PLUTO OFFICIALLY DEMOTED; Now a "Dwarf Planet"

[drclay]

Hello to ASO patrons; you may or may not know by now (August 24) that PLUTO has been demoted from a major planet status.
It appears the the voting that resulted in this was comprised of some Mickey Mouse and Goofy representatives to the International Astronomical Union.  Following is the full "official" announcement from the IAU:

(Dr. Clay)

International Astronomical Union
Paris, France

24 August 2006

IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes

Prague, Czech Republic -- The first half of the Closing Ceremony of the 2006
International Astronomical Union (IAU) General Assembly has just concluded.
The results of the Resolution votes are outlined here.

It is official: The 26th General Assembly for the International Astronomical
Union was an astounding success! More than 2500 astronomers participated in
six Symposia, 17 Joint Discussions, seven Special Sessions and four Special
Sessions. New science results were vigorously discussed, new international
collaborations were initiated, plans for future facilities put forward and
much more.

In addition to all the exciting astronomy discussed at the General Assembly,
six IAU Resolutions were also passed at the Closing Ceremony of the General
Assembly:

1. Resolution 1 for GA-XXVI: "Precession Theory and Definition of the
Ecliptic"
2. Resolution 2 for GA-XXVI: "Supplement to the IAU 2000 Resolutions on
reference systems"
3. Resolution 3 for GA-XXVI: "Re-definition of Barycentric Dynamical Time,
TDB"
4. Resolution 4 for GA-XXVI: "Endorsement of the Washington Charter for
Communicating Astronomy with the Public"
5. Resolution 5A: "Definition of 'planet' "
6. Resolution 6A: "Definition of Pluto-class objects"

The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a "planet"
is defined as 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 (c) has
cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

This means that the Solar System consists of eight "planets" Mercury, Venus,
Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. A new distinct class of
objects called "dwarf planets" was also decided. It was agreed that
"planets" and "dwarf planets" are two distinct classes of objects. The first
members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313
(temporary name). More "dwarf planets" are expected to be announced by the
IAU in the coming months and years. Currently a dozen candidate "dwarf
planets" are listed on IAU's "dwarf planet" watchlist, which keeps changing
as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes
better known.

The "dwarf planet" Pluto is recognised as an important proto-type of a new
class of trans-Neptunian objects. The IAU will set up a process to name
these objects.

[E2Pilot]

You know, in my mind, although the plan put forth last week was not everything it should have been and could possibly cause more issues then there were already, this one is simply nuts.  How hard would have been to say "look, Pluto has been a planet for over 60 years, let's leave it that way, even with some special dispensation if needed, and go from there".  Instead, they have suddenly decided that all the text books in the world need to be re-written based on some sort of bias that can't take into account things like the simple status quo.  We're not talking about life altering stuff here.  If this was a case of changing the text books and everyone's way of thinking because we discovered something momentous that changes the basis for our very way of thinking, then fine.  But what would have been the harm in just leaving this little planet where it was and going from there?  Instead, a single word must be changed to describe the current state of Pluto.  If they had left it alone, the new text books over the next few years could simply add the new designations without having to go back to re-prints now.  To me, this decision was pompous and inane.   

[twilbur]

I am also disappointed by this ruling.
Last week it sounded like the criteria would be:
1) Orbits the Sun (and not some other body, so all moons are ruled out)
2) Is round (because it has enough gravity)
3) Is larger than some arbitrary size, I think they were talking about something like 1000Km diameter or larger

All makes sense, Pluto is a planet, and we would have to add Ceres as a planet which would be fine.

It looks like Pluto (and Ceres) fails on the new rule #3, a very confusing reliance on "clearing" the neighborhood of it's orbit. Since NEOs buzz by fairly regularly it appears to me that Earth fails this criteria as well.

Pretty dumb, I assume the debate will continue and this decision will eventually change.

[kruzmisl]

Following this logic earth (note small e) will no longer be a planet, since its orbit is compromised by numerous metallic objects that it is not able to meet the following: "has
cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."  Of course the group who decided this should be downsized until they can discover what a spell checker is!
John Shwope

[Ambereagle]

One small step for a man, one giant leap backwards for mankind. I can see how it must have felt for Copernicus and Galileo. Lets not expand our thinking into realms of an even greater and infinite solar system than we have ever known or conceived and have yet to discover, but rather limit ourselves to the thinking of the past lest we would all have to learn something new. This decision will fit very neatly into the creationists world view. What next book burning and house arrest for us that think larger than that.

[E2Pilot]

Ambereagle,
First of all, I'm not entirely sure what any of this could possibly have to do with Creationism and why in the world would you want to throw THAT in the mix here.  While I disagree with the findings of the IAU on this one, I certainly don't see it as some sort of attempt to start book burnings and house arrests.  If there is one group of folks in this world that certainly wouldn't push for, ascribe to, or otherwise endorse a "Creationist" or "Book Burning" viewpoint, it would have to be these folks.  I'm fairly certain that there was no great conspiracy by the Church either to inflict their viewpoint here nor, as I am sure, would it be welcomed.   You are certainly welcome to your viewpoint, but as someone who probably ascribes (based on the tone of your post) to the idea that there is no place for religion, creationism, or other "non-scientific" opinions in this arena, remember that YOU brought religion into it first.

[Ambereagle]

E2PILOT
Sorry about mistakenly raising this point. My intent was not to interject any form of religion into the topic, rather it was to point out as an example of the narrow mindedness displayed by the IAU.. Probably a bad choice on my part and for that I apologize for offending your sensibilities. In that we mutually agree that the decision made in Prague was a poor one is of far more importance to me than the miscommunication in the first place.

[E2Pilot]

Ambereagle,
Thanks fo rthe reply, I agree, it does seem rather narrow minded.  Funny thing, I just found out that of the 2,500 scientists that were there, ultimately, only about 300 actually even voted on this.  Good Grief!!!!

[admin]

I think this is a REAL shame and a dishonor to Clyde Tombaugh, who BTW just happened to be an American Astronomer.  Hmmmmmm.

I really hate to say it, but I am not surprised.  Seems there could be a lot more valuable issues the IAU could have been working on.  I don't care what they do; Pluto has been, and always will be a major planet in the solar system to me, and Tombaugh will not be forgotten for his efforts...

Brian Sherrod

[mfortsm]

Humm??  As we discover and hopefully progress the need to make change is a good sign whether one agrees or disagrees.  As for what I would have done( and no one ask me   ) I would have waited untill the spacecraft which is inroute makes a pass and for information to return.  At least it would have bought another 10 years time to not make this kind of decision. 

[surfnda]

I agree, a very sad day for a significant moment in American Astronomical History.  However, issues like this are bound to continue to arise as technology advances.

[dsnay]

It is official: The 26th General Assembly for the International Astronomical
Union was an astounding success! More than 2500 astronomers participated in

How do they define success, I wonder?

six Symposia, 17 Joint Discussions, seven Special Sessions and four Special
Sessions. New science results were vigorously discussed, new international
collaborations were initiated, plans for future facilities put forward and
much more.

In addition to all the exciting astronomy discussed at the General Assembly,
six IAU Resolutions were also passed at the Closing Ceremony of the General
Assembly:

1. Resolution 1 for GA-XXVI: "Precession Theory and Definition of the
Ecliptic"
2. Resolution 2 for GA-XXVI: "Supplement to the IAU 2000 Resolutions on
reference systems"
3. Resolution 3 for GA-XXVI: "Re-definition of Barycentric Dynamical Time,
TDB"
4. Resolution 4 for GA-XXVI: "Endorsement of the Washington Charter for
Communicating Astronomy with the Public"
5. Resolution 5A: "Definition of 'planet' "
6. Resolution 6A: "Definition of Pluto-class objects"

six Symposia, 17 Joint Discussions, seven Special Sessions and four Special
Sessions to decide these few things? Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that an awful long time for such little result?
And does it really take 2500 people to decide it's a good thing for Washington to Communicate Astronomy with the Public?

The "dwarf planet" Pluto is recognised as an important proto-type of a new
class of trans-Neptunian objects. The IAU will set up a process to name
these objects.

I can't wait to see what the naming process looks like. 

Dave

[rfhuber]

Can anyone tell me what this actually accomplished? It almost appears that these people in order to justify their exiistence eliminiated another's. Perhaps there should be a "dwarf mind" category also put in plalce.


Rick H

[rkbrook]

Rick, I don't understand your consternation regarding the domotion of Pluto. It's just a astronomical entity. And who exacly are those being displaced? But consider this: the demotion, as you say (actually a reclassification), is a manifestation of the further learning of the astronomical community. Why the emotionalism?

[rfhuber]

Evidently you have not read any other posts.

Emotionalism has nothing to do with it. Change is good, as long as it has a true purpose

Rick H