The planet’s first Martian rock god, David Bowie, got a bit of unsolicited songwriting help from a linguistic analysis program this week. University of Hertfordshire professor of health psychology Nick Troop applied the software to the singer’s songs, looking for patterns in his subject matter and position on the pop charts. The program churned out the lyrics for a new composition, which Troop turned into a song titled “Team, Meet Girls; Girls, Meet Team”.
I wish Seed Magazine had a place for comments because I would like to
respond to some inaccuracies in Evan Lerner’s August 28 article
“Pluto, David Bowie, and the Flu.”
First, Pluto defenders are not “mourning.” As a writer and amateur
astronomer who has been advocating Pluto’s reinstatement for three
years in a blog and as someone regularly in touch with professional astronomers who dissent with the IAU definition, I can tell you emphatically that supporters of Pluto’s planet status are fighting to get the demotion either overturned or ignored. We most certainly are not mourning.
Our solar system does not contain hundreds of objects equally
qualified for planet status. The overwhelming majority of iceballs
within Pluto’s orbit are significantly different in that unlike Pluto,
they are not large enough for their own gravity to pull them into a
spherical shape. This is what distinguishes asteroids from planets.
Asteroids are rocks shaped by their chemical bonds; planets are shaped
by gravity into spheres, a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium.
While there are a few Kuiper Belt Objects in hydrostatic equilibrium
that should be considered planets, the majority are not. So including
Pluto as a planet does not necessitate including a whole host of
asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects as well.
The problem is with the assumption that there are only two groups of
planets–the inner, rocky planets, and the outer gas giants. The
mistake made by the IAU is in not recognizing a third class of
planets–the ice dwarfs or dwarf planets. These are planets because
they are in hydrostatic equilibrium but are of the dwarf subcategory
because they do not gravitationally dominate their orbits.
Requiring an object to “clear its orbit” to qualify as a planet was
artificially imposed by a very specific group of astronomers known as
dynamicists, who want to keep the number of planets low, limited to
those gravitationally dominant in their orbits. However, the concept
of clearing an orbit is extremely vague. If applied literally, it
could leave us with no planets in our solar system, as none fully
clears its orbit of asteroids, and Neptune does not clear its orbit of
Pluto.
The IAU decision should NOT be the last word for a multitude of
reasons. First, 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. Even Tyson has
distanced himself from the IAU decision, calling it “flawed” and
suggesting that maybe it is too early in the field of planetary
science to be defining a term like planet at all.
Since you mention Tyson’s book, it is only fair that you acknowledge
books written by scientists on the other side of this ongoing debate.
A good one is “Is Pluto A Planet” by Dr. David Weintraub. Another one,
scheduled to be released this October, is Alan Boyle’s “The Case for
Pluto.”
I urge you to reconsider your statement that the IAU decision should
have been the last word on this issue and to acknowledge that there
are still two legitimate sides here, with the IAU view being only one
interpretation. I also urge you to add a feature allowing comments
after your articles so readers can have their say and share their
viewpoints with the public.
Please be polite. You can use these HTML tags: STRONG, A, BLOCKQUOTE, CODE
My name is Paige Maguire. I am a freelance web designer and writer, music editor at Austinist, Director of Marketing & Development at WOXY, and I live in Austin.
Want to send me your music for consideration on Austinist or at WOXY? Contact me.
I am currently counting down my favorite 100 records of all time. Follow me, and leave your suggestions.
Refresh for eight new options.
Copyright © 2004–. All rights reserved.
I wish Seed Magazine had a place for comments because I would like to
respond to some inaccuracies in Evan Lerner’s August 28 article
“Pluto, David Bowie, and the Flu.”
First, Pluto defenders are not “mourning.” As a writer and amateur
astronomer who has been advocating Pluto’s reinstatement for three
years in a blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com and as someone
regularly in touch with professional astronomers who dissent with the
IAU definition, I can tell you emphatically that supporters of Pluto’s
planet status are fighting to get the demotion either overturned or
ignored. We most certainly are not mourning.
Our solar system does not contain hundreds of objects equally
qualified for planet status. The overwhelming majority of iceballs
within Pluto’s orbit are significantly different in that unlike Pluto,
they are not large enough for their own gravity to pull them into a
spherical shape. This is what distinguishes asteroids from planets.
Asteroids are rocks shaped by their chemical bonds; planets are shaped
by gravity into spheres, a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium.
While there are a few Kuiper Belt Objects in hydrostatic equilibrium
that should be considered planets, the majority are not. So including
Pluto as a planet does not necessitate including a whole host of
asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects as well.
The problem is with the assumption that there are only two groups of
planets–the inner, rocky planets, and the outer gas giants. The
mistake made by the IAU is in not recognizing a third class of
planets–the ice dwarfs or dwarf planets. These are planets because
they are in hydrostatic equilibrium but are of the dwarf subcategory
because they do not gravitationally dominate their orbits.
Requiring an object to “clear its orbit” to qualify as a planet was
artificially imposed by a very specific group of astronomers known as
dynamicists, who want to keep the number of planets low, limited to
those gravitationally dominant in their orbits. However, the concept
of clearing an orbit is extremely vague. If applied literally, it
could leave us with no planets in our solar system, as none fully
clears its orbit of asteroids, and Neptune does not clear its orbit of
Pluto.
The IAU decision should NOT be the last word for a multitude of
reasons. First, 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. Even Tyson has
distanced himself from the IAU decision, calling it “flawed” and
suggesting that maybe it is too early in the field of planetary
science to be defining a term like planet at all.
Since you mention Tyson’s book, it is only fair that you acknowledge
books written by scientists on the other side of this ongoing debate.
A good one is “Is Pluto A Planet” by Dr. David Weintraub. Another one,
scheduled to be released this October, is Alan Boyle’s “The Case for
Pluto.”
I urge you to reconsider your statement that the IAU decision should
have been the last word on this issue and to acknowledge that there
are still two legitimate sides here, with the IAU view being only one
interpretation. I also urge you to add a feature allowing comments
after your articles so readers can have their say and share their
viewpoints with the public.