I researched an astronomer email server where all the astronomers link up to email one another to talk important buisness. 15 emails were related to a fact that was written on the exact subject " They made a rush decision on the last day of IAU meetings " Stating the fact " astronomers were in Prague , Paris and had been there for over 2 weeks and the Pluto vote was a rush desition because it was1 hour before meetings were adjurned and they were anxious to leave & travel back home. so they rushed the vote "
Some emails said " They should've talked over their facts & voted sensibly on it "
One astronomers email said " They rushed so quickly to get it done they accidently described Earth not a definition as a planet "
Do you think they made a rush decision on the last day ?
2006-09-18 08:11:40 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
yes. I liked Pluto
2006-09-21 16:04:05 · answer #1 · answered by BMac 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iam an astronomer and was there at Prague in that General Assembly, and was among those who voted for reclassification of Pluto as a dwarf planet. The term dwarf planet was found to be unsatisfactory by all ( grammatically a dwarf planet would still be a planet).Also the new definition of planet would need to be refined.This was a rush job as far as the wording of the resolution goes the time allotted for discussion goes..It was NOT a rush job as far as the basic principle of freezing the number of planets was concerned.
When the International Astronomical Union meets three years later in Rio in August 2009 , I am sure they will come up with a better term than Dwarf Planet , and a scientifically more rigorous definition of planet.But there will be only eight planets., by definition.
2006-09-19 00:28:40 · answer #2 · answered by Rajesh Kochhar 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw those emails too Eddie ,
I'm an Astronomer & I wasn't at the voting conference in Prague but here is some insider notes .. ...
Well, at the last minute literally International Astronomical Union (IAU) changed their proposed definition of the term "planet", and voted on it. Pluto is no longer a planet!
Well, maybe.
Usually definitions like this go through a lot of analysis; This one was rushed through at the last minute. As Eddie ( the poster ) has said . I see three problems: It was an irregular vote, it's vague as written, and it doesn't handle faraway planets well. Let's look at each issue in turn.
This was a pretty irregular vote, I think. As I noted, at the last minute the proposal changed, with no time for deeply examining it. There were 2,700 attendees, but only 424 astronomers (about 10%) voted on the proposal that "demoted" Pluto. And only a few days after the vote, 300 astronomers have signed a petition saying they do not accept this IAU definition - almost as many as voted in the first place. That doesn't sound like consensus to me.
it's too vague. That's not just my opinion; Space.com notes that there's a lot of uncertainty about it. Now a planet has to control its zone... but Earth doesn't, there are lots of objects that cross Earth's orbit. Does this mean that Earth is not a planet? I haven't seen any published commentary on it, but I think there's even a more obvious problem - Neptune is clearly not a planet, because it hasn't cleared out Pluto and Charon. A definition which is that vague is not an improvement.
I think it was rushed too because according to their new definition Earth & Neptune are not planets .
Here are some news links at our observatory news wire for your reading ..
300 Astronomers Will Not Use New Planet Definition...
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/
Space.com notes that there's a lot of uncertainty about it...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060831_planet_definition.html
2,700 attendees, but only 424 astronomers (about 10%) voted on the proposal that "demoted" Pluto...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
2006-09-18 16:43:57 · answer #3 · answered by spaceprt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and no. Scientists have been debating Pluto's planetary status for a very long time, since long before I started studying astronomy (which was 15 years ago). And it was announced months before the meeting that they would decide on a definition for the word "planet" at that meeting (I heard about it last spring, and as an educator I'm not exactly in the loop).
That said, I think they could have done a better job phrasing the details of the definition. I have since seen better explanations of the definition that make much more sense (and do not imply that Earth isn't a planet!). I think the decision to reclassify Pluto was the right one, but I think they should have been more careful with their wording.
2006-09-18 09:15:31 · answer #4 · answered by kris 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the outcome would have been any different had they deliberated on it longer. We have always known that Pluto was different than the other planets, but never really had any conclusive proof to "demote" it. With the advent of better technology and communication between astronomers, the finding that Pluto is actually not a planet and the definition of why was inevitable.
At least, that is my opinion...
2006-09-18 08:19:33 · answer #5 · answered by S W 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, the definition of a planet is still pretty vague. My thoughts are that they should define a planet as a body that has an obit with specific orbital characteristics about a sun and also has the ability to have an orbiting moon based on a percentage of its mass. These should be minimum requirements, more would be even better since we have the ability to get more details about any given body.
2006-09-18 08:23:14 · answer #6 · answered by jetfighter 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was not a rushed decision as this debate has been going on for a number of decades. A decision was finally taken. Whether this is the correct one or not time will tell. But it was definitely NOT RUSHED. After all they can always change the verdict. There is nothing final in science. That's the beauty of it.
2006-09-22 20:01:34 · answer #7 · answered by The Stainless Steel Rat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if you come to think about it we are discovering many planets now the fact remains that these planets are bigger than the ones in our solar system. So if they were about to change the minimal diameter and the other specifications of a planet what would earth be called then will it be considered a dwarf planet???
2006-09-18 08:24:55 · answer #8 · answered by Skynet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The decision was probably rushed, but if they had taken their time the out come would have, more than likely, been the same.
They should have taken more time to discuss the issue, but I do think they made the right decision.
2006-09-26 06:42:46 · answer #9 · answered by sangreal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems as though it was rushed. The defintion of a planet reminds me of the philosophical question about a table. We all know a table when we see one, but deifining it can be difficult. Tables can have different numbers of legs, heights, & sizes, but it is still a table. And, you can chop a corner off of the table, but it is still a table. How many "chops" can you take before the table ceases to be a table.
2006-09-22 15:19:58 · answer #10 · answered by robv1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, I think it rush ...it really is much to do about nothing. I don't see why it can't, or should not be referred to a planet After all it has moons, it follows a routine orbit.........it's not about to break away from the gravity of the Sun.
2006-09-18 08:22:13 · answer #11 · answered by ca_christopher1965 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋