Tech News
Irish astronomer sticks to her story and explains why Pluto is not a planet
One of the scientists who was there when they down graded Pluto has defended the decision to call the ice ball a dwarf planet.
Remember when you were thought about the solar system in school? Well, it’s all bull and has been since August 2006. Back in the day, we were told that Pluto was the ninth planet, but what we were told was wrong.
This problem was confronted back in August 2006 when the International Astronomy Union met in Prague to discuss space matters. Such as who was better, Kirk or Picard. After drawing a blank on that one, they decided that Pluto was not a planet and downgraded it to a dwarf planet, which there are millions.
The decision in particular angered Americans, reports the Irish Times, who have a special attachment to Pluto given it was discovered by an American astronomer, Clyde Tombaugh, in 1930.
But one astronomer is sticking to her guns and defending the decision. That astronomer is Irish-born scientist Dame Jocelyn Bell-Burnell, who last night, in Astronomy Ireland’s Christmas lecture in Trinity College, defended the decision taken five years ago.
She said the decision was taken because the outer solar system is full of millions of potential objects such as Pluto. These objects will be discovered with bigger and better telescopes when the time comes. Pluto is not unique in the eyes of astronomers and it is not considered a ‘boss’ among the other objects floating about with it, which is one of the major deciding factors for making something a planet, apparently.
“The consensus among astronomers is that something had to be done. It was getting silly. There are a lot of these so-called trans-Neptunian objects. It is absolutely clear that there are millions of them.”
Well so much for science class.
Bell Burnell did facilitate the meeting at which this decision was made, but she was not an appropriate choice to do this, as her specialty is neutron stars, not planets. Additionally, the video of the session, which can be viewed publicly online, shows that she rushed the discussion toward this particular outcome, frequently ignoring comments and questions by those opposed to downgrading Pluto.
Not only does Bell Burnell err in stating that there was consensus among astronomers that "something had to be done" because too many Pluto-like objects were being found in the outer solar system; she also bases the reason for such a decision on an entirely unscientific notion, specifically,that we cannot have too many planets in the solar system.
Pluto is unique in that it is one of a small number of Kuiper Belt Objects that are large enough and massive enough to be rounded by their own gravity. This means they are geologically differentiated into core, mantle, and crust, just like Earth is, and undergo complex processes characteristic of planets, such as weather and geology. Current thought is that Pluto could harbor a subsurface ocean capable of hosting microbial life.
There is no consensus among astronomers that an object has to be "the boss of its celestial neighborhood" to be considered a planet. This represents only one side in an ongoing debate.
And objections to this controversial decision are not limited to Americans. Three hundred professional astronomers from all over the world immediately signed a formal petition rejecting the IAU decision. Their objection is not due to who discovered Pluto but to conviction in a broader planet definition in which any object that orbits a star and is rounded by its own gravity is a planet.
For more on the pro-dwarf planets as planets side, check out Alan Boyle's book "The Case for Pluto," Dr. David Weintraub's book "Is Pluto A Planet," and my Pluto blog at http://laurelsplutoblog.blogspot.com