480 replies to this topic

[moefuzz]

Here's An interesting short and to the point video entitled "Why isn't Pluto a planet?" describing 

the shenanigans that went on during the last day of voting at the IAU in 2006

 

 

-Now This is what most of us already know/knew about the vote, 

either from our own prior knowledge or from earlier posts/facts in this thread.

 

 

- This is Dr Paul M Sutter, He is a current voting member at the IAU...

 

Some of us will be familiar with Dr Sutter as he is quite accomplished and a prominent leader in his field.

For those that are less familiar with the man,

here's a brief Bio to help substantiate his position in the bigger scheme of things..

 

 

BIO

Paul M. Sutter is a theoretical cosmologist, award-winning science communicator, NASA advisor, U.S. Cultural Ambassador, and a globally recognized leader in the intersection of art and science. Paul is a research professor at the Institute for Advanced Computational Science at Stony Brook University and a visiting professor at Barnard College, Columbia University.

 

In addition to writing three critically acclaimed books exploring everything from our place in the universe to the ways modern science can improve its relationship with the public, Paul’s work also appears in Scientific American, Ars Technica, Nautilus, Undark, Popular Mechanics, and more.

 

A knowledgeable and enthusiastic presenter, Paul hosts a variety of science shows on TV and digital media, including How the Universe Works on Science Channel, Space Out on Discovery, and Edge of Knowledge on Ars Technica, as well as numerous appearances on other shows. He also writes and hosts his hit Ask a Spaceman podcast, which has been downloaded over 7 million times.

 

 

Anyway, Dr Sutter gets down to the exacting points on why most/90% of those -whether in the field or not- still refer to Pluto as a Planet regardless of what the powerless IAU may think or say..

 

 

- Key Points,

Below is a very brief summary of the video describing the controversy...

..A controversy that came about mere days and weeks after the trickery was discovered while no one was present at the very end of the last day of the 2006 meeting...

 

 

-What's important to note is that    These Are The Exacting Key Points   of why the general Space/Science Community had and have a problem with the slight of hand that took place that day

and why 95% of that same community still refer to Pluto as a Planet,

  Just as when Pluto was discovered  by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930..

 

 

 "the vote came at the very very last day and it was somewhat of a surprise like

'hey by the way we should all vote',  but all the sessions of where the planetary scientists got to talk, 

those were all held earlier in the conference and so they all went home"...

 

"They're like 'oh the last day that's just for like supernova people we're not really interested we gotta go back to work'

so many of them left and weren't even present on the last day..

and then the last day of a big conference like that is usually half day not a lot going on,

people are -especially in Hawaii-   you're probably at the beaches not sitting around in the conference room

so there's shenanigans going on"

 

"It was a surprise announcement -it wasn't a part of the program so like no one knew the vote was coming and then there happened to be enough people that voted (7 or 8? present) on this and then (they) made it like established international astronomical union rules"....

 

..."Now the international astronomical union is not in charge of anything except i mean they claim they're in charge of a lot of things but really their authority is because everyone (members) agrees that they're the authority but so like the community of astronomers shifted to this definition in 2006"...

 

....(after others found out about the shenanigans, -after the meeting)

"other people argued against that idea, people who weren't there at the vote  said look,  like you're creating a definition of planet not based on an intrinsic property of the object itself but on what's happening in its orbit".

 

"If you were to swap places,  if you were to take earth and put it in the orbit of Pluto earth would all of a sudden lose its status as a planet.  If you were to take Pluto and put it in the orbit of earth Pluto would become a planet,

-like that seems a little bit weird"...

 

Edited by moefuzz, 03 May 2024 - 04:27 AM.

[moefuzz]

..I'm Trying to fanagle the forum to embed a youtube video

 

Try clicking the pic?

 

 

[moefuzz]

It Verks!!!

 

So You Can Embed Youtube Videos In The Cloudy Nights Forum

  

 

P.S. I'm hoping that the forum retains the embedded video over time..

(but just in case the above embedded video/Link doesn't work for you, here's the correct link) ..

 

Why isn't Pluto a planet?

https://www.youtube....h?v=IcaPIq2-8EA

Edited by moefuzz, 03 May 2024 - 08:34 AM.

[russell23]

This point by Dr. Sutter is the point:

 

 

 

"other people argued against that idea, people who weren't there at the vote  said look,  like you're creating a definition of planet not based on an intrinsic property of the object itself but on what's happening in its orbit".

 

Planets are physical objects.  What are the physical characteristics of a body that make it a planet? 

 

The IAU provided an answer to this question in part b of Resolution 5A:

 

 

 

(1) A “planet”  is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and © has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

 

The problem some people just are not understanding is when you provide a conceptual criterion as part of a definition or taxonomy you have to know the full range of not just what is observed, but also what is possible to be observed. 

 

Any object that meets criterion (b) has a physical nature that is planetary.  We've already covered this in this thread numerous times.  Bodies meeting criteria (b) in the IAU planet and dwarf planet definitions have a minimum mass of 3.7 x 10¹⁹ kg.   In the solar system that includes bodies as small in radius as Mimas (radius = 198 km). 

 

Any bodies from Mimas mass and larger (minus a couple debatable bodies in that "messy" 200-300km radius zone) have a planetary physical nature because they meet the physical criterion the IAU stated a planet must have (i.e. the geophysical planet definition).  If any such bodies are in the correct orbital circumstances - they would be a planet according to the IAU's definition.  It doesn't matter that these bodies are not in a cleared orbit around the Sun.  Their physical nature is still planetary.  It has to be that way - or the criterion for the definition are meaningless.

Edited by russell23, 03 May 2024 - 09:11 AM.

[russell23]

Here is a breakdown of the different classes of sub-stellar bodies.  There may be additional dynamical classes not listed.  It is certainly possible to break asteroids, comets, TNOs into additional dynamical sub-classes as well.  But this covers the basics.  The “Principal Planet” class is the IAU Planet class.  The “Belt Planet” class is the IAU “Dwarf Planet” class.

 

Regarding brown dwarfs I opted for formation mechanism, but in a more general sense the first two sub-categories could simply be “Brown dwarfs” and “sub-stellar bodies that are not brown dwarfs”.  The structure in the diagram below that point would be the same in either case. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by russell23, 03 May 2024 - 09:53 AM.

[RedLionNJ]

We keep seeing the same (or similar) arguments from both perspectives come up in a recurring fashion, not only in this thread, but in others.

 

As a result, and after four months of this thread alone, this thread is now closed due to topical exhaustion.