Reading Tyson's "The Pluto Files"

Was I too hard on Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson in my initial post about The Pluto Files? Several readers thought so and sent me emails with that message. That post was not intended to be a review of the book but a commentary on Tyson’s public statements in various discussions of the planet definition issue.

I do thank Tyson for directing his publisher to send me a copy of the book, which I received last Saturday and read immediately. Going out of his way to make sure that someone who has publicly criticized him gets a chance to read, review, and keep his book is commendatory.

Contrary to some who communicated with me, I do not have any personal animosity toward Tyson. His endearing way of making astronomy accessible to the public is certainly a positive for him.

However, I do see some very real problems, including contradictions, in his public statements about Pluto. As for the seeking of “celebrity” status, I am in principle opposed to the concept of “celebrities” and don’t believe anyone should be paid thousands of dollars for a lecture or “personal appearance.”

And I wish Tyson had stayed for the entirety of the Great Planet Debate in August rather than just attend for his debate with Dr. Mark Sykes. The best of that conference, the rich exchange of ideas, took place mostly in the other, more participatory sessions throughout the two-and-a-half days.

But back to Pluto. My initial use of the word “preposterous” in the earlier entry was specifically aimed at the subtitle “The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet.” Pluto has not “fallen” from grace. This saga is far from over. Pluto has had its ups and downs, its detractors and supporters, since 1931, one year after its discovery. An assumption that the debate is over, inherent in the title, is unwarranted and in my view, preposterous.

Tyson’s book is a fun, entertaining read, and its pages contain many cartoons and illustrations. It is clearly accessible to children and adults alike. He even cites two songs I referred to in an earlier entry, “Planet X” by Christine Lavin and “I’m Your Moon” by Jonathan Coulton. I like that.

Defining “Planet”:

In an email to me, Tyson emphasizes his conviction that we are not on opposite sides of the planet debate, saying he does not care what the definition of planet is. He notes that he would have no problem with the term planet being defined as anything that is round but then opines that such a classification is not useful pedagogically or scientifically because it would leave us with dozens of planets.

I find those two statements contradictory. The latter sentence indicates he does in fact have a problem with using roundness as the criterion for planethood. Why would having dozens of planets not be “useful” education wise? We have billions of stars and billions of galaxies. Among objects known as stars and those known as galaxies, there are huge variations, which are designated by subcategories. Would it make sense to say the sheer number “devalues” the terms “star” and “galaxy,” and thereby makes these concepts unteachable? The answer is clearly no. Why then, should we have a different standard for planets?

And that is the beginning of where, in spite of recognizing the fun and entertaining tone of Tyson’s book, I disagree with his conclusions.

If Tyson really does not care what the definition of planet is, why then does he proceed to argue against using the criterion of hydrostatic equilibrium--roundness--by saying its resulting in numerous planets makes it not useful? Also, while he rightfully acknowledges the IAU planet definition as flawed, he then muddies the waters by invoking that vote to vindicate his decision to not include Pluto as a planet in the Rose Center display. Which one is it? Either the IAU definition is a step forward or it is not. If he believes it is not, then he should not be citing it to support his choice in designing the planetarium.

On page 132, Tyson states that the IAU “added the word ‘dwarf’ the way astrophysicists have used it for dwarf galaxy (which is still a galaxy) and for dwarf star (which is still a star). But to no avail. As far as anyone was concerned, the IAU killed planet Pluto.”

It seems he has forgotten about resolution 5b--the umbrella resolution that, had it passed, would have made dwarf planets a subclass of planets. Unfortunately, the IAU members participating voted that measure down, meaning they specifically intended to depart from traditional usage by adopting a definition that intentionally said a dwarf planet is not a planet at all.

If the whole “the IAU killed planet Pluto” was just media hype, why then does Tyson title many of his lectures, “How I Killed Pluto, and Why It Had It Coming?” Which one is it?

And, if he truly believes the IAU decision is flawed, why does he then proceed to argue that that vote is representative of planetary scientists around the world--a point widely contested since only four percent of the IAU’s membership voted on this and most are not planetary scientists. Why does he then go on to criticize the petition of scientists who rejected the IAU decision and point out how many signatories were American versus non-American? If he doesn’t care how planet is defined, he should have distanced himself from all sides of the 2006 dispute.

Voting is not the way science is done. If it were, a group of prominent PhDs could vote that the sky is green. Would that make their statement true? Did scientists vote on the theory of relativity? Dr. Alan Stern rightly points out that in science, ideas rise and fall on their own merit. That is a process that takes time. It does not provide instant gratification. It does not give a neat, clean, “planet or not planet” answer in time for
the next newspaper or textbook deadline.

Maybe we need to take the time to study Pluto, the Kuiper Belt, and extrasolar planets in depth before reaching a definitive conclusion. Contrary to the claims of some, children can be taught that sometimes, we just do not have enough information to make a final determination. And even determinations deemed to be final can be later reconsidered.

The point of the petition was to show that within days, hundreds of experts rejected the IAU decision. The only reason the petition had so many American signatories is that most planetary scientists are American.

It’s Not A Comet:

Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object, but Tyson is incorrect in describing it as a “large comet” and as just another member of the Kuiper Belt. He believes it is a choice to use hydrostatic equilibrium, which is expressed in roundness, as the fundamental criterion in planet definition. This is where his argument falls apart.

Ask anyone to draw his or her conception of a planet. Inevitably, everyone will draw an object that is round. Roundness is universally accepted as the way planets appear. For an object to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, it must be sufficiently massive so that its shape is controlled by gravity rather than by chemical bonds. Pluto clearly meets this criterion, as do Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, various other objects in the Kuiper Belt, and probably the “asteroids” Vesta, Pallas, and Hygeia. These objects behave like the larger objects in the solar system--the planets--and not like the tiny asteroids and majority of Kuiper Belt Objects.

Planetary scientists measure objects by mass, not volume. Pluto’s mass is 70 percent rock and 30 percent ice. Most of the rock is in the planet’s center and has less volume than the ice. Tyson departs from the convention used by planetary scientists and decides to use volume as an object’s primary characteristic instead. He states, “If volume is what matters to you, then you can rightly declare that Pluto is mostly ice. This fact sits within a long list of properties that are not shared with any other planet in the solar system” (page 33).

So in order to lump Pluto with comets and shapeless KBOs, Tyson must resort to using a different measure than that used as the standard in the field.

And even if by his definition Pluto “is mostly ice,” well, Uranus and Neptune have several Earth masses of ice within them. Are they then not planets?

The reality is that volume has nothing to do with whether or not an object is a planet.
As for his claim that if brought into the Earth’s orbit, Pluto would grow a tail, this is true. But it is also true that any planet brought close enough to its parent star would grow a tail due to the evaporation of its atmosphere. In fact, Earth in its current orbit has a magnetotail. If Earth were brought 30 times closer to the sun than its current orbit--the equivalent of placing Pluto in Earth’s orbit--it too would grow a tail. Some of the “hot Jupiters” found orbiting other stars have visible tails. Many are several times the size and mass of Jupiter. Are they comets rather than planets?

Tyson also argues that Pluto is a big comet because its eccentric orbit matches that of other comets and Kuiper Belt Objects. But Earth’s orbital parameters match those of about a million near Earth asteroids. Is Earth therefore an asteroid?

The answer to all these questions is no because celestial objects are classified by their intrinsic attributes, not by what orbits with them. Otherwise, we’re back to the same preposterous definition created by the IAU in which the exact same object is a planet in one location and not a planet in another.

If Earth were placed in Pluto’s orbit, it would not have enough mass to clear that orbit. This was definitively proven in calculations by Dr. Hal Levison, who interestingly is a dynamicist and therefore a supporter of the eight planet schematic.

Maybe the reality is that it was easier to lay out the Rose Center display into neat categories of terrestrial planets, asteroid belt, gas giants, and Kuiper Belt. After all, it would be a lot more complicated and probably cost more money to name and highlight a few round objects in the asteroid belt and another group, including Pluto, in the Kuiper Belt. Unfortunately for planetarium designers, the solar system is not so neatly arranged, messier than a simple display of four clear categories.

Why Do We Love Pluto?

A final area where I believe Tyson is wrong is his attribution of public affinity for Pluto to the Disney dog. Maybe this is because, as stated in the book’s acknowledgments section, his brother-in-law is a Disney expert. “I could find none,” he says in attempting to find a reason that explains Pluto’s continuing popularity.

Just because he cannot identify a reason doesn’t mean there isn’t one--or many. Most children and adults fascinated by Pluto already have some interest in astronomy and the solar system. When I pointed this out in an email, Tyson stressed that he is referring to the public rather than professionals in the field.

So am I. The public has always had some degree of fascination with the space program, with the discovery of “strange new worlds.” Of the solar system’s known planets, Pluto is one of the least understood. We have never seen images of it up close. We have no other binary planet systems, which Pluto and Charon essentially are. Therefore, Pluto is enigmatic, mysterious, the frontier of our knowledge, at least about our solar system.

That is appealing in the same way that Mars is appealing in that it is both known and unknown, Earth-like, yet different. More science fiction stories have been written about Mars than about any other planet. It is the same reason so many children--and adults--become fascinated with dinosaurs. There is that element of mystery, of something both like and unlike what we know, something remote, either in time or in space.

And yes, there is the appeal of the underdog. Pluto was discovered not by a professional astronomer, but by a Kansas farm boy who at the time had only a high school education. Inherent in that story is an anti-elitism, a conviction that anyone, regardless of the circumstances of his or her birth, can accomplish great things. Notably, Clyde Tombaugh himself was an underdog even once he obtained a formal post-secondary education. Not having a PhD, he was often looked down on by his peers in the field. Perhaps they resented the fact that someone with less formal training than they had had done something they did not--discover a planet.

The IAU decision very likely caused Pluto’s popularity to skyrocket worldwide. Like it or not, we all, scientists included, project our own sentiments onto the world around us. By demoting Pluto and singling it out for exclusion, the IAU effectively made it the Charlie Brown of the solar system. Who has not, at one time or another, identified with that?

As further illustration of Tyson’s generalizing, he comments on page 121 regarding the 2006 IAU decision, “Angry third graders from the year 2000 were now in high school with other (hormonal) priorities to distract them.” Personally, I was somewhat taken aback by his assumption that all the students who had cared enough to write letters in 2000 were now distracted by “hormonal priorities.” How does he know? Not every teenager is all hormones all the time. In fact, some may have maintained their interest in astronomy. How does he know they were not upset by the IAU decision? Their letters at this point would likely be typed on a computer, written in the same language as those of adults, and not include their age or grade. As with the attribution of people’s love for Pluto to the Disney dog, Tyson’s wholesale categorization of high schoolers as walking hormones is a gross generalization, not to mention it is demeaning to teenagers.

Tyson is certainly a highly credentialed astrophysicist, not to mention charming and entertaining. His book most certainly adds to the growing lexicon of literature on Pluto and the planet debate. I would never in any way begrudge him this. His chronicling of popular celebration of Pluto is itself an example of our ongoing fascination with this little world.

But that world has not fallen. It is not dead. The story continues. I believe planet Pluto will rise again, and I still hold out the hope that it will be in 2009.

Tombaugh Official Telescope Dedication

Today in Animas, New Mexico, at the Rancho Hidalgo housing development, the 16-inch telescope used by Pluto discoverer Clyde Tombaugh in his later years will be officially dedicated at its new home, where it will serve as a centerpiece in a new educational program.

Members of the Tombaugh family and Tombaugh biographer David Levy, one of the discoverers of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which hit Jupiter in 1994, will be present for the dedication.

As an interesting note, in his later years, Tombaugh was aware of the controversy surrounding Pluto's status. Levy reportedly promised Tombaugh that he would always be a voice for Pluto's planethood, even after Tombaugh was gone.

The 16-inch telescope at Rancho Hidalgo has been refurbished and updated for frequent use. Gene Turner, one of the developers of this community, emphasizes that there are many people eager to look through Tombaugh's telescope. Personally, he has set himself a goal of viewing Pluto and Charon through the telescope as two separate objects, a feat rarely accomplished by amateur astronomers. Charon is half the size of Pluto and very close to the planet, which is why for so long, astronomers believed Pluto was far larger than it really is.  Until the discovery of Charon by James Christie in 1978, nobody realized that they were actually looking at not one but two separate objects in very close proximity to one another.

The owners of Rancho Hidalgo also own the Arizona Sky Village, another housing development geared specifically to skywatchers and therefore also a dark sky site (something that those of us here in light polluted New Jersey can very much appreciate!).

At Rancho Hidalgo, Pluto is a planet, says Turner, who plans to put a provision stating so in the development's official documents.

More information on Rancho Hidalgo and the Tombaugh telescope can be found at http://www.hidalgonm.com/ranchohidalgo_025.htm

Who Are the "Plutophiles?"

After reading Time magazine's interview with Neil de Grasse Tyson, I would like to comment on a statement Tyson makes regarding "Plutophiles," a term he uses for supporters of Pluto's planet status. Tyson is wrong when he says "Plutophiles" are only Americans. I have heard from and read writings by people from all over the world who want to see Pluto reinstated as a bona fide planet, not a dwarf, people from Australia, England, Canada, New Zealand, Egypt, the Philippines, Morocco, India, Pakistan, and many other locations.

But one does not have to take my word for it. There are Internet groups and web sites all over the world organized by people who want to see Pluto reinstated as well as see dwarf planets categorized as a subclass of planets. There are astronomers worldwide, some of whom are IAU members, others who are not, who reject the IAU demotion of Pluto. Some of them were at the Great Planet Debate.  One can see names from around the world in Dr. Stern's petition of 300 professional astronomers who rejected the IAU decision, which can be found here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/

Tyson also overly emphasizes the connection with the Disney dog, to which he attributes much of the public's fascination with Pluto. This is quite a supposition and assumes he knows the motivation of people who want to see Pluto's planet status reinstated. What he does not take into account is that many "Plutophiles" are amateur astronomers and astronomy enthusiasts (both adults and children) whose interest in Pluto the planet is completely independent of Disney. Of the many adults and children with whom I have corresponded or whom I have met, none even mentioned Disney in connection with their convictions about Pluto.

I tried to email Gilbert Cruz, writer of the interview, but all four attempts resulted in a bouncing email address. If anyone has contact information for him at Time magazine, please share it with me.

The Preposterously-Titled PR-Driven "Pluto Files"

We are two weeks into the International Year of Astronomy, and already there have been fascinating new developments in the field, including the imaging of exoplanets’ atmospheres; the presence of methane on Mars, indicating it is not a “dead planet”; new information revealing that our Milky Way galaxy is far bigger than previously thought, and much more.

Significantly, today is the third anniversary of the launch of New Horizons, which is now six and a half years from reaching Pluto.

However, one Pluto-related news item this month turns out to be driven far more by the desire for press and public relations than by the quest for knowledge. Specifically, I am referring to the latest book by Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, titled The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet.

Rise and fall? To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of Pluto’s “death” have been greatly exaggerated.

Pluto is about as “dead” as a soap opera character who is presumably killed under mysterious circumstances, yet there is no body to prove the person is truly dead. Of course, everyone already knows the character mourned by others on the show will inevitably return in a few years when the actor renews his or her contract.

Tyson, whose presentation at the Great Planet Debate involved far more show than substance, appropriated the “Pluto is not a planet” stand about eight years ago when the Hayden’s Rose Center for Earth and Space re-opened in 2001, gaining him notoriety for his exclusion of Pluto from the planet display.

Since then, Tyson has used his stand on Pluto to catapult him to celebrity status, conducting tours, lectures, and TV interviews around the country proudly bragging about the hate mail he received from third graders when his exclusion of Pluto from the Rose Center became public knowledge.

Tyson is not a planetary scientist. In fact, he is not a research scientist at all. His interviews are characterized largely by sound bytes, theatrics, and wild statements such as “Pluto is happier with its Kuiper Belt brethren than as a planet.” I guess he has a direct line to Pluto since he comments with such certainty about how the planet “feels.”

In his presentations, Tyson frequently comments on Pluto having an elliptical orbit, claiming “that is no way for a planet to behave,” arguing that such an orbit is more typical of comets. Does he ever consider that maybe planets have a much wider range of behavior styles than he or anyone else has previously thought? Many of the giant exoplanets we have found, most of which are significantly larger than Jupiter, have very elliptical orbits. Does that make them comets instead of planets?

Tyson also likes to argue that if it were placed closer to the sun, Pluto would grow a tail like a comet. That is true, but it is only half the story. Any planet brought close enough to the sun (or to its parent star), including Earth and even Jupiter, would grow a tail due to sublimation and outgassing. Of course, Tyson won’t tell that second point to his audiences.

He also loves to portray “Plutophiles” as ignorant of the fact that there are moons in our solar system larger than Pluto. “How many of you know that?” he questions Pluto supporters in his audience, with the assumption they do not know.

Those who have spent any time studying the solar system are aware of this. However, many of us recognize that the round moons of planets are planets themselves in every way—they are in hydrostatic equilibrium and geologically differentiated, just as the primary planets are. Tyson’s claim that no one has proposed calling them planets is false. Nineteenth-century textbooks referred to them as “secondary planets”; this takes dynamics into account by still defining them as planets but as ones with a secondary orbit around the sun and a primary orbit around another planet.

Referring to these moons as secondary planets immediately does away with the size-based argument used against Pluto.

At the Great Planet Debate, Tyson proposed doing away with the term “planet” altogether and adopting a wholly new classification system where objects are grouped with other like objects. However, he never presented a comprehensive alternative schematic other than to articulate two groups of objects, the terrestrial planets and the gas giants.

If we are to group objects with those like one another, Pluto cannot be grouped solely with other Kuiper Belt Objects just as Ceres cannot be grouped solely with other bodies in the asteroid belt. To do this is to ignore the fundamental characteristic of hydrostatic equilibrium, that is, of being spherical and therefore geologically differentiated.

Tyson never explains why he is okay with glossing over this crucial difference between planets and asteroids. This is a major weakness in his arguments.

Supporters of Pluto’s demotion often discuss how even as children, they viewed Pluto as not fitting into either of the two categories of planets, the terrestrial planets and the gas giants. Quoting Sesame Street, they argue, “one of these things is not like the others.”

But what if there are more than two classes of planets? What if there is a third class, the ice dwarfs, which may lie among a belt of objects but have compositions that significantly distinguish them from most of the other objects in those belts? Isn’t it a disservice to not even consider this possibility?

Personally, I question Tyson’s motivation in his “demote Pluto” quest. A look at his web site shows a list of public appearances and TV interviews across the country. One can be reasonably certain that Tyson will repeat the same lines, practically verbatim, in each one of these presentations.

Those who buy his book or attend his lectures deserve to know that he is being paid well to do the lecture circuit and be the astrophysicist version of a celebrity. There is nothing illegal about this; however, it cannot help but lead many to question how much of this is about Tyson’s celebrity status. Much of his latest book is about himself. Has he been attaining money and fame at Pluto’s expense? Clearly, he benefits personally from this public stand. Could that be at least part of his motivation in being so adamant about categorizing Pluto as a non-planet? The public has a right to know.

Meanwhile, in spite of Tyson’s theatrics, there is a significant backlash underway to get Pluto’s demotion overturned, possibly even at this year’s IAU General Assembly this summer. The January 3, 2009 issue of The Independent article “Planetary Storm Over Status of Pluto,” which can be found here, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/planetary-storm-over-status-of-pluto-1222862.html describes efforts underway to get Pluto’s planet status reinstated.

New York Times science writer Ken Chang, in “How Many Planets Do You Want in the Solar System?” which can be found at http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/how-many-planets-do-you-want-in-the-solar-system/ , published on January 10, 2009, makes clear that Pluto’s status is still very much part of an ongoing debate and notes that he has not met anyone for whom the IAU definition clarifies this issue. I will note that I have a personal appreciation for Chang, who actually quoted me in the text of his article!

Yet a commenter who identifies himself only as “Wayne,” makes what I believe is the most important point in this debate when he points out that we are arguing over something subjective rather than objective. He says:

“It astonishes me that people talk about this as a matter of scientific inquiry, like the discovery of a new species or new information about the atom. This is nothing more than a matter of subjective definition that has no right or wrong to it. Some people say “I choose to define ‘planet” as such-and-such,” while others say “I choose to define ‘planet’ as so-and-so.” Nobody can say that Pluto is or is not a planet in the same sense that s/he can say that the Earth does or does not revolve around the Sun (emphasis mine). Opinions on this sort of question are just as subjective as whether or not Citizen Kane was a great movie (not). That doesn’t mean we can’t argue about it, but we should let go of the idea that we are pronouncing something of scientific objectivity when we make up our mind about our own opinion on the matter.”

Far from having “fallen,” Pluto continues to inspire children and adults, as can be seen from a new 13-minute film titled “Naming Pluto.” Produced by Father Films, it documents the naming of Pluto by British schoolgirl Venetia Burney in 1930 as well as her first view of Pluto through a telescope on her 89^th birthday. Information on the film and how to order it can be found here: http://www.fatherfilms.com/films/namingpluto/

In the words of Tim Ophus and Chuck Crouse, who respectively wrote the music and lyrics to “Dwarf Planet Nothing (The Pluto Song),” which can be found here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlkYe6i3Dns&feature=PlayList&p=C928956660965F3A&index=1&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

"Pluto’s going to rise once again!!!"

May it be in 2009.

"Yes, Earth Residents, There Is A Planet Pluto"

Some supporters of Pluto's demotion have begun to express dismay that people won't just "get over it" and accept the IAU's decree. In an April 2008 post on Universe Today, Fraser Cain bemoans, "This has got to be be one of the most heartbreaking questions I get asked, "Why Isn't Pluto a Planet". And I get it a lot. I was expecting that a few years after the International Astronomical Union's controversial decision, the debate would have settled down and people would finally accept it. But no, it's still a sore point for many people."
Source: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/10/why-pluto-is-no-longer-a-planet/

While I respect Cain as a knowledgeable and competent astronomer, I also find it interesting that he was for Pluto being a planet before he was against it. In a February 22, 2006 comment on Universe Today, he says, "If the decision were up to me, I'd say Pluto's a planet. For starters we wouldn't have to go back and edit all those astronomy textbooks, websites, sculptures, museum exhibits and PBS documentaries. Our Solar System just isn't so simple; objects scale from the tiny to the huge, with all sizes in between. Any decision on Pluto's planethood will be an arbitrary one, and the arbitrary decision I like is… Pluto's a planet. "
Source: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/02/22/so-is-pluto-a-planet-or-not/

Cain is apparently following in the footsteps of Mike Brown, who also supported planet status for dwarf planets before changing his mind.

The fact that among supporters of Pluto's demotion are astronomers who only recently opposed it has to raise questions. What made these people change their minds? The authoritarian decree of four percent of a body that purports to be the arbiter of what is real in astronomy? That seems a lot more like obeying a new religious dictate from on high than something that independent thinking academic types would do.

My grandmother sometimes says that if one or two people make a claim about you, you could dismiss it, as it may or may not be true. However, if one after another person steps up and tells you something even though it may be uncomfortable, then it's time to consider there may at least be some truth in the claim.

Around the world, people are not blindly accepting heartbreak and loss over Pluto because inherently so many of us know the demotion is just plain wrong. It's not just an emotional attachment to Pluto. The IAU seems to have underestimated the intelligence of the world's population in assuming they would unquestioningly agree to nonsensical statements such as "dwarf planets are not planets" or ridiculous notions that ignore what an object is and define it solely by where it is.

People of all ages and backgrounds are smarter than that. That's why the opposition to the demotion isn't going away. And it's not just among Americans, as some like to claim. Yes, this is anecdotal, but I have heard from people in the Philippines, Canada, England, Egypt, Morocco, Australia, New Zealand, and many other parts of the world the same strong convictions supporting Pluto's planet status and its official reinstatement.
In a Science News article dated November 21, 2008, titled "Debates Over Definition of Planet Continue and Inspire," Dr. Alan Stern addresses just why this issue remains an ongoing debate. Stern presents a compelling case of the recent "revolution" in planetary science with new discoveries taking us from a universe with nine familiar objects we called planets to one with a hundreds of planets known to orbit other stars as well as a new neighborhood in our own solar system made up of a host of small planets akin to Pluto (although as of now, only one of these objects, Eris, is known to be more massive than Pluto).

Stern's discussion of this expansion within planetary science can be found at http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/38770/title/Debates_over_definition_of_planet_continue_and_inspire
It is a very worthwhile read that describes why the IAU's decision has not been widely accepted.

From the standpoint of popular culture, efforts to engage children--and adults--in the effort to overturn Pluto's demotion continue, as in this Youtube broadcast from Little Big Planet's Sackboy here: http://www.littlebigland.com/little-big-planet-news/sackboys-save-pluto-video/
Some may dismiss this as a marketing tool, but such a tool would not attract customers if there weren't already strong convictions by children and adults alike in favor of Pluto's planethood.

As for my personal experience, a presentation I and fellow Amateur Astronomers, Inc. member Mike Luciuk conducted on the topic of "Is Pluto A Planet" drew a full house at Sperry Observatory in Cranford, NJ on a rainy November night, meaning everyone of the enthusiastic crowd who showed up did so purely out of interest in this subject. Luciuk and I referred to a 2000 article by Stern and Hal Levison titled "Regarding the Criteria for Planethood and the Proposed Classification Scheme," which proposes two categories of planets, those gravitationally dominant--the "uber planets" and those not gravitationally dominant--the "unter planets." The authors here recognize two classes of objects but never claim that the smaller class, or "unter planets" are not planets at all.

Anyone interested can read articles by Mike Luciuk and me in the October issue of "The Asterism," the monthly newsletter of Amateur Astronomers, Inc., here: http://www.asterism.org/newsletter/2008-10.pdf

I would also like to address the argument that this debate has gone on too long. The passage of time alone does not determine whether or not a principle is correct. Anyone who has taken part in or even observed the proceedings of local government knows that when land use applications come before Planning or Zoning Boards, no one proposes to vote just because it is 11 PM and time for the meeting to end.

If more information needs to be presented, hearings are continued from one month to the next. Sometimes, with a big project, the hearings go on for over a year. This is as it should be. Choosing an arbitrary cut off time to summarily end debate without considering additional data, which is what the IAU did in Prague, would never even be considered for a local building application.

There is a lot of data on Pluto and the Kuiper Belt that we do not yet have. We know we will have it with New Horizons' findings in 2015. Why rush to judgment when we know that most of the facts are not yet in?

We're only two weeks from the first day of 2009, the International Year of Astronomy (IYA), and also the year of the next IAU General Assembly. The International Year of Astronomy is a tremendous, very worthwhile initiative to engage the public in astronomy worldwide, especially to reach out to disadvantaged populations and countries. It is being organized to commemorate the most significant watershed moment in astronomy's history, the first telescopic observations of the sky and celestial objects by Galileo 400 years ago. More information on IYA and how to get involved can be found at http://www.astronomy2009.org/ . The US node for IYA can be found at http://astronomy2009.us/

I am working on promoting IYA events here in New Jersey, where we do not yet have a group coordinating the project. As such, I would love to hear from any individuals or groups interested in organizing IYA events in New Jersey.

The theme of IYA is "The Universe: Yours to Discover." Initiated by the IAU, this global effort is in many ways the polar opposite of the events that took place at the Prague General Assembly in 2006. Why? Because the IAU is inviting citizens of the world to actively take part in discovering the universe instead of dictating by fiat what the "reality" of the universe is.

As for Pluto, the people have spoken--not unanimously, but clearly. The same people whom the IAU seeks to enchant with its 2009 yearlong activities have "discovered" the facts for themselves and have determined that Pluto and dwarf planets are in fact a subclass of planets. The IAU cannot fail to acknowledge this without being rightfully accused of being out of touch with public sentiment.
For me, what was a marginal interest in astronomy has become so much more, and it started with the Pluto debate. Sometimes, what we in the newspaper business call a "hook" is all that is needed to engage people. In the space of two years, I have observed planets, stars, nebulae, open clusters, and galaxies; I've completed the Swinburne Astronomy Online short course "From Planets to the Universe," which I highly recommend, and have discovered the magnificence of the universe for myself.

The weekly newspaper for which I write has committed to a yearlong focus on the International Year of Astonomy by covering astronomy related programs and events here in central New Jersey, a commitment for which I am extremely proud.

Experiences like the ones I have had is what IYA strives to bring to people of all ages all over the world. To successfully accomplish this, the IAU must acknowledge, recognize, and respect public sentiment on astronomical issues. The Pluto case is a classic one, as it involves not just sentiment but sound science as well.

In this holiday season, regardless of what--if anything--one celebrates, my personal message to the world is, "yes, Earth residents, including IAU members, there is a planet Pluto." It's time to acknowledge this and reverse the decision of August 2006. It's the right thing to do, and it just might motivate who knows how many people to discover not just one planet, but an entire universe.

Happy New Year!

Some Other Lessons from Phoenix

Less than six months ago, on the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend, after a family barbeque, several friends and I gathered around my laptop to watch the Phoenix Mars Lander touch down on the north pole of Mars. Of course, we didn't actually see it land; what we saw was the live footage from NASA headquarters. Still, it was a magical moment, followed by an opportunity to view Saturn from my backyard with a special friend's telescope.

That is why, like so many who follow astronomy and the space program, I felt a genuine sadness upon hearing yesterday that Phoenix has frozen with the onset of the Martian autumn and winter. It was like hearing that a friend had died. In fact, Phoenix has been a Facebook friend to me and to many, as are the Mars Rovers, New Horizons, Messenger, the Hubble Telescope, various lunar missions, etc. Even though everyone knew this day would come, there is no denying a very real sense of grief.

We still have many science lessons to learn from Phoenix's findings. But there is another lesson here too, specifically that sentiment and human emotions cannot ever be entirely separated from science.

People ranging from scientists officially part of space missions to avid followers cannot help personifying the spacecrafts and robots we send to explore the solar system. The Mars Exploration Rovers are affectionately referred to as "the girls" or the "twin girls" by the mission's leading scientists, who take enormous pride in the fact these "girls" that were intended to last 90 days have gone on more than four years.  Phoenix inspired the same attachment, the same anthropomorphism; it was the lander built from the remains of a previous unsuccessful mission that became our eyes and ears in searching for water on Mars.

Likewise, we cannot help but view the Pioneers and Voyagers, the only spacecrafts to leave our solar system, as our ambassadors to the stars, as extensions of ourselves pioneering our first ventures into the unknown.

This is why those who argue that science must remain completely free of sentiment are fighting a losing battle. We have no Vulcans; no one,  not even the most objective scientist, can ever completely separate him/her self from human emotions.  What those who demean supporters of Pluto's planet status as being motivated by sentiment are unable  to see is that they, too, are motivated at least somewhat by sentiment. Everyone is; if not, we would never have had the excitement that motivated the Apollo missions or the universal inclination to personify machines sent to Mars.

Sentiment in science is not necessarily a negative thing. How many of today's scientists were first motivated by the thrill of viewing the Apollo missions or even by the wonder of viewing planets or stars through a telescope for the first time? Nothing can substitute for the awe and wonder inspired in so many by the night sky. If we took that away, and insisted only on hard, cold facts and mathematical equations, so much of the beauty of astronomy would be lost.

Of course, sentiment alone, if it contradicts science, is inadequate in telling us anything meaningful about any subject. That is why medieval dogmas like geocentrism cannot be sustained.

The Pluto case is not like that.  There is sufficient science, as discussed in this blog many times, to support the classification of dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, based on their being in hydrostatic equilibrium and experiencing the same geological processes as the major planets.

But, in addition to the science, there is sentiment too. Not just in the US, but all over the world, people are drawn to Pluto, enraptured by it. Maybe it's because of the enigma of an object so small and so far away. Or maybe, with its planet status in question from day one, Pluto has come to represent the underdog in all of us. Whatever the reason, the sentiment is a positive thing, not only because it has science behind it, but also because it means people feel excitement about astronomy, that same excitement experienced during the heyday of the US space program, the same thrill at seeing a celestial object through a telescope for the first time.

More than two years after the IAU vote, that excitement over Pluto is still very much alive. A new PS3 game by the European firm Little Big Planet features Sackboy, a rag doll type character and prototype of an avatar players can customize and use, in "Proposition Pluto," an online petition to get Pluto's planet status reinstated. That petition can be found here: http://www.propositionpluto.com/index.html

I've never had any version of Playstation, but I just might go out and buy PS3 and Little Big Planet's games as a measure of solidarity with Sackboy's support for Pluto.

Mike Wrathell, an artist and writer in Michigan who shares with me a passion for Pluto and for political campaigns, has a site with Pluto-themed art, among many other works, at http://ultra-renaissance.com/ According to Wikipedia, "A documentary about Wrathell and his art called The King of Pluto won an Award of Excellence for its director, Sheila Franklin, at the Berkeley Film & Video Festival in 2004, and was also screened in New York City and Indianapolis." A blog post he wrote about his recent campaign for public office can be found here:
http://americajr.com/news/hallandoates1108.html

I am also happy to report that after I complained about an entry in the LA Times Kids Reading Room that presented only one side of this issue, namely the view that our solar system has only eight planets, the Readers' Representative has contacted me with a pledge to post the other, pro-Pluto as a planet side of this issue, on its online page of reader responses, which can be found here http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/ That post is upcoming.

And for anyone in or near New Jersey, I invite you to a joint presentation at Amateur Astronomers, Inc. in Cranford, NJ this Friday, November 14, at 8:30 PM, by AAI members Mike Luciuk and me on the subject, "Is Pluto A Planet?" This will not be so much a debate but a presentation. Mike has a Masters in astronomy, is very well versed on this subject, and did a superb job putting our Power Point together. The presentation will be at William Miller Sperry Observatory located at Union County College,1033 Springfield Ave., Cranford, NJ. We will discuss the criteria that define a planet and the controversy surrounding Pluto's status. This event is open to the public and has no admission fee. Free parking is provided. For directions and more information on AAI, visit http://www.asterism.org/ . Hope to see you there!

For those who could not attend the Great Planet Debate, both audio and video proceedings of the conference can be found online at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ . The panel discussions are available in audio form, and the debate between Dr. Mark Sykes and Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson can be viewed on video.

In short, there is a lot of continuing good news for Pluto!

Let Go? Hell, No!

This entry is in response to a commenter named Christopher P. Martin, who along with me and quite a few other people posted comments on the naming of Haumea, the solar system's newest planet, at this site: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/haumea/comments/  . Unfortunately, the comments section for the article was closed before I had a chance to answer his last comment, which I feel deserves a response, so I am responding here.

First, Mr. Martin's comment, verbatim: "My throwaway teaching comment was an oversimplification, of course! I, like you, want to encourage debate. That I had to teach Pluto's planet status as a 'fact' was the problem. However, I still insist that people need to 'let go.' It isn't that important. I think anyone who is particularly bothered one way or the other (as you clearly have been for at least two years judging by your extensive livejournal on the topic) should really learn to let go! Doesn't matter what you call it, it's still there! You just said so yourself- reality cannot be changed 'by dictate,' so why do you care what Pluto's called? Stick to your politics. That's a more usual place for passionately expressed semantic debate that fails to change or mean anything."

In an earlier comment, Mr. Martin claimed he left teaching because of frustration over being required to teach the IAU planet definition regarding Pluto's status, an issue I discussed in many previous entries. I believe it is important what Pluto is called for exactly the reason that caused Mr. Martin's frustration. Semantics do matter. Words determine how we perceive the world around us. Terminology determines what is considered important enough to make it into school curricula and what is seen as extraneous. The IAU demotion obviously cannot change the fact that "Pluto is still there," but the harm it can do is cause far fewer people, especially young people, to be aware that it is there.

Supporters of Pluto's demotion can emphasize as much as they want that the new definition does not diminish Pluto's importance, but the fact is, in real life, in real classrooms and textbooks, it does. If curricula that used to teach nine planets now teach only eight, the result is a diminishing of knowledge, typified by the student I mentioned in the previous entry who after telling her mother she learned about the solar system in school, when asked "what about Pluto?" innocently responded, "there is no Pluto."  If he was so bothered by being compelled to teach the IAU definition, Mr. Martin should join those of us who publicly advocate for a fair teaching of the controversy in schools rather than simply walk away.

To some extent, what is and is not important is a value judgment. Mr. Martin may have legitimately decided this issue is not important to him; however, his remarks telling me to "let it go" show a clear lack of respect for my values and, in fact, for anyone who happens to think differently than he does. Our culture, through numerous talk shows and self-help books, has an inherent bias towards "letting things go," which in many cases and for many people, is not appropriate. A one-size fits all solution usually never is. Think about it. If a person believes something is ethically, morally, scientifically, or in any other way wrong, why should he or she give up that conviction just because time passes? It's been five and a half years since President Bush started the Iraq War. Should opponents of the war just "let it go" because time has passed even though nothing has been resolved? Should those of us concerned about global climate change "let it go" because it's been 20 years since the issue came into national focus, and during those years we've gone in the wrong direction regarding dependence on fossil fuels?

If anyone should be urged to "let go," it is the IAU. The people of the world, both scientists and lay people, have spoken--in classrooms, in seminars, on the Internet, in emails, in art and culture, in surveys, even in their purchasing of pro-Pluto merchandise--and have made it clear that by wide margins, they oppose the 2006 planet definition. Leading planetary scientists have gone as far as to hold their own conference on the issue (the Great Planet Debate), and attempts to rectify what the IAU did continue at numerous astronomical and planetary science conferences. Even many who stand by the IAU vote give it lukewarm support at best and admit both the process at the General Assembly and the outcome were sloppy. Yet IAU president Catherine Cesarsky and the IAU leadership stubbornly refuse to admit they might have made a mistake and persist in their denial of public rejection to the decision. Instead of continuing to dig a bigger and bigger hole for themselves and destroy what is left of their credibility, the IAU should own up to the fact that they mishandled this issue and commit to revisit it--along with including electronic voting--at their 2009 General Assembly.

Admitting to the mistake and taking action to correct it would actually increase rather than diminish the group's standing in the world. Everyone makes mistakes; the real courage comes in owning up to them and doing what is necessary to set things right. As a writer and a person who loves astronomy, I do care very much what Pluto is called. Mr. Martin might want to take a look at George Orwell's novel 1984 for a lesson in just how much language is power, and perception is reality. People in power (in this case the IAU) cannot change objective reality of what is out there, but they very well can manipulate perception about it through dictating specific uses of language. To me--and to many others--this is unacceptable, no matter how much time passes, if it is not rectified.

If Mr. Martin doesn't like this journal or my passion about Pluto, he in no way is obligated to read my writing or ever visit this site. He can find plenty of "passionately expressed semantic debate that fails to change or mean anything" in the rhetoric surrounding the upcoming US national elections. Whether he recognizes it or not, the fight to reinstate Pluto's planet status--and that of all dwarf planets--will result in real change. Hopefully, that will be sooner rather than later, but even if it takes 20 or 30 years, I don't plan to "let go" any time soon, and I hope other Pluto supporters have no such plans either. Every time I or other Pluto advocates help one child get a grade reinstated or one teacher to understand that there is legitimate scientific reasoning for viewing Pluto as a planet and therefore teach the controversy rather than just one side of the issue, we are making a difference, as my best friend puts it, "saving Pluto one child at a time" (and one adult at a time as well). Meanwhile, this journal will stay around for as long as is necessary.