Pluto is a planet again! (in Illinois)
Some people who spend their nights staring up at the stars still have black bands around their telescopes.
This is to commemorate the heinous day in 2006 when the International Astronomical Union demoted Pluto to dwarf planet status.
Now, the bountifully deep and forward-thinking state of Illinois is showing its Illinoyance. It has decided that the IAU is comprised of downright plonkers and that Pluto will, on March 13, 2009, be reinstated as a full, mature rockstar planet.
In fact, March 13 will be Pluto Day in Illinois.
It appears that Clyde Tombaugh, the fine citizen who discovered Pluto, was born on a farm in Illinois--and that only 4 percent of the IAU actually cast votes when the body excommunicated Pluto from the planetary major leagues.
However, many who have been Americans for a long period of time know that Illinois residents can find self-control a little daunting. And I am not merely referring to the mortifying impulsiveness of one-time Chicago Cubs fan and now probably Missouri mortician, Steve Bartman.
You see, these words appear in the state's plutonic proclamation:
"WHEREAS, Dr. Tombaugh is so far the only Illinoisan and only American to ever discover a planet..."
Well, perhaps former Gov. Rod Blagojevich penned that minor but irrelevant inaccuracy. The main thing is that Illinois is yet again standing up for what is good and right and forward-thinking.
I trust that everyone who cares about truth, justice, and plutonic relations will make a pilgrimage on March 13 to some part of Illinois. (May I recommend one restaurant in Champaign? Yes, just one: Bacaro. And a couple in Chicago: Spiaggia and L2O).
I will call Oprah now and check that she will devoting a whole show to this wondrous occurrence.
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
%20%7C%20Technically%20Incorrect%20-%20CNET%20News&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/pluto-is-a-planet-again-in-illinois/){kind=small}
Stern and like-minded scientists favor a broader definition of planet that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star. The spherical part is key because when objects become large enough, they are shaped by gravity, which pulls them into a round shape, rather than by chemical bonds. This is true of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and comets. And yes, it does make Ceres, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake planets as well, for a total of 13 planets in our solar system.
Even now, many astronomers and lay people are working to overturn the IAU demotion or are ignoring it altogether. Kudos to the Illinois Senate for standing up to this closed, out of touch organization whose leadership thinks they can just issue a decree and change reality.
http://talesfromthepandoranage.blogspot.com/
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto as project administrator has a political ax to grind. He is doing so.
The spherical part is NOT key because when objects become large enough, "they are shaped by gravity, which pulls them into a round shape", The KEY is PLUTO reasonably belongs to a new class of solar system bodies many dozens of which have already been discovered.
Believers to the contrary should consider joining the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY.
As for the Illinois legislature and "Crook" county politics...locations where politics appears to be a blood sport. Legislators should concern themselves with honesty and election reform in a region where political corruption appears to be noticably above average.
Take care to MIND serious business. This is just a mindless distraction for readers of tabloids and users of "infotainment" where foolery is routine.
You ignore the fact that Pluto is unlike most of those new solar system bodies discovered because of its being in hydrostatic equilibrium. Hydrostatic equilibrium is key because smaller objects like most of those other KBOs, are shaped by chemical bonds and not by their own gravity. In classifiying objects, we cannot look solely at where they are--which is what the IAU did. We also have to consider what they are. Otherwise, we end up with the absurdity of a possible situation where the same object is a planet in one area and not a planet in another. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be considered a planet either.
This is not at all like the "flat Earth" issue. It's not the facts about Pluto that are in contention; it is the interpretation of the facts. And among scientists, there is more than one intepretation as of now.
Pluto is both a Kuiper Belt Object and a planet--as are Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Why is this so difficult for people to understand? If they IAU simply amended its decision and made dwarf planets a subclass of planets, which they should have done to begin with, this situation would be resolved. Dwarf planets would simply be a subcategory describing small round objects (planets) that do not gravitationally dominate their orbits.
What I would really like to see is the IAU offer a standard definition for objects called moons. If they think that Pluto is no longer a planet I cannot see, for the life of me, how oblong shaped items that more resemble asteroids can be called moons. Moons too should exhibit a set of characteristics that define them other than simply being captured by their planet.
Plus think of the poor kids who will have to learn the names of potentially hundreds of planets or on the bright side quiz masters will have lots of fun, what 96th planet in the solar systems. Now people will not look like total idiots when they do not know it or get it wrong.
What we really need is a sensible definition of a planet that everyone can agree to. I happen to agree for at least the new one is the best. Illinois is just doing it because well this state have not got a lot other things it to promote it as it.
This political posturing merely has emotion on its side and not only that but to not know that various Americans (and possibly more Illinoisans) have discovered many of the hundreds of planets now known demonstrates an ignorance of substantial facts in the matter and makes the whole political episode look like a joke.
Clyde Tombaugh would be appalled.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
Ergo, the Earth and the Moon are both planets; with Earth the major partner and the Moon being a moon. The spherical moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all planets, and moons of their primaries. Phobos and Deimos, while being moons of Mars, are not large enough to pull themselves into spheres, and therefore not planets.
Regardless of all the high falutin' degrees possessed by the members of the International Astronomical Union who actually voted on it, their utter lack of consistent, consensual logic in describing what is and is not a planet only goes to show that they really aren't any smarter than the average man on the street; although at least they are a step above the Flat Earth Society.
For my 2 cents, I think the definition for a planet should be, round by its own gravity, primarily orbiting around a star (or stars, either past or collapsed to brown darf, etc.), and perhaps some consideration to geologic or atmospheric processes having occurred at some point. Lets get rid of the minor planet term (since so many are 'offended' by it), and consider that a body round by its own gravity, primarily orbiting a planet (by the above definition) is a satelite or moon. And anything that does not saticfy those definitions can be either a planetoid (multiple composited objects) or asteroid (primarily uniform composition solid objects), or simply debris.
In all this arguing over definitions, I have not seen reference to the orbit as a major part of the classification, which I think only makes sense. I would not consider our moon to be a planet, simply because of its orbit. If the Earth were orbiting Jupiter, I would say we lived on a moon. If Jupiter were to begin fusion and become a star, and the moons orbiting it survived, they would and should graduate to planet status.
Planets orbit stars, satelites or moons orbit planets, which agrees with common sense and makes for a simple definition. Round by its own gravity is a reasonable ground for qualification of either classification. I don't think we could have a mass large enough (regardless of composition), to hold a moon (that is round), that was itself, not round.
In the case of future strange discoveries....
If we have a moon orbiting another moon which orbits a planet, lets call it a secondary (or tertiary, etc) or subordinate moon or satelite.
If we discover something with too complex an orbit, to fit the definition, then if any portion of the orbit is primarily dictated by a star and it saticfies the other requirements, its a planet, otherwise a rouge planet for something without a regular orbit that is large enough to hold a satelite (that is round by its own gravity), or rouge moon if it is not large enough to hold a satelite (that is round by its own gravity), regardless of orbit. In any case I would say the orbit is the defining nature between a planet and a moon, and round by its own gravity the defining nature for either classification.
Round by its own Gravity=Planet or Moon (otherwise Planetoid or Asteroid)
None or strange Orbit=Rouge
Orbit Star=Planet
Orbit Planet or Moon=Moon (or satellite)
Massive enough to hold a Moon in orbit=Planet if Rouge
This covers most of the bases, and a change in classification would only be able to occur if the object's orbit changed or coloesced into a sphere. Which is when such a change in classicfication should be considered. This would leave Pluto as a planet, and yes, allow some of the Kuiper belt objects to become planets as well (whats wrong with new planets?) Unless there is some compelling reason to create a ratio/distance from the star (taking into account the star's mass), I don't see why Kuiper belts objects should be excluded from being planets provided they saticfy the above definitions.
- by Bluzulu March 12, 2009 4:40 AM PDT
- Why don't we concern ourselves with THIS planet first before we go arguing back and forth regarding the status of Pluto as a planet. It's not like anyone is ever going to live there anytime soon! And Illinois should be concerning themselves with reforming their own corrupt government, and stop trying to sweep things under the carpet by focusing on such IDIOTIC, TRIVIAL things like is Pluto a planet or not. WHO CARES!!! It just pi$$e$ me off at how stupid and lame people and politics really are! UNBELIEVABLE!!!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (27 Comments)