 4 planets in our solar system.

They are... Mike, Susan, Hormonie and CornCob.

No more are permitted under Newton's universal law of planetary demotion.
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 09, 2013


Perhaps she has Pluto envy. It is so loved and her pulsars shall always play second fiddle in the hearts of the lay public.

That is problem with ya uninformed people, ya make up things that just aren't so. 99.99% of the lay public could care less.



As an attorney, Q-Star, I am a Doctor of Jurisprudence, and a Member of the Illuminati. I am not the lay public. I also have some knowledge of Psychology, and I would say Dr. Bell-Burnett has an acute case of Pluto Envy. Yes, I may be wrong, but that is my belief. Why else would she behave in such a bilious and offensive way toward Pluto hugger members of the IAU? There must be a reason for such behavior and that seems to be the most logical answer. Perhaps, you, too, are afflicted with that condition? I hope not. You seem to be better adjusted than her.

I hope to see a galaxy cluster sometime. That sounds way cool. Are we talking dwarf galaxy clusters? Because, you know, the IAU might someday deem that they aren't....
Sowff
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2013


Who wants to live on a star cluster? I'm well suited for life on Earth. Do ya mean that ya might live on Pluto? Ya need to spend some effort to study this thing ya are obsessed with. When dealing with numbers (us physics people love to play with numbers), a ONE in 10^9 chance of something is not much more meaningful as a ONE is 10^10.



I think it might be too cold to live on Pluto, but it would be cool to set foot on it and walk around for a while, maybe drive around in an enclosed and heated rover. NASA has not ruled out the possibility of microbial life below the surface in a subterranean ocean. Pluto's core would have to produce heat, of course. New Horizons will be able to determine if the possibility of such an ocean or oceans exists to some degree.

My point was that Pluto is a solid piece of matter that one can set foot on, unlike a gas giant or a cluster, that's all. It is a dwarf terrestrial planet. So the odds are 1 in something, not 0 in infinity.


Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013
As an attorney, Q-Star, I am a Doctor of Jurisprudence, and a Member of the Illuminati.


Member of something, ya are sure.

I am not the lay public.


Ya certainly are when it comes to science.

I also have some knowledge of Psychology,


It shows, and if I were ya, I wouldn't brag about it.

and I would say Dr. Bell-Burnett has an acute case of Pluto Envy.


Of course YA would say that.

Yes, I may be wrong,


Of course ya are.

bilious,,,,

offensive,,,,,,,


That "Psychology" jargon is leaving me at a disadvantage.

Are we talking dwarf galaxy clusters?


There is no such thing. We refer to them as "groups". Pssst, learn some of the jargon before ya instruct the IAU on jargon.

Because, you know, the IAU might someday deem that they aren't....


They will be what they are,,,, names don't change the phenomena,,,, only make them more easy to order them systematically.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
(Hyperbole?)


Let's see if I can help ya out here,,,,,,,,,

GA's rancid session ,,,,,,

was agitated,,,,,,

utter contempt,,,,,,

absolutely horrid,,,,,,

utterly undignified,,,,,,,

rancid resolution's,,,,,,,

days are numbered,,,,,,,,


I thought ya might be having trouble with the word "hyperbole".. Does this help?
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013


Who wants to live on a star cluster? I'm well suited for life on Earth. Do ya mean that ya might live on Pluto? Ya need to spend some effort to study this thing ya are obsessed with. When dealing with numbers (us physics people love to play with numbers), a ONE in 10^9 chance of something is not much more meaningful as a ONE is 10^10.



I think it might be too cold to live on Pluto, but it would be cool to set foot on it and walk around for a while,


When might this happen?

NASA has not ruled out the possibility of microbial life below the surface in a subterranean ocean.


NASA hasn't ruled out pink unicorns either. Subterranean ocean? What's that?

New Horizons will be able to determine if the possibility of such an ocean or oceans exists to some degree.


Subterranean oceans? Hmmm,,,,

So the odds are 1 in something, not 0 in infinity.


Your maths skills match your astrophysics skills. (Psst, Ya should ask more and say less.)
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013


I also have some knowledge of Psychology,


It shows, and if I were ya, I wouldn't brag about it.

Just stating the facts.

and I would say Dr. Bell-Burnett has an acute case of Pluto Envy.


Of course YA would say that.

It makes perfect sense, actually.

Yes, I may be wrong,


Of course ya are.

Nope. It is the most logical explanation for her behavior in Prague. Think Dr. Spock. Logic.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013
Think Dr. Spock. Logic.


What do babies have to do with dwarf planets? Or astronomy in general?
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013


Who wants to live on a star cluster? I'm well suited for life on Earth. Do ya mean that ya might live on Pluto? Ya need to spend some effort to study this thing ya are obsessed with. When dealing with numbers (us physics people love to play with numbers), a ONE in 10^9 chance of something is not much more meaningful as a ONE is 10^10.



I think it might be too cold to live on Pluto, but it would be cool to set foot on it and walk around for a while,

When might this happen?

Good question. Especially with all the budget cuts.

NASA has not ruled out the possibility of microbial life below the surface in a subterranean ocean.


NASA hasn't ruled out pink unicorns either. Subterranean ocean? What's that?

An ocean below the surface of a terrestrial planet.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
NASA hasn't ruled out pink unicorns either. Subterranean ocean? What's that?


An ocean below the surface of a terrestrial planet.


They are as abundant as pink unicorns, but we'll keep searching.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013
Think Dr. Spock. Logic.


What do babies have to do with dwarf planets? Or astronomy in general?


I mean, the Vulcan one. LOL. First Science Officer Spock.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
Think Dr. Spock. Logic.


What do babies have to do with dwarf planets? Or astronomy in general?


I mean, the Vulcan one. LOL. First Science Officer Spock.


That's Mr. Spock, not "Dr." Spock. Boyo, try to keep up, glib is not your forte.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013
(Hyperbole?)


Let's see if I can help ya out here,,,,,,,,,

GA's rancid session ,,,,,,

was agitated,,,,,,

utter contempt,,,,,,

absolutely horrid,,,,,,

utterly undignified,,,,,,,

rancid resolution's,,,,,,,

days are numbered,,,,,,,,


I thought ya might be having trouble with the word "hyperbole".. Does this help?


It's only hyperbole if you're exaggerating. I know rancid when I see it.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013


Are we talking dwarf galaxy clusters?


There is no such thing. We refer to them as "groups". Pssst, learn some of the jargon before ya instruct the IAU on jargon.

So they are called galaxy cluster groups? Galaxy groups? I'm asking.

Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013
(Hyperbole?)


Let's see if I can help ya out here,,,,,,,,,

GA's rancid session ,,,,,,

was agitated,,,,,,

utter contempt,,,,,,

absolutely horrid,,,,,,

utterly undignified,,,,,,,

rancid resolution's,,,,,,,

days are numbered,,,,,,,,


I thought ya might be having trouble with the word "hyperbole".. Does this help?


It's only hyperbole if you're exaggerating. I know rancid when I see it.


Well then, ya have your theorists, and your experimentalists (observers/measuring folks). Ya aren't very good at observing, measuring, or interpreting,,,, and so far ya haven't shown that ya possess the fundamental basis in physics, astrophysics or science in general to be much of a theorist,,,, what's your claim to science fame? (Pssst, ya realize ya are trolling a science site, right?)
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013


Well then, ya have your theorists, and your experimentalists (observers/measuring folks). Ya aren't very good at observing, measuring, or interpreting,,,, and so far ya haven't shown that ya possess the fundamental basis in physics, astrophysics or science in general to be much of a theorist,,,, what's your claim to science fame? (Pssst, ya realize ya are trolling a science site, right?)


I never said I was a scientist; but I am able to observe human behavior. It's Pluto Envy, IMHO. She has issues, dude. Don't ask her out on a date. You'll be sorry.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
So they are called galaxy cluster groups? Galaxy groups? I'm asking.


Ya have galaxy groups, the Milky Way & Andromeda are the dominate members of the Local Group, which has several dozens of members. It is composed mostly of dwarf galaxies and star clusters. The Local Group is a member of the Local Cluster which is an outlying member of the Virgo Super Cluster.

Larger than a galaxy group, ya have a galaxy cluster, it may contain hundreds or even thousands of galaxies.

Then ya have the super clusters, they would include a collection of galaxy clusters, they are the largest structures in the universe
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013
So they are called galaxy cluster groups? Galaxy groups? I'm asking.


Ya have galaxy groups, the Milky Way & Andromeda are the dominate members of the Local Group, which has several dozens of members. It is composed mostly of dwarf galaxies and star clusters. The Local Group is a member of the Local Cluster which is an outlying member of the Virgo Super Cluster.

Larger than a galaxy group, ya have a galaxy cluster, it may contain hundreds or even thousands of galaxies.

Then ya have the super clusters, they would include a collection of galaxy clusters, they are the largest structures in the universe


I see. Thanks. So how many other super clusters besides ours (the Virgo Super Cluster) are we certain of and have names for and such?
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
So they are called galaxy cluster groups? Galaxy groups? I'm asking.


Ya have galaxy groups, the Milky Way & Andromeda are the dominate members of the Local Group, which has several dozens of members. It is composed mostly of dwarf galaxies and star clusters. The Local Group is a member of the Local Cluster which is an outlying member of the Virgo Super Cluster.

Larger than a galaxy group, ya have a galaxy cluster, it may contain hundreds or even thousands of galaxies.

Then ya have the super clusters, they would include a collection of galaxy clusters, they are the largest structures in the universe


I see. Thanks. So how many other super clusters besides ours (the Virgo Super Cluster) are we certain of and have names for and such?


Hundreds of thousands, to many to name, usually designated by location and observing date/instrument or with a catalog number.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013

(Pssst, ya realize ya are trolling a science site, right?)


Be nice, Q-Star. I don't live under a bridge. The comment section is open to everyone. This is the Internet, dude. Furthermore, my comments here have facilitated further discussion on the matters that Mr. Cain brought up. I am a credit to the "lay public," if I do say so myself.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013
Furthermore, my comments here have facilitated further discussion on the matters that Mr. Cain brought up.


No, your comments have been almost entirely on the workings, membership, and personalities, and conduct of a PRIVATE group of professionals. Ya have furthered the discussion of science not at all.

I am a credit to the "lay public," if I do say so myself.


So far ya haven't shown much to boast about. Read the depth of understanding of the posters on other aspects of astronomy, on other threads. There ya find some members of the "lay public" who possess great credit and depth of knowledge. Some of them are as knowledgeable in their own area of interest as many professionals.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013
Furthermore, my comments here have facilitated further discussion on the matters that Mr. Cain brought up.

No, your comments have been almost entirely on the workings, membership, and personalities, and conduct of a PRIVATE group of professionals. Ya have furthered the discussion of science not at all.



Wow, great clustering/grouping of my comments. I am impressed. Well, Q-Star, they had it coming. Brown, Bell-Burnell, and Monmarte are not immune to the scrutiny of the lay public or from The Illuminati from other fields. The discussion here is supposed to be about Pluto and dwarf planets, and I have spoken at length about it, refuting, to the best of my ability your arguments. I have also had to endure your penchant for name-calling.

Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013


I am a credit to the "lay public," if I do say so myself.

So far ya haven't shown much to boast about. Read the depth of understanding of the posters on other aspects of astronomy, on other threads. There ya find some members of the "lay public" who possess great credit and depth of knowledge. Some of them are as knowledgeable in their own area of interest as many professionals.


Christopher Marlowe once wrote, "Comparisons are odious."

I am who I am and while I applaud the great comments of the lay in other comment sections on this sight, I know my comments here have advanced the discussion on whether dwarf plants should be planets -- a belief echoed by many planetary scientists, Alan Stern and David Rabinowitz among them, as well, as Ms. Kornfeld, who's an amateur astronomer well-versed on this issue.

I am not trying to compete with anyone or show off my prowess in my chosen fields. I am staying within my limited ken to shed light when I can is all.

Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2013
Wow, great clustering/grouping of my comments.


No great feat, they were all of a kind, easy to group.The clustering was all yours.

Brown, Bell-Burnell, and Monmarte are not immune to the scrutiny of the lay public or from The Illuminati from other fields.


Ya shouldn't take those people so personally. What they do has no bearing on your life. Whatsoever. As I've pointed out to ya several times now, everything they have done has been done within, and concerns only the IAU. And ya are not a part of that body.

The discussion here is supposed to be about Pluto and dwarf planets, and I have spoken at length about it, refuting, to the best of my ability your arguments.


Ya've refuted nothing. All ya have done is whine about about a group of people who have nothing to do with your life.

I have also had to endure your penchant for name-calling.


Ya inserted yourself into the fray with your own name calling from the start. Read your posts from the start.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
Christopher Marlowe once wrote, "Comparisons are odious."


At least ya didn't use a philosopher for your gobbledegook. I once wrote: "Comparisons is the heart of science." Profound, eh? But mine is true,,,,, Marlowe's doesn't mean anything, and means everything, and sometimes this and sometimes that.

I know my comments here have advanced the discussion on whether dwarf plants should be planets --


Your comments have advanced the certain knowledge, that 1) Ya don't like the IAU. 2) Ya know almost nothing of the matter at hand. & 3) Someone has given ya the false impression that ya possess a "great intellect".

I am not trying to compete with anyone or show off my prowess in my chosen fields. I am staying within my limited ken to shed light when I can is all.


I await some light shedding with bated breath.

Unless ya want to discuss astronomy, this is all ya get. Ya aren't very good at this. Ya might want to seek a remedial "Wise One for Dummies" book.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013
I know my comments here have advanced the discussion on whether dwarf plants should be planet

They have? In what way? The discussion is over (and has been for some years). And no one who is in any way influential in this matter is reading this (you really think someone is going to take pointers from an anonymous internet comment section? Really? I mean ...really, really?).
Sowff
1 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2013
I know my comments here have advanced the discussion on whether dwarf plants should be planet

They have? In what way? The discussion is over (and has been for some years). And no one who is in any way influential in this matter is reading this (you really think someone is going to take pointers from an anonymous internet comment section? Really? I mean ...really, really?).


Just because you say it is over, doesn't make it so. It is far from over.
Sowff
1 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2013
Christopher Marlowe once wrote, "Comparisons are odious."

At least ya didn't use a philosopher for your gobbledegook. I once wrote: "Comparisons is the heart of science." Profound, eh? But mine is true,,,,, Marlowe's doesn't mean anything, and means everything, and sometimes this and sometimes that.


At least I am in good company with Mr. Marlowe for your undeserved contempt. You are beginning to bore me, Q-Star. You know nothing about dwarf planets. The case is strong for their full planethood. Stick to your clusters and tell Ms. Bell to stick to her beloved pulsars. Why don't you ask her out on a date? You will see that I am right about her. You guys are two peas in a pod. It might be true love.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2013
It is far from over.

That's only what you say. AFAIK there is no official body currently (or since 2006) even working on this or taking input - so from an official POV the discussion is over.

You may want it to not be over.
You may want to reopen it.
But as long as no one in an official capacity sees a reason to consider it it's over - and your fervor doesn't make it any different.
Sowff
1 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2013
It is far from over.

That's only what you say. AFAIK there is no official body currently (or since 2006) even working on this or taking input - so from an official POV the discussion is over.

You may want it to not be over.
You may want to reopen it.
But as long as no one in an official capacity sees a reason to consider it it's over - and your fervor doesn't make it any different.


400 planetary scientists at least disagree with the rancid resolution. I know of one former IAU member who is willing to rejoin the IAU to reopen the issue. Also, I might add, any IAU member who learns about the way said resolution was ramrodded through on the last day of the 2006 GA should want to reopen it themself, and, they may very well learn the truth while they are in Honolulu if I can get to them. Ha!
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013
400 planetary scientists at least disagree with the rancid resolution.


Rancid? That sure puts it in the realm of science. 400? Wow, if they were all members of IAU, then they would be a whopping 5% of the general membership. Boyo, ya are out of your league in this discussion. Ya don't don't realize how ludicrous your position is.

I know of one former IAU member who is willing to rejoin the IAU to reopen the issue.


Assuming the aforementioned 400 are all members of the IAU, that brings it up to 401, I'm impressed, eh?

Also, I might add, any IAU member who learns about the way said resolution was ramrodded through on the last day of the 2006 GA should want to reopen it themself,


If they don't know it in detail by now, then they aren't an IAU member.

and, they may very well learn the truth while they are in Honolulu if I can get to them. Ha!


If YA can get them there? (Delusions of grandeur?) Wow, ya are a hoot.

Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2013
At least I am in good company with Mr. Marlowe for your undeserved contempt.


I'll choose for myself who is deserving of my contempt.

You are beginning to bore me, Q-Star.


Ahh, well that is crushing to me sure.

You know nothing about dwarf planets.


Okee dokee, now ya have crushed me beyond repair.

The case is strong for their full planethood.


If there is, it certainly can't be made one as unschooled as ya.

Stick to your clusters and tell Ms. Bell to stick to her beloved pulsars.


What now? Sure, miss your entertaining antics, histrionics and posturing? Naaa,

Why don't you ask her out on a date? You will see that I am right about her. You guys are two peas in a pod. It might be true love.


Oh my! Well ya sure gave me what for with that thing, eh? Ya really are not very good at this, ya should stick with something less challenging. Which leads us to where we began this particular post. Ya are earning my well deserved contempt.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2013
The case for dwarf planets to be the third subclass of planets is strong. Many planetary scientists believe they rightly belong as a subclass. I have the right to state the case. You have the right to insult me, but it reflects quite poorly on you. You and Dr. Bell-Burnett are not even planetary scientists. If you are Mr. Cain, this article is full of amateurish errors which proves how unqualified you are to say anything whatsoever about the issue. Using a photo of Ceres and saying it is Makemake? Really? Saying Mike Brown was the sole discoverer of Eris? Really? Yet you denigrate me for not knowing what I am saying? I admit I am not a scientist, but I have followed the issue and know more about it than you. You have only rarely responded in an intelligent way to the points pro-Pluto posters have made here. You have added virtually nothing to the question of Pluto, Q-Star. Why don't you move on, dude? The IAU members who know the rudiments of planetary science should vote on this.
Sowff
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2013


If YA can get them there? (Delusions of grandeur?) Wow, ya are a hoot.



I am under no delusions. But I do know how to disseminate information. Aloha, Q-Star.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2013
The case for dwarf planets to be the third subclass of planets is strong. Many planetary scientists believe they rightly belong as a subclass. I have the right to state the case.


I have the right to comment on the quality of your "statements" of the case.

You and Dr. Bell-Burnett are not even planetary scientists.


We're both more of "planetary scientists" than ya are. We are both members of the IAU.

Yet you denigrate me for not knowing what I am saying?


Ya don't.

I admit I am not a scientist, but I have followed the issue and know more about it than you.


That may be your delusion.

You have only rarely responded in an intelligent way to the points pro-Pluto posters have made here.


That's difficult for me to if the points made lack intelligence.

Why don't you move on, dude?


I have, ya can't.

The IAU members who know the rudiments of planetary science should vote on this.


Which leaves ya out on 2 counts, IAU & scientist.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2013
I am under no delusions. But I do know how to disseminate information. Aloha, Q-Star.


Yes, we all have witnessed your "know how". Very effective indeed (in it's entertainment value.)
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2013




The IAU members who know the rudiments of planetary science should vote on this.

Which leaves ya out on 2 counts,


If you put as much energy into knowing the whole truth about the debate on dwarf planets as you do into your petty insults of me and your patting yourself incessantly on the back for being in the IAU, you might actually have an opinion on dwarf planets that is worth sharing to your pet turtle.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013
If you put as much energy into knowing the whole truth about the debate on dwarf planets


I've been listening to this "debate" for seven years now. There is nothing new, no new discoveries, no new observations, and no new science. Present something new, that I haven't heard a thousand times, I promise I will give it polite consideration,,,, but it must be new, something that hasn't been said hundreds of times.

and your patting yourself incessantly on the back for being in the IAU,


No not patting myself on the back. Ya started from your 1st post with all guns blazing. The posts are there for all to see, insults is the way ya joined this conversation.

you might actually have an opinion on dwarf planets that is worth sharing to your pet turtle.


I have several opinions on dwarf planets. There are many aspects of dwarf planets to have an opinion about. The only opinion ya have offered is on naming conventions.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013
Ya made this as your first post:

Mike Brown lackeys are the touchy-feelie ones.

Lying to boost his credentials is not scientific.

The IAU demotion of Pluto was political.

I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc.


Everyone of those statements are untrue and insulting. And this is just your first post.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013
Phys.org might want to rethink posting articles replete with factual inaccuracies and writers who launch ad hominem attacks on those who comment.


See the first post ya made, it was ad hominem and untruthful. As is,,,

Saying Mike Brown discovered Eris alone?


Don't let the truth slow ya down. Mike Brown never said that. And Cain did not say it in the article. Other than that,,,,,,,

Does Mr. Cain think fact-checking something before you publish it is passe'?.


Mr. Cain is not a scientist, he writes about things science. Be that as it may be, his article is accurate. A photo snaffu not withstanding.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2013

If it's not a "planet" then how about tacking on some kind of prefix or suffix to it...like "planetoid" or something like "planetesimal" or whatever. Just IMHO...


Um, they did, the prefix is "dwarf".
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013
@ Sowff,,,

I'll stop here, the rest are even more silly than your first two posts.

If ya don't want people to insult ya, then examine what might possible draw the insults. Things aren't true because ya say they are, things are true by being what they are,,,, when ya go about with histrionics, hyperbole, being greatly offended, and most outraged, well ya just end up looking like that Barney Fiith charater ya Americans love so much (to ridicule). Act normal, act grown up, and act serious,,,, then ya will get taken seriously.

But my own dear Da, told me long ago,,,, "Rory, no one will ever take ya as seriously as ya take yourself, and if ya take yourself too seriously, the other man will have all the fun."

odious,,,,
retched,,,,
immoral,,, (that was one of my favorites,, we're taking planets/dwarf planets here,,, immoral indeed.)
nefarious,, (weird, that one, eh?)
rancid,,,,
etc,
etc,
ad nuasium. (These were just from 3 of your more entertaining posts.)

Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013

If it's not a "planet" then how about tacking on some kind of prefix or suffix to it...like "planetoid" or something like "planetesimal" or whatever. Just IMHO...


Um, they did, the prefix is "dwarf".


Oh, he gets much better. I mistook him for Zeph, (and took it upon myself to send an unsolicited PM Zephyr with an apology for doing so.) This guy is a real hoot.

By the By: Have ya been? Haven't seen ya posting much lately.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2013
Pluto was demoted after a vote on August 24th, 2006 in Prague at an IAU GA. I agree that was not Science. It was staged on the last day of the GA, without proper vetting or notice, contrary to the by-laws of the IAU. While, I agree that Science is not democratic in and of itself, votes amongst scientists do occur now and then, as evidenced by the passing of said resolution. So, your point is muddled at best.


No, actually your point is muddled. It was not "demoted" it was reclassified. Ceres has been reclassified at least twice too. Why aren't you arguing for it to stay an asteroid?

Personally I think that the reclassification made it an even more interesting object, and the flyby of New Horizons is going to be spectacular.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2013
You wish. No, reasonable people don't just "move on" and accept a bad decision because time passes. We are not "tilting at windmills"; our efforts have assured that seven years later, the IAU definition remains as controversial as ever instead of being blindly accepted the way some people thought it would be. You don't get to define what "reasonable" is. At this point, I have serious doubts as to your really being an IAU member at all. I have had dealings with the IAU, and none of their representatives were ever as rude and obnoxious as you are.


You need to take off your blinders. Most people don't even know where Pluto is, talk about what its classification is. And even less care one way or the other. There are a lot of causes worth beating your drum for laurele, and the reclassifying of Pluto is not one of them.

I still don't see anyone including Sedna. Did it get its named changed?
laurele
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2013
"Bell-Burnell probably could care less about Pluto or plutoids. It's not even close to her area study."

This is exactly why she should never have been in charge of the planet definition debate at the GA. Like her, most of the 424 who voted are not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers. As Dr. Stern says, that is like divorce lawyers voting on corporate law. They may both be lawyers, but their expertise is in two completely different areas.
laurele
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2013
"We're both more of "planetary scientists" than ya are. We are both members of the IAU."

Being a member of the IAU does not equate to being a planetary scientist or knowing more about planetary science than a non-IAU member who specializes in this field. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Plus, Q-Star, you still have provided no proof that you really are an IAU member. Should we just believe this because you say so?
laurele
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2013
" You need to take off your blinders. Most people don't even know where Pluto is, talk about what its classification is. And even less care one way or the other. There are a lot of causes worth beating your drum for laurele, and the reclassifying of Pluto is not one of them.

I still don't see anyone including Sedna. Did it get its named changed? "

You underestimate the public, which makes sense coming from someone with such an elitist attitude. If people didn't care, books about Pluto wouldn't sell as well as they do. Pluto is one of the most frequent topics about which teachers and informal educators are asked. As for Sedna, if it is in hydrostatic equilibrium, then yes, it should be included as a dwarf planet.

You don't get to tell me what should and should not be important in my life. The movement to reinstate Pluto has a huge following, and I am not giving it up. I plan on continuing graduate school in astronomy as well.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2013
This is exactly why she should never have been in charge of the planet definition debate at the GA. Like her, most of the 424 who voted are not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers.


She wasn't "in charge" Laurel, and ya know it is disingenuous to say that. She merely chaired the proceeding. And as she had no profession or personal stake in the outcome, as it is not her field, she is exactly they type who should have chaired it. Ya notice she didn't vote either way,,, she was neutral.

The defeated side will grasp at any possible "slight" they can make up to explain they lost unfairly. Laurel ya should seek help with obsession.

It's over, two GA's have come and gone since '06. Fewer members were interested in the issue in '09 than in '06. Fewer still in '12 than in '09. The thing is less talked as time passes, by the public, by the IAU membership.

I suppose the Sowff will make an appearance in the next few minutes,, does he stalk ya everywhere?
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2013
"We're both more of "planetary scientists" than ya are. We are both members of the IAU."

Being a member of the IAU does not equate to being a planetary scientist or knowing more about planetary science than a non-IAU member who specializes in this field. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.


Being a member of the IAU does mean I have successfully completed an undergraduate degree in astronomy, and a graduate degree in astrophysics. I've taught physics, astronomy and observational astrophysics for several decades,,, yes I am much more qualified as a "planetary scientist" than Sowff.

The non-member I was referring lists his qualifications as attorney/artist/musician. He didn't even know the difference between a star cluster, galaxy and galaxy cluster until yesterday. So if he is your idea of a "non-IAU member who specializes in this field." then I feel for ya,,,, ya are placing your hopes in the hands of fools.
laurele
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2013
You are assuming that only the IAU matters in this debate, and that is simply not the case.

Actually, there was more discussion in 2012 than in 2009. Two separate IAU committees at the GA did address the issue at least somewhat in response to a letter I sent them.

Nobody representing the IAU ever threatened me. I was talking about my experience. That doesn't mean others weren't threatened.

Antialias says, "The discussion is over (and has been for some years)."

No, it isn't over just because you keep repeating that. The discussion has come up at many conferences over the past seven years and in many books and science articles. When the Principal Investigator of the first mission to Pluto plus several hundred other professional astronomers continue to reject that decision, it's clear there is no consensus on the matter, and the discussion continues. Arbitrarily cutting off debate at a point you choose is hardly scientific.
laurele
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2013
A planetary scientist should have been in charge of that session. But that is only one of many problems with that GA, the worst being that 96 percent of the IAU's members could not vote because there was no provision for electronic voting, and they were not in that one room on that particular day.

The pro-Pluto side is not "defeated" and has not lost anything. It is supporters of the IAU resolution who are angry because 7 years later, their definition remains as controversial and challenged as it was on day one.

Until you tell us who you really are, with verifiable links, you are just an anonymous commenter, someone whose rhetoric is not at all that of a real scientist.

The IAU is not the only venue for this discussion, and if they think they are, they are seriously out of touch with the rest of the world.

Don't worry; I'm getting the help I need in astronomy by being a graduate student at Swinburne.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2013
the worst being that 96 percent of the IAU's members could not vote because there was no provision for electronic voting,


Electronic voting? Another red herring ya keep bringing up. It has been suggested on more than a few occasions, and overwhelmingly rejected, ya know this Laurel. AND ya know why.

It is supporters of the IAU resolution who are angry because 7 years later, their definition remains as controversial and challenged as it was on day one.


Only in your mind Laurel. The IAU members that are angry, is because people like ya flood them with silly email, snail mail, and phone campaigns that disrupt their daily lives.

Until you tell us who you really are, with verifiable links, you are just an anonymous commenter, .


See my above comment. No thanks, I can do without the campaign ya would mount against me.

The IAU is not the only venue for this discussion,


That's what bugs ya most, they AREN'T discussing it. Only OTHER venues are.
laurele
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2013
Bugs me? On the contrary, I'm thrilled that the planet definition issue is being discussed at other venues, such as the American Astronomical Society (AAS) at its conference last week, and the Pluto Science Conference coming up at JHUAPL in July. If the IAU really doesn't want to touch this issue again, there are plenty of other groups that can and will step up to the plate. Though I do give the 2012 IAU GA credit for raising this issue at two committee meetings in response to my letter.

I'm surprised YOU don't seem to know that at the 2012 GA, the IAU did finally agree to utilize electronic voting. Better late than never. Not using it is exclusionary in that many members cannot afford to attend the GA or stay for the whole conference. The issue is in no way a red herring. Now that electronic voting will be used, the right thing to do is to hold a revote on this issue.

How convenient for you--any excuse not to ID who you really are.
Sowff
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2013


He didn't even know the difference between a star cluster, galaxy and galaxy cluster until yesterday. So if he is your idea of a "non-IAU member who specializes in this field." then I feel for ya,,,, ya are placing your hopes in the hands of fools.


When you said you specialize in clusters, I assumed you meant star clusters. I know the difference between a star and a galaxy. Sheesh.....
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2013


No, actually your point is muddled. It was not "demoted" it was reclassified. Ceres has been reclassified at least twice too. Why aren't you arguing for it to stay an asteroid?


Dude, going from planet to dwarf planet (and not just a subclass of planet, but a dwarf planet and not a planet) is the very epitome of a demotion. Is English not your first language? Ceres should also be a planet, as well as all the other dwarf planets in our solar system.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2013
You underestimate the public, which makes sense coming from someone with such an elitist attitude.

Wow look who's talking! And you overestimate your influence on said public. For those in the field of planetary geology, the reclassification makes perfect sense.
As for Sedna, if it is in hydrostatic equilibrium, then yes, it should be included as a dwarf planet.
Well yes, but that's not what I was talking about.
You don't get to tell me what should and should not be important in my life. The movement to reinstate Pluto has a huge following, and I am not giving it up. I plan on continuing graduate school in astronomy as well.

Oh get off your high horse! I made no such statement, and I frankly could not care less. Fill your boots, and good luck with it. One wonders, however, when a lost cause is given up for dead. .
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2013
She wasn't "in charge" Laurel, and ya know it is disingenuous to say that. She merely chaired the proceeding. And as she had no profession or personal stake in the outcome, as it is not her field, she is exactly they type who should have chaired it. Ya notice she didn't vote either way,,, she was neutral.


This is exactly right, As I recall, she did not even opine her position on the matter.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2013


Saying Mike Brown discovered Eris alone?


Don't let the truth slow ya down. Mike Brown never said that. And Cain did not say it in the article. Other than that,,,,,,,

Does Mr. Cain think fact-checking something before you publish it is passe'?.


Mr. Cain is not a scientist, he writes about things science. Be that as it may be, his article is accurate. A photo snaffu not withstanding.



First of all, Q-Star, learn how to spell snafu.

Mike Brown said he killed Pluto, not that he David and Chad killed Pluto. Thus, he is claiming sole discovery of Eris. Also, in every interview he gives about his rancid book in which the book reviewer/interview writes that Brown discovered Eris, he never corrects him. The title of his book is a double lie. It should be "How In My Delusions I Co-Killed Pluto with Chad and David Like When Eric Bana Blew Up Vulcan in that Star Trek Movie, Can I Have Another Doll To Behead, Please?"
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2013
Ya made this as your first post:

Mike Brown lackeys are the touchy-feelie ones.

Lying to boost his credentials is not scientific.

The IAU demotion of Pluto was political.

I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc.


Everyone of those statements are untrue and insulting. And this is just your first post.


Ms. Kornfeld was accused of being unscientific and touchie feelie, when the other side seems to worship Mike Brown, allowing him to say he killed Pluto, which makes the assumption that he acted alone in the discovery of Eris. To grant him a pass in this double lie, is pretty touchie feelie, Q-Star.

He is trying to boost his credentials by saying he killed a planet, which also makes it seem like he discovered Eris alone. And why does he never ask book reviewers to correct their articles when they do not credit Chad and David in the discovery of Eris?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2013
Dude, going from planet to dwarf planet (and not just a subclass of planet, but a dwarf planet and not a planet) is the very epitome of a demotion. Is English not your first language? Ceres should also be a planet, as well as all the other dwarf planets in our solar system.


It most assuredly is not the epitome, except perhaps in your mind. I like the classification of dwarf planet, I think it gives Pluto a special status, and reclassifying Ceres made perfect sense in the big scheme of things.

I'll let the first insult pass skippy. I'm thinking you'll not convince many people to join your cause celeb if you insult people in your very first reply to them.
Sowff
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2013


The IAU demotion of Pluto was political.

I know a member who was in Prague and was threatened with the destruction of his career were he to not vote with the anti-Pluto bloc.

Everyone of those statements are untrue and insulting. And this is just your first post.


I think I heard it from Ms. Kornfeld that anti-American statements were overheard at the Prague GA. Pluto was discovered by an American. Bush was very unpopular in Europe in 2006. Bell was clearly biased against Pluto for no good reason from my observation of her body language, behavior, and tone of voice. Do I know for sure it was political, no, but circumstantial evidence strongly suggests anti-American sentiment may have doomed Pluto's full planethood, because obviously the vote was illogical as Earth does not clear its field either. 19,500 other celestial objects share "our" field at last count.

Laurel and I both know said person who was at the Prague GA. It is not a lie, either.
Sowff
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2013
Dude, going from planet to dwarf planet (and not just a subclass of planet, but a dwarf planet and not a planet) is the very epitome of a demotion. Is English not your first language? Ceres should also be a planet, as well as all the other dwarf planets in our solar system.


It most assuredly is not the epitome, except perhaps in your mind. I like the classification of dwarf planet, I think it gives Pluto a special status, and reclassifying Ceres made perfect sense in the big scheme of things.

I'll let the first insult pass skippy. I'm thinking you'll not convince many people to join your cause celeb if you insult people in your very first reply to them.


Skippy, I like that. Sorry, dude. Q-Star must be rubbing off on me. I don't mind dwarf planet being a subclass. But kicking Ceres and Pluto out of the family of planets was not cool. It is like saying Skippy is not a peanut butter because it is made from very small peanuts.
laurele
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2013
"And you overestimate your influence on said public. For those in the field of planetary geology, the reclassification makes perfect sense."

It's not my influence; it's the sheer numbers of people who reject the IAU decision, including many in the field of planetary geology. Or don't you count the 300 professional astronomers who signed the petition rejecting the IAU decision as planetary geologists?

The cause of planethood for Pluto and all dwarf planets is not "lost" or "dead" no matter how much you wish it were. Obviously, that makes you quite angry.
laurele
1.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2013
No one has to believe me. All anyone has to do is listen to the transcripts of the Great Planet Debate. This political motive and the way it played out in Prague were discussed by people who were there and witnessed it firsthand.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2013
I'm surprised YOU don't seem to know that at the 2012 GA, the IAU did finally agree to utilize electronic voting. Better late than never. Not using it is exclusionary in that many members cannot afford to attend the GA or stay for the whole conference. The issue is in no way a red herring. Now that electronic voting will be used, the right thing to do is to hold a revote on this issue.


Are YA surprised that I KNOW that electronic voting is only for nominating and elected officers, chairmanships, committees, within a limited time period? It is not for resolutions brought before the GA......

Laurel,,, once more ya just don't know what ya are talking about.

By the By: I see my prediction of the appearance of your satellite was pretty accurate. How's that for a N body solution? Have ya begun multi-body orbital mechanics yet in your graduate studies? Maybe ya could help me with a problem I've been toying with these last few days. Pluto's orbit 2 x 10^9 years ago? Care to try?
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2013
I think I heard it from Ms. Kornfeld that anti-American statements were overheard at the Prague GA. Pluto was discovered by an American. Bush was very unpopular in Europe in 2006.


I think ya are probably correct, but she is driven to play fancy with the facts. Bush was unpopular in America is 2006. He was unpopular just about everywhere.

Bell{sic} was clearly biased against Pluto for no good reason from my observation of her body language, behavior, and tone of voice. Do I know for sure it was political, no, but circumstantial evidence strongly suggests anti-American sentiment may have doomed Pluto's full planethood, .


It would be a good (conspiracy) theory except that it was an American(s) who proposed the "demotion". And most American members supported the change. (Pssst, they still do.)

Ya aren't very good at making stuff up on the fly (To do that, ya have to know your subject in great detail. Ya seem to be a parrot. Lot of noise, no substance.)
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2013
It's not my influence; it's the sheer numbers of people who reject the IAU decision, including many in the field of planetary geology. Or don't you count the 300 professional astronomers who signed the petition rejecting the IAU decision as planetary geologists?


Absolutely irrelevant.

The cause of planethood for Pluto and all dwarf planets is not "lost" or "dead" no matter how much you wish it were. Obviously, that makes you quite angry.


No pookums, it is you who are showing anger. I can almost see you at your computer stamping your little foot and pouting about how unfair it all is.

At the time, I would have been equally happy with the IAU going in either direction. But now, after having gotten used to the new classification, I have become ever more convinced it was the right decision. I LIKE that Pluto is deemed the poster child of a very specific type of object, a dwarf planet. That's cool!

Oh and I assure you, Pluto doesn't care one way or the other.
Sowff
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2013


It would be a good (conspiracy) theory except that it was an American(s) who proposed the "demotion". And most American members supported the change. (Pssst, they still do.)

Ya aren't very good at making stuff up on the fly (To do that, ya have to know your subject in great detail. Ya seem to be a parrot. Lot of noise, no substance.)


Praytell, enlighten me, Q-Star, what American was it who wished to stab Clyde Tombaugh and his widow in the back, was it the "Pluto-killer" himself? I heard he's not even a member of the IAU. Perhaps it was some other dweeb?

I'm not making anything up. I am more of a sparrow than a parrot, too.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2013
It would be a good (conspiracy) theory except that it was an American(s) who proposed the "demotion". And most American members supported the change. (Pssst, they still do.)

Ya aren't very good at making stuff up on the fly (To do that, ya have to know your subject in great detail. Ya seem to be a parrot. Lot of noise, no substance.)


what American was it who wished to stab Clyde Tombaugh and his widow in the back, was it the "Pluto-killer" himself?


Stab in the back? Stab his widow in the back? Boyo, with your way wording things, my ridicule would be superfluous. There is no answer to your question because it is founded on a patently false promise.

I'm not making anything up.


The fact that Owen Gingerich of Harvard was the IAU Planet Definition Committee Chair, shows that ya were making your anti-American theory up.

Their names escape me now, but there were two other Americans on that committed also. A committee of six by the way.
laurele
1.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2013
"The fact that Owen Gingerich of Harvard was the IAU Planet Definition Committee Chair, shows that ya were making your anti-American theory up. "

Owen Gingerich publicly said he regrets having left early and therefore being unable to vote. The IAU Planet Definition Committee recommended a different resolution than the one 423 members adopted on the last day. Like many other participants, Gingerich had made plans to leave early, assuming the IAU would follow its own bylaws and vote yes or no on the resolution recommended by the committee. Instead, at the last minute, a group of dynamicists hastily put together an alternate resolution that was never vetted by the Planet Definition Committee, which the IAU's own bylaws require before any resolution is put to the GA floor. Other American astronomers who were at the GA publicly stated they were harassed by anti-American astronomers who told them, "Pluto is going down because we hate your mideast policy."
laurele
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2013
"It would be a good (conspiracy) theory except that it was an American(s) who proposed the "demotion". And most American members supported the change. (Pssst, they still do.)"

The Planet Definition Committee, including the American members, proposed a resolution that would have included dwarf planets as planets and Pluto-Charon as a binary planet system. Since no one has taken a poll, it is safe to say the American community of planetary scientists remains divided on this issue to this day.
laurele
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2013
"Are YA surprised that I KNOW that electronic voting is only for nominating and elected officers, chairmanships, committees, within a limited time period? It is not for resolutions brought before the GA......"

This is incorrect:
http://www.iau.or...tatutes/

15.a. To enable the widest possible participation of Individual Members the Executive Committee may decide that voting on certain issues of a primarily scientific nature, as determined by the Executive Committee, shall be open for electronic voting for not more than 31 days counting from the close of the General Assembly at which the issue was raised.

15.b. The Executive Committee shall give Members not less than 3 months notice before the opening of the General Assembly of the intention to open certain issues to electronic voting after the General Assembly.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2013
"The fact that Owen Gingerich of Harvard was the IAU Planet Definition Committee Chair, shows that ya were making your anti-American theory up. "

Owen Gingerich publicly said he regrets having left early and therefore being unable to vote.


Laurel, (Psst, Owen is not a friend of your cause, though ya do amuse him.)
He may have said that, he probably regrets missing the antics and posturing,,,,but it doesn't matter because he also has publicly said hundreds of time that he is fine with the definition adopted. He's always been against revisiting the issue because of the Laureling of the public. (He's also adamant in his disapproving the naming of exoplanets by raffling off tickets.)

Other American astronomers who were at the GA publicly stated they were harassed by anti-American astronomers who told them, "Pluto is going down because we hate your mideast policy."


Publicly, then there is no reason not to tell us who when and where they publicly said it.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2013
15.a. To enable the widest possible participation of Individual Members the Executive Committee may decide that voting on certain issues of a primarily scientific nature, as determined by the Executive Committee, shall be open for electronic voting for not more than 31 days counting from the close of the General Assembly at which the issue was raised.

15.b. The Executive Committee shall give Members not less than 3 months notice before the opening of the General Assembly of the intention to open certain issues to electronic voting after the General Assembly.


I'm so glad ya posted that for me, now I know that ya know it wouldn't have helped your crusade. It's a diversion ya have over used. It's a red herring Laurel. Three months before? And 31 days after? How might that be arraigned for a mere definition?

Will we now be graced with a rising of your satellite?
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2013
@ Laurele,,,,

If the IAU voted the issue once more, (members voting electronically if that is what would make ya happy) ONCE more, would ya abide by the decision, accept it once and for all and give up your crusade?

I find ya amusing, many in the community of astronomers I know find ya a pain.

But everyone would probably acquiesce to re-voting the issue, IF they were to receive your unqualified, unequivocal, iron-clad written promise, in a binding contract, that ya would drop the thing and move on.

If we revisit the definition, electronically, by the individual members, would ya accept their decision?
laurele
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2013
@ Laurele,,,,

If the IAU voted the issue once more, (members voting electronically if that is what would make ya happy) ONCE more, would ya abide by the decision, accept it once and for all and give up your crusade?

I find ya amusing, many in the community of astronomers I know find ya a pain.

In science, nothing is decided once for all time. The definition of planet will regularly need to be revisited as we discover more types of planets both in this solar system and others.

I am close friends with many in the community of astronomers and am quite confident you don't speak for them. You really think astronomers would revote solely to get me out of the picture? Please. You underestimate the astronomy community. Data, not individuals, determines actions. I have the right to study Pluto and pursue a career in planetary science just as much as anyone else does.

laurele
1.9 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2013
I love how you claim to speak for the IAU and Owen Gingerich, and the entire community of professional astronomers. What's next--channeling the ghost of Patrick Moore?

Speaking of Moore, he long advocated the inclusion of amateur astronomers in organizations like the IAU. The American Astronomical Society for the first time included amateur astronomers in its conference last week. This makes sense since amateurs do research as well as most communication of astronomy with the public.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2013


Stab in the back? Stab his widow in the back? Boyo, with your way wording things, my ridicule would be superfluous. There is no answer to your question because it is founded on a patently false promise.

.


What premise do you feel is false? I guess since Clyde was dead by August 24, 2006 (The Anniversary of the St. Batholomew's Day Massacre) only his lovely widow was stabbed in the back. Would you like me to toss you that bone? I was at a Pre-Launch Party with her in Cocoa Beach a few days I saw the rocket to Pluto disappear into the cosmos. Some of Clyde's ashes are aboard New Horizons, in case you didn't know.

On another note, you seem to be quite the sadist, trying to hurt Laurel's feelings with gusto, or all guns blazing, as it were. What is it with anti-Pluto IAU members? They all seem to have major psychological issues. Brown is a pathological narcissist. Bell-Burnell has Pluto envy, and you are a sadist. Seek professional help, Rory. Bring turtle.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2013
Stab in the back? Stab his widow in the back? Boyo, with your way wording things, my ridicule would be superfluous. .


(The Anniversary of the St. Batholomew's Day Massacre),,,,,

,,,, only his lovely widow was stabbed in the back.,,,,,

,,,, Would you like me to toss you that bone?,,,,,,,

,,,, you seem to be quite the sadist,,,,

,,,, trying to hurt Laurel's feelings with gusto,,,,

,,,, anti-Pluto IAU members,,,

,,,, major psychological issues,,,,

,,,, pathological narcissist,,,,,

,,,, Pluto envy,,,,,,

,,,, and you are a sadist,,,,

,,,,, Seek professional help,,,,


Maybe ridicule wouldn't be superfluous after all.

Have ya ever considered taking your oratory skills on the road? They would be quite at home at something like a Tea Party rally,, maybe ya could write some slogans for their posters.

Rory. Bring turtle.


What? Boyo, ya are trying to hard to be glib, and losing your way. Try to focus and compose your thoughts rationally.
Sowff
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2013


Rory. Bring turtle.

What? Boyo, ya are trying to hard to be glib, and losing your way. Try to focus and compose your thoughts rationally.



Look, Q-Star, if you really don't want to bring your pet turtle to your therapy sessions, you don't have to. I just thought it would make you more comfortable.

You didn't know the rancid resolution was passed on the anniversary of the St. Bart's Massacre? Learn some history, dude. Don't you want to be well-rounded, you know, sort of like being in hydrostatic equilibrium like Pluto and Makemake and even Luna? Learn some psychology, too. Read up on Penis Envy. It's sort of like Pluto Envy. I am tired of going over your head. You are a bright boy; you just need to get out more.
JohnGee
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2013
I have the right to study Pluto and pursue a career in planetary science
I'm not convinced this is what you are actually doing.

This whole thing is so damn strange. It's like you're a single-issue voter that had a stroke and got the synapses for abortion and politics swapped with Pluto and astronomy. I can't see how someone can start with a genuine interest in astronomy and get to your current location. I can understand it in lots of other situations, but not this one. It just doesn't follow.

I'd be curious to gauge your actual knowledge of Pluto not in regards to its classification.

I'm predicting New Horizons will find something you don't like and that will become your new crusade. Some preconception you have will be shattered and you'll manufacture a conspiracy to annoy us all with. I'm not looking forward to it.
laurele
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2013
Thanks, Sowff, but Q-Star isn't hurting my feelings--though he is making me laugh!
laurele
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2013
"I'm not convinced this is what you are actually doing."

But you're convinced that a man so obsessed with killing Pluto that he beheads Disney toys before his lectures is somehow doing science?

"I can't see how someone can start with a genuine interest in astronomy and get to your current location. I can understand it in lots of other situations, but not this one. It just doesn't follow."

Many astronomers have very specific, narrow areas on which they concentrate. I love planets in general, exoplanets too. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's not possible. I've spent many years studying Pluto and plan to attend a five-day conference on it this summer.

"I'm predicting New Horizons will find something you don't like and that will become your new crusade. Some preconception you have will be shattered and you'll manufacture a conspiracy to annoy us all with. I'm not looking forward to it."

I trust the New Horizons team and its PI Dr. Stern.
Sowff
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2013
Thanks, Sowff, but Q-Star isn't hurting my feelings--though he is making me laugh!


You astronomers have pretty thick skins, laurele. But, I admit he is kind of funny when his dimples show, and his little pet turtle is pretty cute! You better keep him away from Mike Brown, Q-Star! He always has those scissors on hand!
Sowff
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2013


This whole thing is so damn strange. It's like you're a single-issue voter that had a stroke and got the synapses for abortion and politics swapped with Pluto and astronomy. I can't see how someone can start with a genuine interest in astronomy and get to your current location. I can understand it in lots of other situations, but not this one. It just doesn't follow.

I'd be curious to gauge your actual knowledge of Pluto not in regards to its classification.

I'm predicting New Horizons will find something you don't like and that will become your new crusade. Some preconception you have will be shattered and you'll manufacture a conspiracy to annoy us all with. I'm not looking forward to it.


Why don't you turn your critical eye toward the other players now and then, Mr. Gee, or you will look like just another Mike Brown lackey.

laurele, has shown an interest in other astronomical matters, too. This article is about dwarf planets. Get with the program.