You'll always be a planet to me.
September 14, 2006 6:01 AM Subscribe
Bad News: (pdf) In the continuing degredation of Pluto, the former planet has been assigned a number establishing it among the ranks of bitty rocks dwarf planets, so now we have the name of 134340 Pluto. In good news, 2003 UB313 is now 136199 Eris. Commence hailing!
Where did "Eris" come from? Or rather, when? Wasn't it always Xena?
posted by Navelgazer at 6:21 AM on September 14, 2006
posted by Navelgazer at 6:21 AM on September 14, 2006
The bastards are doing this to avoid paying benefits.
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:24 AM on September 14, 2006
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:24 AM on September 14, 2006
Excelent. 136199 conforms to the Law of Fives:
13*6-19-9 = 50.
posted by Foosnark at 6:26 AM on September 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
13*6-19-9 = 50.
posted by Foosnark at 6:26 AM on September 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
How soon can we establish an LDD base on 136199 Eris? I would like to see this done in the next 23 months.
PS I am a nerd.
posted by Mister_A at 6:33 AM on September 14, 2006
PS I am a nerd.
posted by Mister_A at 6:33 AM on September 14, 2006
Considering how much discord 2003 UB313 has already caused amongst astronomers, the name is particularly fitting. Some people at the IAU have a sense of humor, it would seem.
All Hail Discordia!
Hello MetaFilter!
posted by Fruny at 6:40 AM on September 14, 2006
All Hail Discordia!
Hello MetaFilter!
posted by Fruny at 6:40 AM on September 14, 2006
Xena was an informal name used for the planet by the discovering astronomers pending assignment of a formal designation by the IAU. Other names kicked around included Lila, Persephonie and Proserpina.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:40 AM on September 14, 2006
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:40 AM on September 14, 2006
stereoradiospectographicoscopic analysis has shown 136199 Eris to have a composition of 4 535.9237 kg of flax. The primary body in the fnord belt, 136199 Eris is notably apple-shaped.
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:33 AM on September 14, 2006
posted by Cookiebastard at 7:33 AM on September 14, 2006
They should just transfer the name "Pluto" to whatever happens to be the biggest thing outside Uranus's orbit. Then, every time they find a bigger thing, they'd just transfer the name again. That way we could always have a planet Pluto without the awkwardness of having larger non-planet objects out there. "Pluto is dead! Long live Pluto!"
You're welcome, IAU.
posted by washburn at 7:37 AM on September 14, 2006 [2 favorites]
You're welcome, IAU.
posted by washburn at 7:37 AM on September 14, 2006 [2 favorites]
There's currently a skirmish at Wikipedia about moving the Pluto article to "134340 Pluto", since all other numbered minor planet article names incorporate the number, e.g. 1 Ceres (and 136199 Eris).
posted by gubo at 7:52 AM on September 14, 2006
posted by gubo at 7:52 AM on September 14, 2006
Some people at the IAU have a sense of humor, it would seem.
No, it would not seem. It seems they instead are on a mission to make the lives of all future generations of high school science students a living hell.
posted by slatternus at 7:54 AM on September 14, 2006
No, it would not seem. It seems they instead are on a mission to make the lives of all future generations of high school science students a living hell.
posted by slatternus at 7:54 AM on September 14, 2006
Y'know, just because it's scientifically Canis lupus familiaris doesn't mean you can't still all it a dog, and just because they added numbers doesn't mean you can't still call it "Pluto." People have always felt free to completely (often intentionally) ignore scientific naming conventions, and I don't see why this is any different.
posted by zennie at 9:01 AM on September 14, 2006
posted by zennie at 9:01 AM on September 14, 2006
I'm kinda with Zennie on this. I've told people with PhD's in chemistry that the IUPAC name for that stuff that comes out of the faucet is Oxidane and had them refuse to believe me. Google recognizes fewer than 1000 pages using the word.
I think some people in the IAU are going to be disappointed when this continues to be a passionate yet pointless debate 50 years from now.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2006
I think some people in the IAU are going to be disappointed when this continues to be a passionate yet pointless debate 50 years from now.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2006
No, it would not seem. It seems they instead are on a mission to make the lives of all future generations of high school science students a living hell.
How so? Students will surely not have to memorize the full names of all dwarf planets, so why would they have to memorize 134340 Pluto? At most they will get a neat little history lesson about how the textbook is actually wrong, and Pluto is no longer a planet. The teacher can now teach the students what makes a planet a planet.
I'm tired of everybody crying "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDERNS!! O NOES!!" every time this subject comes up. The fact that astronomy had no formal definition of a planet was hugely embarassing. Now we do. What if students had to memorize 240 other planets just because you want to hang on to poor, precious Pluto? Sorry. You lose.
posted by anomie at 9:24 AM on September 14, 2006
How so? Students will surely not have to memorize the full names of all dwarf planets, so why would they have to memorize 134340 Pluto? At most they will get a neat little history lesson about how the textbook is actually wrong, and Pluto is no longer a planet. The teacher can now teach the students what makes a planet a planet.
I'm tired of everybody crying "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDERNS!! O NOES!!" every time this subject comes up. The fact that astronomy had no formal definition of a planet was hugely embarassing. Now we do. What if students had to memorize 240 other planets just because you want to hang on to poor, precious Pluto? Sorry. You lose.
posted by anomie at 9:24 AM on September 14, 2006
I'm tired of everybody crying "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDERNS!! O NOES!!" every time this subject comes up.
I never even thought about yelling that.
My bad.
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDERNS!! O NOES!!
Thanks!
posted by eriko at 9:35 AM on September 14, 2006
I never even thought about yelling that.
My bad.
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDERNS!! O NOES!!
Thanks!
posted by eriko at 9:35 AM on September 14, 2006
How about we just finish up dicking around with the Solar System and spring for 18693 Earth. Then we'll have to stake our galactic claim the Smith Barney way: eaaaaarn it.
posted by rolypolyman at 9:52 AM on September 14, 2006
posted by rolypolyman at 9:52 AM on September 14, 2006
This is all just bullshit to take away Pluto's seat on the solar council, I tell you.
Viva Pluto!
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:52 AM on September 14, 2006
Viva Pluto!
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:52 AM on September 14, 2006
The fact that astronomy had no formal definition of a planet was hugely embarassing.
Why? We all knew what a planet was: something big and important in stellar orbit, as distinct from piddly shit in stellar orbit.
How does applying a particular definition of "big and important" versus "piddly shit" help get research done? What hypotheses will be testable now that were not before the IAU's decision? What new discoveries are we going to see now that Pluto is defined as a dwarf planet? I'll wager: none whatsoever.
The teacher can now teach the students what makes a planet a planet.
We knew that already. A planet is big and important, and asteroids and comets aren't. All they can teach the kids is that the IAU definition of a planet is thus-and-such. Which is a pretty silly thing -- you know those big things orbiting other stars that we've found? Not planets. To be a planet, you must orbit the Sun, not some other star.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:01 AM on September 14, 2006
Why? We all knew what a planet was: something big and important in stellar orbit, as distinct from piddly shit in stellar orbit.
How does applying a particular definition of "big and important" versus "piddly shit" help get research done? What hypotheses will be testable now that were not before the IAU's decision? What new discoveries are we going to see now that Pluto is defined as a dwarf planet? I'll wager: none whatsoever.
The teacher can now teach the students what makes a planet a planet.
We knew that already. A planet is big and important, and asteroids and comets aren't. All they can teach the kids is that the IAU definition of a planet is thus-and-such. Which is a pretty silly thing -- you know those big things orbiting other stars that we've found? Not planets. To be a planet, you must orbit the Sun, not some other star.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:01 AM on September 14, 2006
anomie: The teacher can now teach the students what makes a planet a planet.
A committe decision, evidently. As it is, this decision has ensured that Pluto should have a cherished spot in the science curriculum, as an example of the fact that scientific knowledge is not platonic truth.
What if students had to memorize 240 other planets just because you want to hang on to poor, precious Pluto?
Well, to be honest, I don't understand the argument that it's so critical that the planets must remain within the magic 7+/-2 quantity that's easy to remember. After all, we don't have this requirement for countries, states, or cities. Nor does the possibility of having far more than a handful of something prevent us from discussing the most important elements of that set. We can after all talk about Ceres, Pallas and Vesta as important examples of the 13,000-odd named asteroids. We can talk about the Gallilean moons of Jupiter without needing to dive into the irregular and minor moons.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:22 AM on September 14, 2006
A committe decision, evidently. As it is, this decision has ensured that Pluto should have a cherished spot in the science curriculum, as an example of the fact that scientific knowledge is not platonic truth.
What if students had to memorize 240 other planets just because you want to hang on to poor, precious Pluto?
Well, to be honest, I don't understand the argument that it's so critical that the planets must remain within the magic 7+/-2 quantity that's easy to remember. After all, we don't have this requirement for countries, states, or cities. Nor does the possibility of having far more than a handful of something prevent us from discussing the most important elements of that set. We can after all talk about Ceres, Pallas and Vesta as important examples of the 13,000-odd named asteroids. We can talk about the Gallilean moons of Jupiter without needing to dive into the irregular and minor moons.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:22 AM on September 14, 2006
And here is what I see as the bright spot in all this as one of those evil education liberuuuuls. I'll counter both anomie's and the other "what about the kids" argument with one of my own.
Too often, science is taught as a set of divine facts that were discovered in the universe out there and is passed on to students as the gospel truth. In fact, science is a process of consensus built on argumentation and evidence. Students should be taught that if they don't like the consensus, they are free to go forth and collect their own evidence, construct their own arguments, and change the consensus.
Teaching that there are 8 planets, and at least three dwarf planets is trivia. The important lesson is how our understanding of the solar system has changed from 5 "wandering stars" set in spheres beyond the sun, then the 6 planets of Copernicus, Kepler and Tycho, to the discovery of Uranus and Neptune, and then the debates over Ceres and Pluto leading to our current classification system.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:51 AM on September 14, 2006
Too often, science is taught as a set of divine facts that were discovered in the universe out there and is passed on to students as the gospel truth. In fact, science is a process of consensus built on argumentation and evidence. Students should be taught that if they don't like the consensus, they are free to go forth and collect their own evidence, construct their own arguments, and change the consensus.
Teaching that there are 8 planets, and at least three dwarf planets is trivia. The important lesson is how our understanding of the solar system has changed from 5 "wandering stars" set in spheres beyond the sun, then the 6 planets of Copernicus, Kepler and Tycho, to the discovery of Uranus and Neptune, and then the debates over Ceres and Pluto leading to our current classification system.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:51 AM on September 14, 2006
Pluto is like the fucking anime geek that your friend always brings to parties even though no one else likes him. He isn't really cool and no one wants to hang out with him or acknoledge he exists, but shit to be polite you have to make conversation. And sure you might like akira and occaisonly jack off to some tenticle pron but it's not like you eant to talk to other people about, but this mother fucker comes into the room and acts like being a fucking otaku is a good thing. So thats what Pluto is like, except substitutue Oort cloud for Neon Genisis Evangalion. Fuck pluto and fuck your friend
posted by afu at 11:05 AM on September 14, 2006 [4 favorites]
posted by afu at 11:05 AM on September 14, 2006 [4 favorites]
... it would not seem. It seems they instead are on a mission to make the lives of all future generations of high school science students a living hell.Is it really the case that high school science classes include the recitation of the list of planets? (Next you'll be telling me high school math involves adding fractions.) Must be the new Faith-Based Republican Science.
You know, there's nothing stopping regular people from calling Pluto a planet if that's what floats their boat. People still call whales fish. And people say crocodiles are reptiles but birds are not, even though birds are more closely related to snakes, turtles, and lizards than crocodilians are.
posted by phliar at 11:28 AM on September 14, 2006
We knew that already. A planet is big and important, and asteroids and comets aren't. All they can teach the kids is that the IAU definition of a planet is thus-and-such. Which is a pretty silly thing -- you know those big things orbiting other stars that we've found? Not planets. To be a planet, you must orbit the Sun, not some other star.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:01 PM CST on September 14 [+] [!]
Duh! A planet is a planet. Just like a gloxniarb is a gloxniarb.
posted by ozomatli at 11:38 AM on September 14, 2006
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:01 PM CST on September 14 [+] [!]
Duh! A planet is a planet. Just like a gloxniarb is a gloxniarb.
posted by ozomatli at 11:38 AM on September 14, 2006
I like Pluto, really I do. It's a cute little dwarf planet and I can't wait until we send a spacecraft its way. But knowing what we've increasingly known beginning with 1992 QB1, there are oodles of things out there that are just as much whatever Pluto is as Pluto, and now Pluto isn't even the largest of them. So either we expand the definition of planet to dozens of objects, or we restrict it just a tad and create a new class.
This is, in fact, exactly what was done in the 19th century when we discovered the asteroids. (The name asteroids took several decades to achieve full acceptance, however.)
Now, this number 134340 (which at least has that little jig in it) is a bit of a letdown, more so for Pluto boosters, who I'm sure are rending their own flesh in the ignominy. There was an opportunity back in 1998 to reserve 10000 for Pluto (or maybe 100000) which would have been neat. I'm surprised they didn't do something a little more special after all the brouhaha, as it would have soothed some nerves.
Navelgazer: There's no way that Xena would conform to naming conventions, so it was never a serious name, just a nickname. Eris was the name that Brown proposed when he first submitted the information to the IAU over a year ago, but it was kept secret while negotiations over the object's status took place. Interestingly, it would have worked under any of the different schemes, including classing it as a "full-size" planet.
As for Eris, it's a wonderful name, and Michael Brown really has a sense of humor (and the IAU thankfully went along). The best part is the name of the moon, Dysnomia.
It's Latin for lawlessness.
posted by dhartung at 11:38 AM on September 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
This is, in fact, exactly what was done in the 19th century when we discovered the asteroids. (The name asteroids took several decades to achieve full acceptance, however.)
Now, this number 134340 (which at least has that little jig in it) is a bit of a letdown, more so for Pluto boosters, who I'm sure are rending their own flesh in the ignominy. There was an opportunity back in 1998 to reserve 10000 for Pluto (or maybe 100000) which would have been neat. I'm surprised they didn't do something a little more special after all the brouhaha, as it would have soothed some nerves.
Navelgazer: There's no way that Xena would conform to naming conventions, so it was never a serious name, just a nickname. Eris was the name that Brown proposed when he first submitted the information to the IAU over a year ago, but it was kept secret while negotiations over the object's status took place. Interestingly, it would have worked under any of the different schemes, including classing it as a "full-size" planet.
As for Eris, it's a wonderful name, and Michael Brown really has a sense of humor (and the IAU thankfully went along). The best part is the name of the moon, Dysnomia.
It's Latin for lawlessness.
posted by dhartung at 11:38 AM on September 14, 2006 [1 favorite]
ROU_Xenophobe:
How does applying a particular definition of "big and important" versus "piddly shit" help get research done? What hypotheses will be testable now that were not before the IAU's decision? What new discoveries are we going to see now that Pluto is defined as a dwarf planet? I'll wager: none whatsoever.
You're right. None whatsoever. And that's why only a fraction of the scientists at the conference showed up for the vote. It does help, however, when people find an asteroid the size of Pluto and come forward saying "I FOUND A NEW PLANET!!!1." Of course it's not a new planet, but nobody could say why. You can't just make a list and say, "these are the planets." Pluto had to go.
We knew that already. A planet is big and important, and asteroids and comets aren't. All they can teach the kids is that the IAU definition of a planet is thus-and-such. Which is a pretty silly thing -- you know those big things orbiting other stars that we've found? Not planets. To be a planet, you must orbit the Sun, not some other star.
The IAU's definition of a planet only covers objects within our solar system. I think that's pretty stupid myself, but I'm sure it will change. And Pluto is not that big, and it's not really important in the solar system as it has not dominated its orbit. It's important to you, because you have some sentimental attachment to it. Please don't confuse that with science.
KirkJobSluder:
Well, to be honest, I don't understand the argument that it's so critical that the planets must remain within the magic 7+/-2 quantity that's easy to remember.
I agree, but I was specifically coutering slatternus' (probably sarcastic) argument. The real issue is that a planet should be big and special, and that means dominating it's orbit. Pluto isn't and doesn't. If there were 240 planets, that would be freakin' sweet, but ther aren't. There probably are 240 chunks of rock the size of Pluto out there, however.
PS: Notice how I still call it Pluto? I can still do that, just like I can call NGC1952 the Crab Nebula. It's not that big a deal.
posted by anomie at 11:56 AM on September 14, 2006
How does applying a particular definition of "big and important" versus "piddly shit" help get research done? What hypotheses will be testable now that were not before the IAU's decision? What new discoveries are we going to see now that Pluto is defined as a dwarf planet? I'll wager: none whatsoever.
You're right. None whatsoever. And that's why only a fraction of the scientists at the conference showed up for the vote. It does help, however, when people find an asteroid the size of Pluto and come forward saying "I FOUND A NEW PLANET!!!1." Of course it's not a new planet, but nobody could say why. You can't just make a list and say, "these are the planets." Pluto had to go.
We knew that already. A planet is big and important, and asteroids and comets aren't. All they can teach the kids is that the IAU definition of a planet is thus-and-such. Which is a pretty silly thing -- you know those big things orbiting other stars that we've found? Not planets. To be a planet, you must orbit the Sun, not some other star.
The IAU's definition of a planet only covers objects within our solar system. I think that's pretty stupid myself, but I'm sure it will change. And Pluto is not that big, and it's not really important in the solar system as it has not dominated its orbit. It's important to you, because you have some sentimental attachment to it. Please don't confuse that with science.
KirkJobSluder:
Well, to be honest, I don't understand the argument that it's so critical that the planets must remain within the magic 7+/-2 quantity that's easy to remember.
I agree, but I was specifically coutering slatternus' (probably sarcastic) argument. The real issue is that a planet should be big and special, and that means dominating it's orbit. Pluto isn't and doesn't. If there were 240 planets, that would be freakin' sweet, but ther aren't. There probably are 240 chunks of rock the size of Pluto out there, however.
PS: Notice how I still call it Pluto? I can still do that, just like I can call NGC1952 the Crab Nebula. It's not that big a deal.
posted by anomie at 11:56 AM on September 14, 2006
anomie: You're right. None whatsoever. And that's why only a fraction of the scientists at the conference showed up for the vote. It does help, however, when people find an asteroid the size of Pluto and come forward saying "I FOUND A NEW PLANET!!!1." Of course it's not a new planet, but nobody could say why. You can't just make a list and say, "these are the planets." Pluto had to go.
I guess I'm still trying to see why "I FOUND A NEW PLANET!!!!." would have been a problem. Or why we need a list that would permit us to say that there is a %95-99 chance that there are no additional planets out there. The large chunk of the history of astronomy has involved the discovery of additional complexity in our solar system. And just as the development of the telescope enabled the discovery of two new planets, the development of sky surveys might enable the discovery of many more.
And Pluto is not that big, and it's not really important in the solar system as it has not dominated its orbit. It's important to you, because you have some sentimental attachment to it.
Personally, I find the whole "dominated its orbit" criterion to be a bit problematic. After all, Jupiter, the most massive object in the solar system outside of the sun hasn't cleared it's orbit, leaving many asteroids in trojan orbits. There are also a class of near-Earth asteroids as well. In fact, that phrase was left purposely undefined so we just shifted the definition problem a bit.
"Important" is based a lot on which body of theory you happen to prefer. The argument for a definition based on hydrostatic equilibrium is based on the theory that such bodies are likely to have "important" internal dynamics analogous to those found in larger "planet-sized" bodies. The argument for a definition based on orbits is based on the theory that such objects are important to the evolution of the solar system.
Combining both of these together strikes me as problematic. It's not like the distinction between the alkali metals and the noble gasses which is a function of a single theory of outer electron orbits.
The real issue is that a planet should be big and special, and that means dominating its orbit.
This is the real issue for you, because you have some sentimental attachment to it. Please don't confuse that with science.
What would be science is saying, "operationally defining a planet as an object that dominates its orbit helps to advance this body of theory in this way..." or saying, "operationally defining a planet as an object that achieves hydrostatic equilibrium helps to advance that body of theory in that way..." As it is, with neither hydrostatic equilibrum nor dominating an orbit reasonably defined, you have to do this anyway.
In fact, both are equally valid and in many other fields are quite comfortable with terms that can be operationally defined in different ways depending on which body of theory you are currently working on (examples include "continent," "species," "life," and "learning.")
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:42 PM on September 14, 2006
I guess I'm still trying to see why "I FOUND A NEW PLANET!!!!." would have been a problem. Or why we need a list that would permit us to say that there is a %95-99 chance that there are no additional planets out there. The large chunk of the history of astronomy has involved the discovery of additional complexity in our solar system. And just as the development of the telescope enabled the discovery of two new planets, the development of sky surveys might enable the discovery of many more.
And Pluto is not that big, and it's not really important in the solar system as it has not dominated its orbit. It's important to you, because you have some sentimental attachment to it.
Personally, I find the whole "dominated its orbit" criterion to be a bit problematic. After all, Jupiter, the most massive object in the solar system outside of the sun hasn't cleared it's orbit, leaving many asteroids in trojan orbits. There are also a class of near-Earth asteroids as well. In fact, that phrase was left purposely undefined so we just shifted the definition problem a bit.
"Important" is based a lot on which body of theory you happen to prefer. The argument for a definition based on hydrostatic equilibrium is based on the theory that such bodies are likely to have "important" internal dynamics analogous to those found in larger "planet-sized" bodies. The argument for a definition based on orbits is based on the theory that such objects are important to the evolution of the solar system.
Combining both of these together strikes me as problematic. It's not like the distinction between the alkali metals and the noble gasses which is a function of a single theory of outer electron orbits.
The real issue is that a planet should be big and special, and that means dominating its orbit.
This is the real issue for you, because you have some sentimental attachment to it. Please don't confuse that with science.
What would be science is saying, "operationally defining a planet as an object that dominates its orbit helps to advance this body of theory in this way..." or saying, "operationally defining a planet as an object that achieves hydrostatic equilibrium helps to advance that body of theory in that way..." As it is, with neither hydrostatic equilibrum nor dominating an orbit reasonably defined, you have to do this anyway.
In fact, both are equally valid and in many other fields are quite comfortable with terms that can be operationally defined in different ways depending on which body of theory you are currently working on (examples include "continent," "species," "life," and "learning.")
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:42 PM on September 14, 2006
And Pluto is not that big, and it's not really important in the solar system as it has not dominated its orbit. It's important to you, because you have some sentimental attachment to it. Please don't confuse that with science.
Neither is formulating a definition for "planet" science. That's just making a definition. Science is theorizing and building hypotheses to test your theory, and looking at the universe for confirmation or disconfirmation of your hypotheses. There's nothing remotely scientific in writing a definition, or else Webster and Johnson are the greatest scientists the world has every known.
I don't really care how the IAU defines planet and I'd be equally torked if they'd used a definition that kept Pluto a planet. What bothers me is the urge to actually have a formalized definition of planet at all, especially when it seems (in the popular press anyway) to be paired with some sort of insistence that others follow their definition. It reeks of schoolboy bullying (that's not a planet like big men like me study) and the worst sort of pedantry -- the time they spent trying to decide whether Pluto was a very small planet or a very large Kuiper object could have been spent with more poster presentations of actual research, or with a roundtable about actual science.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:46 PM on September 14, 2006
Neither is formulating a definition for "planet" science. That's just making a definition. Science is theorizing and building hypotheses to test your theory, and looking at the universe for confirmation or disconfirmation of your hypotheses. There's nothing remotely scientific in writing a definition, or else Webster and Johnson are the greatest scientists the world has every known.
I don't really care how the IAU defines planet and I'd be equally torked if they'd used a definition that kept Pluto a planet. What bothers me is the urge to actually have a formalized definition of planet at all, especially when it seems (in the popular press anyway) to be paired with some sort of insistence that others follow their definition. It reeks of schoolboy bullying (that's not a planet like big men like me study) and the worst sort of pedantry -- the time they spent trying to decide whether Pluto was a very small planet or a very large Kuiper object could have been spent with more poster presentations of actual research, or with a roundtable about actual science.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:46 PM on September 14, 2006
Obviously it's not a big deal for science since very few scientists at the conference even showed up to vote. I do think it's good to have definitions for classes of objects, rather than "they just are," because it leads to a better understanding of the universe, however minute.
I agree that it's not hard-hitting science, but niether is taxonomy. How is taxonomy "theorizing and building hypotheses to test your theory, and looking at the universe for confirmation or disconfirmation of your hypotheses?" It's all just definitions right? Just because it doesn't tickle your science bone doesn't mean it's not science.
The problem is that previously, if a scientist found a "new planet" the media would pick it up and that scientist is now famous for finding a rock in the asteroid belt the size of Pluto. This is no longer possible due to the new definition of a planet. Therefore, astronomers will possibly find something more worthwhile to do.
posted by anomie at 1:07 PM on September 14, 2006
I agree that it's not hard-hitting science, but niether is taxonomy. How is taxonomy "theorizing and building hypotheses to test your theory, and looking at the universe for confirmation or disconfirmation of your hypotheses?" It's all just definitions right? Just because it doesn't tickle your science bone doesn't mean it's not science.
The problem is that previously, if a scientist found a "new planet" the media would pick it up and that scientist is now famous for finding a rock in the asteroid belt the size of Pluto. This is no longer possible due to the new definition of a planet. Therefore, astronomers will possibly find something more worthwhile to do.
posted by anomie at 1:07 PM on September 14, 2006
anomie: How is taxonomy "theorizing and building hypotheses to test your theory, and looking at the universe for confirmation or disconfirmation of your hypotheses?" It's all just definitions right? Just because it doesn't tickle your science bone doesn't mean it's not science.
Well, actually the modern practice of biological taxonomy is closely tied to the theory of evolution. Of course, this means that as we know more about evolutionary relationships between species, that we modify our taxonomic groupings of species. For example, humans are now firmly in the same group as gorillas and chimps, and relationships between kingdoms have been reconsidered over the last few years.
The problem is that previously, if a scientist found a "new planet" the media would pick it up and that scientist is now famous for finding a rock in the asteroid belt the size of Pluto. This is no longer possible due to the new definition of a planet. Therefore, astronomers will possibly find something more worthwhile to do.
Why is this a problem? The discovery of planets or dwarf planets however you want to call them is certainly a technical achievement worth celebrating, and worthwhile because the outer solar system is only understood through dim telescopic investigation and analysis of objects that have traveled through the inner solar system. As examples of an unknown class of objects that may be a significant repository of oxygen and carbon in our galaxy, they are worth studying in their own right. And it's possible that we might find one better suited for a flyby than Pluto. In addition the search for these objects uses the same methods that are needed to catalog the objects intersecting the Earth's orbit.
You seem to be raising a lot of nonexistent problems here. Are you certain that you are not motivated by sentiment?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:25 PM on September 14, 2006
Well, actually the modern practice of biological taxonomy is closely tied to the theory of evolution. Of course, this means that as we know more about evolutionary relationships between species, that we modify our taxonomic groupings of species. For example, humans are now firmly in the same group as gorillas and chimps, and relationships between kingdoms have been reconsidered over the last few years.
The problem is that previously, if a scientist found a "new planet" the media would pick it up and that scientist is now famous for finding a rock in the asteroid belt the size of Pluto. This is no longer possible due to the new definition of a planet. Therefore, astronomers will possibly find something more worthwhile to do.
Why is this a problem? The discovery of planets or dwarf planets however you want to call them is certainly a technical achievement worth celebrating, and worthwhile because the outer solar system is only understood through dim telescopic investigation and analysis of objects that have traveled through the inner solar system. As examples of an unknown class of objects that may be a significant repository of oxygen and carbon in our galaxy, they are worth studying in their own right. And it's possible that we might find one better suited for a flyby than Pluto. In addition the search for these objects uses the same methods that are needed to catalog the objects intersecting the Earth's orbit.
You seem to be raising a lot of nonexistent problems here. Are you certain that you are not motivated by sentiment?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:25 PM on September 14, 2006
How is taxonomy "theorizing and building hypotheses to test your theory, and looking at the universe for confirmation or disconfirmation of your hypotheses?" It's all just definitions right?
I'm not going to go to bat very had for taxonomy, but I suppose it can be seen as a set of theories about how organisms, current and extinct, are related.
They could have done something like this for planets, too. They might have defined a planet as a body large enough to be spherical out of its gravity and that has accreted from more primordial matter and objects. This might exclude Pluto, which might be a simply one of those primordial objects that planets were made from. In this case, you'd have a definition that at least embodies some manner of theory in it. But they didn't.
The problem is that previously, if a scientist found a "new planet" the media would pick it up and that scientist is now famous for finding a rock in the asteroid belt the size of Pluto.
If this were true, I'd expect to be able to name one of these scientists without googling, or for you to be able to do so. My inability to do so leads me to believe that no such person actually became famous.
This is no longer possible due to the new definition of a planet.
I don't see how, unless there are gangs of IAU members that roam from place to place burning down tv and radio stations that use IAU terms in ways that don't conform to their definitions.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:27 PM on September 14, 2006
I'm not going to go to bat very had for taxonomy, but I suppose it can be seen as a set of theories about how organisms, current and extinct, are related.
They could have done something like this for planets, too. They might have defined a planet as a body large enough to be spherical out of its gravity and that has accreted from more primordial matter and objects. This might exclude Pluto, which might be a simply one of those primordial objects that planets were made from. In this case, you'd have a definition that at least embodies some manner of theory in it. But they didn't.
The problem is that previously, if a scientist found a "new planet" the media would pick it up and that scientist is now famous for finding a rock in the asteroid belt the size of Pluto.
If this were true, I'd expect to be able to name one of these scientists without googling, or for you to be able to do so. My inability to do so leads me to believe that no such person actually became famous.
This is no longer possible due to the new definition of a planet.
I don't see how, unless there are gangs of IAU members that roam from place to place burning down tv and radio stations that use IAU terms in ways that don't conform to their definitions.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:27 PM on September 14, 2006
problem between keyboard and monitor there. sorry.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:28 PM on September 14, 2006
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:28 PM on September 14, 2006
ROU: I don't see how, unless there are gangs of IAU members that roam from place to place burning down tv and radio stations that use IAU terms in ways that don't conform to their definitions.
They use the parabolic mirrors of the HST to do it from a distance.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:41 PM on September 14, 2006
They use the parabolic mirrors of the HST to do it from a distance.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:41 PM on September 14, 2006
KirkJobSluder- On preview, the last comment was responding to ROU_Xenophobe, I should have made that clear.
What would be science is saying, "operationally defining a planet as an object that dominates its orbit helps to advance this body of theory in this way..." or saying, "operationally defining a planet as an object that achieves hydrostatic equilibrium helps to advance that body of theory in that way..." As it is, with neither hydrostatic equilibrum nor dominating an orbit reasonably defined, you have to do this anyway.
In order to determine the way in which operationally defining a planet helps to advance theory, you have to operationally define it. ROU_Xenophobe doesn't even think we should do that. Sure the definition is ambiguous, and the idea of hydrostatic equilibrium is unclear WRT planets, but it's a hell of a lot better than ROU_Xenophobe's "big and important" versus "piddly shit".
Maybe planets aren't supposed to be "relatively big" or "orbit the sun" or "be round." If astronomers want to have 600 planets in our solar system, I guess I could live with that. I would think it was pretty stupid, but I could live with it. And just because the definition isn't perfect doesn't make it useless. It's a starting point.
On preview: My comments pretty much stand. I see a logical difference between Ceres and Jupiter. I personally think the line should be drawn in order to avoid grouping dissimilar objects together. I admit possible sentiment in this, as it makes logical sense to me. And like I said, if it went the other way, I could live with it.
And while I wish in no way to discount the discovery of Ceres, Eris, Quoar, or other such objects, I don't see them as being in the same class as the discovery of Saturn or Jupiter.
ROU_Xenophobe:
They could have done something like this for planets, too. They might have defined a planet as a body large enough to be spherical out of its gravity and that has accreted from more primordial matter and objects. This might exclude Pluto, which might be a simply one of those primordial objects that planets were made from. In this case, you'd have a definition that at least embodies some manner of theory in it. But they didn't.
I agree that this would be something useful to incorporate into the definition, although it wouldn't account for Ceres and other future asteroid belt "planets." At least you agree that a definition can be useful. I never said that the current definition is the end-all-be-all of planetary definitions, but I think it's better than the embarassing "list of planets."
posted by anomie at 1:43 PM on September 14, 2006
What would be science is saying, "operationally defining a planet as an object that dominates its orbit helps to advance this body of theory in this way..." or saying, "operationally defining a planet as an object that achieves hydrostatic equilibrium helps to advance that body of theory in that way..." As it is, with neither hydrostatic equilibrum nor dominating an orbit reasonably defined, you have to do this anyway.
In order to determine the way in which operationally defining a planet helps to advance theory, you have to operationally define it. ROU_Xenophobe doesn't even think we should do that. Sure the definition is ambiguous, and the idea of hydrostatic equilibrium is unclear WRT planets, but it's a hell of a lot better than ROU_Xenophobe's "big and important" versus "piddly shit".
Maybe planets aren't supposed to be "relatively big" or "orbit the sun" or "be round." If astronomers want to have 600 planets in our solar system, I guess I could live with that. I would think it was pretty stupid, but I could live with it. And just because the definition isn't perfect doesn't make it useless. It's a starting point.
On preview: My comments pretty much stand. I see a logical difference between Ceres and Jupiter. I personally think the line should be drawn in order to avoid grouping dissimilar objects together. I admit possible sentiment in this, as it makes logical sense to me. And like I said, if it went the other way, I could live with it.
And while I wish in no way to discount the discovery of Ceres, Eris, Quoar, or other such objects, I don't see them as being in the same class as the discovery of Saturn or Jupiter.
ROU_Xenophobe:
They could have done something like this for planets, too. They might have defined a planet as a body large enough to be spherical out of its gravity and that has accreted from more primordial matter and objects. This might exclude Pluto, which might be a simply one of those primordial objects that planets were made from. In this case, you'd have a definition that at least embodies some manner of theory in it. But they didn't.
I agree that this would be something useful to incorporate into the definition, although it wouldn't account for Ceres and other future asteroid belt "planets." At least you agree that a definition can be useful. I never said that the current definition is the end-all-be-all of planetary definitions, but I think it's better than the embarassing "list of planets."
posted by anomie at 1:43 PM on September 14, 2006
Sure the definition is ambiguous, and the idea of hydrostatic equilibrium is unclear WRT planets, but it's a hell of a lot better than ROU_Xenophobe's "big and important" versus "piddly shit".
In what way, apart from avoiding cursing?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:01 PM on September 14, 2006
In what way, apart from avoiding cursing?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:01 PM on September 14, 2006
In what way, apart from avoiding cursing?
Because, while you argue that the current definition doesn't "embody planetary theory," it certainly does. I don't think I need to tell you about how primordial planets formed, but it most certainly involved "orbiting the sun," "clearing their orbit," and eventually "collapsing into a spherical shape."
Some cursing would be nice to spice things up a bit though.
posted by anomie at 2:10 PM on September 14, 2006
Because, while you argue that the current definition doesn't "embody planetary theory," it certainly does. I don't think I need to tell you about how primordial planets formed, but it most certainly involved "orbiting the sun," "clearing their orbit," and eventually "collapsing into a spherical shape."
Some cursing would be nice to spice things up a bit though.
posted by anomie at 2:10 PM on September 14, 2006
Oh, okay, I can see that.
It still seems to be a really petty thing for the IAU to get worked up about though.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:11 PM on September 14, 2006
It still seems to be a really petty thing for the IAU to get worked up about though.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:11 PM on September 14, 2006
anomie: In order to determine the way in which operationally defining a planet helps to advance theory, you have to operationally define it.
Certainly. I'm just pointing out that there is no single way in which you can say that this definition is better than a definition that includes Ceres, Pluto and Eris.
I see a logical difference between Ceres and Jupiter. I personally think the line should be drawn in order to avoid grouping dissimilar objects together.
Certainly, and there is a logical difference between the Earth and Jupiter so that it can be misleading to put them in the same class. The Earth-Moon system has more in common with Pluto-Charon than with Jupiter. The composition of the Earth has more in common with Ceres than with Jupiter.
So depending on which dimension you choose to examine, you are already including dissimilar objects and excluding similar objects.
And while I wish in no way to discount the discovery of Ceres, Eris, Quoar, or other such objects, I don't see them as being in the same class as the discovery of Saturn or Jupiter.
Well, to start with Saturn and Jupiter appear to have been independently discovered by ancient naked-eye astronomers around the world. But on the other hand, Uranus and Neptune were discovered in modern times.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:19 PM on September 14, 2006
Certainly. I'm just pointing out that there is no single way in which you can say that this definition is better than a definition that includes Ceres, Pluto and Eris.
I see a logical difference between Ceres and Jupiter. I personally think the line should be drawn in order to avoid grouping dissimilar objects together.
Certainly, and there is a logical difference between the Earth and Jupiter so that it can be misleading to put them in the same class. The Earth-Moon system has more in common with Pluto-Charon than with Jupiter. The composition of the Earth has more in common with Ceres than with Jupiter.
So depending on which dimension you choose to examine, you are already including dissimilar objects and excluding similar objects.
And while I wish in no way to discount the discovery of Ceres, Eris, Quoar, or other such objects, I don't see them as being in the same class as the discovery of Saturn or Jupiter.
Well, to start with Saturn and Jupiter appear to have been independently discovered by ancient naked-eye astronomers around the world. But on the other hand, Uranus and Neptune were discovered in modern times.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:19 PM on September 14, 2006
It still seems to be a really petty thing for the IAU to get worked up about though.
The media was far more worked up than the fraction of the IAU who actually showed up for the vote.
Certainly. I'm just pointing out that there is no single way in which you can say that this definition is better than a definition that includes Ceres, Pluto and Eris.
Out of curiousity, how can one say one definition is "better" than another? More specific? (Genuine question.) If specificity is at issue, a less broad definition would seem to be more apropriate.
Certainly, and there is a logical difference between the Earth and Jupiter
Not to state the obvious (I seem to do a lot of that) but isn't that why we have "inner planets" and "outer planets?"
And now we have "dwarf planets." You argue that complexity in numbers of planets is not bad, but complexity of planet categories is bad? Where would you draw the line? This definition is not perfect. And I don't see Ceres having much in common with Pluto other than size. But I don't think they should be in one obnoxiously large category, because it would detract from the notion of a planet forming from the accretion disk in the classical planet-like way.
I think Ceres has more to do with an asteroid than a planet, and perhaps should be called a "large asteroid." Maybe Pluto should be a close Kuiper belt object. I have no problem with this. The (sentimental?) issue I have is calling a bunch of small objects "planets" simply because they are bigger than Pluto. Pluto-like is not a good definition IMO.
posted by anomie at 2:49 PM on September 14, 2006
The media was far more worked up than the fraction of the IAU who actually showed up for the vote.
Certainly. I'm just pointing out that there is no single way in which you can say that this definition is better than a definition that includes Ceres, Pluto and Eris.
Out of curiousity, how can one say one definition is "better" than another? More specific? (Genuine question.) If specificity is at issue, a less broad definition would seem to be more apropriate.
Certainly, and there is a logical difference between the Earth and Jupiter
Not to state the obvious (I seem to do a lot of that) but isn't that why we have "inner planets" and "outer planets?"
And now we have "dwarf planets." You argue that complexity in numbers of planets is not bad, but complexity of planet categories is bad? Where would you draw the line? This definition is not perfect. And I don't see Ceres having much in common with Pluto other than size. But I don't think they should be in one obnoxiously large category, because it would detract from the notion of a planet forming from the accretion disk in the classical planet-like way.
I think Ceres has more to do with an asteroid than a planet, and perhaps should be called a "large asteroid." Maybe Pluto should be a close Kuiper belt object. I have no problem with this. The (sentimental?) issue I have is calling a bunch of small objects "planets" simply because they are bigger than Pluto. Pluto-like is not a good definition IMO.
posted by anomie at 2:49 PM on September 14, 2006
Not to state the obvious (I seem to do a lot of that) but isn't that why we have "inner planets" and "outer planets?"
If you ask me a more operationally useful distinction would be "rocks", "chunks of ice", and "balls of gas".
And Ceres is big and round, where most asteroids are small and irregular. I think there's utility in dividing things as to location as well, but I don't think that's the same thing as classifying them. After all, these things are known to move.
posted by dhartung at 5:12 PM on September 14, 2006
If you ask me a more operationally useful distinction would be "rocks", "chunks of ice", and "balls of gas".
And Ceres is big and round, where most asteroids are small and irregular. I think there's utility in dividing things as to location as well, but I don't think that's the same thing as classifying them. After all, these things are known to move.
posted by dhartung at 5:12 PM on September 14, 2006
Oh, and I forgot balls of fluff. I've got enough of them under the bed, thanks.
posted by dhartung at 6:20 PM on September 14, 2006
posted by dhartung at 6:20 PM on September 14, 2006
\ / ----->< ----- / \/tt>posted by krinklyfig at 10:00 PM on September 15, 2006
Oh, damn ...
posted by krinklyfig at 10:00 PM on September 15, 2006
posted by krinklyfig at 10:00 PM on September 15, 2006
« Older Suspected shooter poses with CX4 Storm... | The Demure du Chaos Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pax digita at 6:16 AM on September 14, 2006