Comments on: An Acknowledgement to a Distant Cousin Once Removed

By: dave

dave — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:21:57 +0000

Hmm…it’s a tough one alright…Although my frame of reference is based in Australia where we only have Koala bears which aren’t actually bears. You are quite right though, to use the phrase “Dwarf Planet” would suggest that both of those words were accurate choices to describe what was supposed to be being described (unlike “seahorse” and “black forest gateau”) I guess the moral of the story is that name calling only leads to hurt feelings.

By: Laurel Kornfeld

dave — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:21:57 +0000

By: Laurel Kornfeld

dave — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:21:57 +0000

Comments on: An Acknowledgement to a Distant Cousin Once Removed

dave — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:21:57 +0000

By: Laurel Kornfeld

Laurel Kornfeld — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:38:23 +0000

Eris is only marginally bigger than Pluto, and both should be considered planets. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity–a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned.