The scientist said what?
Did the reporter and editor miss the sarcasm, or is the person being quoted inexplicably serious in what he’s saying? You tell me.
This story on the BeeB Web site offers a brief overview of the debate in the scientific community about whether Pluto is really a planet, about what makes something a planet, etc. Interesting enough story, coming as it does on the heels of the recent discovery of the “tenth planet,” 2003 UB313.
What’s odd are the remarks in the last section from Michael Brown, one of the astronomers who discovered 2003 UB313. Starting with the sixth graf in the section and really picking up steam in the seventh, we get a string of comments that strike me as pure deadpan sarcasm, but which are played straight. So maybe the guy is being serious?
“From now on, everyone should ignore the distracting debates of the scientists. Planets in our solar system should be defined not by some attempt at forcing a scientific definition on a thousands-of-years-old cultural term, but by simply embracing culture. Pluto is a planet because culture says it is.
…
“I will not argue that it is a scientific planet because there is no good scientific definition which fits our solar system and our culture and I have decided to let culture win this one.“We scientists can continue our debates, but I hope we are generally ignored.”
If so, this is one of the most fascinating scientists I’ve ever met. If not, somebody needs to have a word with the BBC reporter, Alexis Akwagyiram, and her editor.
lullaby pit 
I can see him being serious. Scientists have debated for years what the cut-off point for labeling something a planet or just calling it an “object” or whatever should be, and whether Pluto is a planet or a Kupler (sp) Belt object. Really it is a nameing convention and nothing more, and whatever 2003 UB313 is eventually classified as (and it is definitely bigger than Pluto but probably smaller than our moon) will have no bearing on the science involved… the only difference is that it is far more romantic to consider it a planet.
I can see him being serious. Scientists have debated for years what the cut-off point for labeling something a planet or just calling it an “object” or whatever should be, and whether Pluto is a planet or a Kupler (sp) Belt object. Really it is a nameing convention and nothing more, and whatever 2003 UB313 is eventually classified as (and it is definitely bigger than Pluto but probably smaller than our moon) will have no bearing on the science involved… the only difference is that it is far more romantic to consider it a planet.
But him saying that the world should ignore silly science and cultural decisions are reality and, I don’t know – that sounds like no scientist I ever met.
But him saying that the world should ignore silly science and cultural decisions are reality and, I don’t know – that sounds like no scientist I ever met.
Yep sounds like a dogmatic dork.
It all depends on defintions that are not even as much as a hundred years old. Based on varied definitions Pluto is or is not, and actually our moon could be considered half of a twin planet and not a moon at all. The definitions are not shared by everyone even within the astronomy community.
I am sure will give a lot more details than I can every remember.
Yep sounds like a dogmatic dork.
It all depends on defintions that are not even as much as a hundred years old. Based on varied definitions Pluto is or is not, and actually our moon could be considered half of a twin planet and not a moon at all. The definitions are not shared by everyone even within the astronomy community.
I am sure will give a lot more details than I can every remember.
When incredibly pedantic scientific details are involved, the general public is usually better off ignoring the scientists. Things like the planetary status of some cosmic body or the “correct” start of the new millennium don’t have much of an effect on the lives of non-scientists and tend to be arbitrarily defined by scientists. In cases like those, it’s far easier for a culture to choose what’s convienient for it than to keep up with the wholly academic arguments of scientists.
When incredibly pedantic scientific details are involved, the general public is usually better off ignoring the scientists. Things like the planetary status of some cosmic body or the “correct” start of the new millennium don’t have much of an effect on the lives of non-scientists and tend to be arbitrarily defined by scientists. In cases like those, it’s far easier for a culture to choose what’s convienient for it than to keep up with the wholly academic arguments of scientists.
Actually, in another 200 years nobody will consider Pluto a planet. Someone’ll have some new term for all of those icy entities beyond Neptune with odd orbits, too large to be comets.
There are only 2 reasons why Pluto doesn’t have a comet-like tail: it doesn’t get close enough to the sun, and its large enough that gravity turns any would-be tail into an atmosphere.
Yep. That’s right. Pluto has no atmosphere until it gets warm enough, at which point, its surface evaporates into one.
But, at the present time, the scientist so quoted is correct: Pluto is a planet because we’ve all been taught that it’s a planet, because Percival Lowell decided that there must be a planet beyond Neptune, and everyone loved Percival Lowell back in his day. (He didn’t decide this arbitrarily, but because of errors in Neptune’s predicted orbit.) Pluto, once found, turned out to be far too small to account for the perturbations in Neptune’s orbit. Those are well-accounted for by General Relativity, anyhow.
Give it enough time. When faced with the choice of “demoting” Pluto from 9th planet, adding another 20 large icy spherical objects as “planets,” “promoting” the Moon into a Moon-Earth double-planet, or any other number of strange consequences of forcing astronomical nomenclature thisaway or thataway…. I think everyone will be okay with putting Pluto into a new category, other than “planet.”
Actually, in another 200 years nobody will consider Pluto a planet. Someone’ll have some new term for all of those icy entities beyond Neptune with odd orbits, too large to be comets.
There are only 2 reasons why Pluto doesn’t have a comet-like tail: it doesn’t get close enough to the sun, and its large enough that gravity turns any would-be tail into an atmosphere.
Yep. That’s right. Pluto has no atmosphere until it gets warm enough, at which point, its surface evaporates into one.
But, at the present time, the scientist so quoted is correct: Pluto is a planet because we’ve all been taught that it’s a planet, because Percival Lowell decided that there must be a planet beyond Neptune, and everyone loved Percival Lowell back in his day. (He didn’t decide this arbitrarily, but because of errors in Neptune’s predicted orbit.) Pluto, once found, turned out to be far too small to account for the perturbations in Neptune’s orbit. Those are well-accounted for by General Relativity, anyhow.
Give it enough time. When faced with the choice of “demoting” Pluto from 9th planet, adding another 20 large icy spherical objects as “planets,” “promoting” the Moon into a Moon-Earth double-planet, or any other number of strange consequences of forcing astronomical nomenclature thisaway or thataway…. I think everyone will be okay with putting Pluto into a new category, other than “planet.”
eh … maybe. and maybe Phobos and Deimos will just be labeled ‘captured asteroids’ rather than moons.
i think there’s a certain classical arrogance to all of this. we’ve only (relatively) recently discovered the Kuiper Belt and this 10th planet won’t be the last (there may already be an eleventh). caveman say: “inner planets should be rocky. outer planets should be gas. to add more options would violate some cosmicly divine simplicity”.
not allowing new planets because they may be Kuiper Belt objects (works best if you can give it a 50s “red scare” tone) sounds a lot like the histrionics over illegal immigrants. personally, i think that creepy Russian astrologer who wanted to sue NASA for bumping a comet is behind this. let’s face it, astrologers are cosmic free-masons and the Mt. Palomar Observatory just pissed in their mortar.
what’s the big deal? the asteroid belt exists. the kuiper belt exists. comets exist. the solar system is just side one of your favorite vinyl record. some grooves are wider than others. some seem like afterthoughts, but they’re all just bumps in the inky blackness, drawn toward the big yellow label in the center. sorry, i should steer clear of analogies.
the last i checked, there are at least 4 or 5 moons bigger than both Pluto and Mercury. so, Mercury shouldn’t be a planet either?
the rules for defining a planet should be simple. i am a planet if:
1) i orbit my host star or stars directly. if you need to add a qualifier about ratios of satellite mass to segregate planet/moon systems from double planets, fine.
2) i have enough mass to create a space/time warp signficant enough to pull myself into a roughly spherical shape.
-little sally crapmouth
eh … maybe. and maybe Phobos and Deimos will just be labeled ‘captured asteroids’ rather than moons.
i think there’s a certain classical arrogance to all of this. we’ve only (relatively) recently discovered the Kuiper Belt and this 10th planet won’t be the last (there may already be an eleventh). caveman say: “inner planets should be rocky. outer planets should be gas. to add more options would violate some cosmicly divine simplicity”.
not allowing new planets because they may be Kuiper Belt objects (works best if you can give it a 50s “red scare” tone) sounds a lot like the histrionics over illegal immigrants. personally, i think that creepy Russian astrologer who wanted to sue NASA for bumping a comet is behind this. let’s face it, astrologers are cosmic free-masons and the Mt. Palomar Observatory just pissed in their mortar.
what’s the big deal? the asteroid belt exists. the kuiper belt exists. comets exist. the solar system is just side one of your favorite vinyl record. some grooves are wider than others. some seem like afterthoughts, but they’re all just bumps in the inky blackness, drawn toward the big yellow label in the center. sorry, i should steer clear of analogies.
the last i checked, there are at least 4 or 5 moons bigger than both Pluto and Mercury. so, Mercury shouldn’t be a planet either?
the rules for defining a planet should be simple. i am a planet if:
1) i orbit my host star or stars directly. if you need to add a qualifier about ratios of satellite mass to segregate planet/moon systems from double planets, fine.
2) i have enough mass to create a space/time warp signficant enough to pull myself into a roughly spherical shape.
-little sally crapmouth
very well put.
very well put.
Uh…
Yyyyeaahhhhh… That’s all pretty much what I was saying, in a different form.
“Planete” == “Wanderer” in ancient Greek. Sooo… anything that Og saw “wandering” around the night sky fell into the category of “planet”. Except the Moon, which was given special status.
Then along came the telescope, mucking up the works. Now there were lots of things “wandering” around the night sky? Oh, what to call them?
Asteroids? Worked for a time. But some of the Asteroids are so large, they’re spherical. And larger than some of the bodies orbiting “The Planets”, the latter, being dubbed “moons” by analogy.
Even though several of those “moons” are almost as large as the “planet” Mercury.
So, see, we have this Nomenclature Mess on our hands because of historical “arrogance”. Modern science is left trying to clean it all up, even as it finds strange, unexpected things orbiting our sun and other stars, and now needs to figure out what to call them.
As for your simple definition, it:
a) Makes Earth+Moon a double-planet.
b) Turns Eros, Vesta, and sevearl other erstwhile asteroids into planets, with really eccentric orbits. Which now turns the Asteroid Belt into the “Planet & Asteroid Belt”.
You see the problem.
Über-simplistic definitions of a complex system got us into this mess. Applying more only digs the hole deeper…
Hence my original comment: in 200 years, Astronomy will have a new classification system that makes sense and that everyone uses.
Uh…
Yyyyeaahhhhh… That’s all pretty much what I was saying, in a different form.
“Planete” == “Wanderer” in ancient Greek. Sooo… anything that Og saw “wandering” around the night sky fell into the category of “planet”. Except the Moon, which was given special status.
Then along came the telescope, mucking up the works. Now there were lots of things “wandering” around the night sky? Oh, what to call them?
Asteroids? Worked for a time. But some of the Asteroids are so large, they’re spherical. And larger than some of the bodies orbiting “The Planets”, the latter, being dubbed “moons” by analogy.
Even though several of those “moons” are almost as large as the “planet” Mercury.
So, see, we have this Nomenclature Mess on our hands because of historical “arrogance”. Modern science is left trying to clean it all up, even as it finds strange, unexpected things orbiting our sun and other stars, and now needs to figure out what to call them.
As for your simple definition, it:
a) Makes Earth+Moon a double-planet.
b) Turns Eros, Vesta, and sevearl other erstwhile asteroids into planets, with really eccentric orbits. Which now turns the Asteroid Belt into the “Planet & Asteroid Belt”.
You see the problem.
Über-simplistic definitions of a complex system got us into this mess. Applying more only digs the hole deeper…
Hence my original comment: in 200 years, Astronomy will have a new classification system that makes sense and that everyone uses.