It’s almost impossible to not like Journey’s song “Don’t Stop Believing.” It’s a heartwarming tale of inspiration full of dulcet tones and sweet melodies. Not only, it’s catchy! I mean, once you hear it, the song is in your head.
So who’s the jerk that’s been playing it to Pluto?
The former planet, now listed as a dwarf, has made some powerful allies who believe their discoveries will convince astronomers to bring Pluto back into the planetary fold. Mark Sykes of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, suggests that Pluto’s demotion stems from a misconception that full-fledged planets are somehow unusual:
“We are in the midst of a conceptual revolution,” he says. “We are shaking off the last vestiges of the mythological view of planets as special objects in the sky – and the idea that there has to be a small number of them because they’re special.”
Not only that, but:
Sykes believes that missions currently en route to Pluto and the asteroid Ceres, which orbits the sun between Mars and Jupiter, will reveal these dwarf planets as active and intricate worlds. Meanwhile, astronomers may find distant objects as large as Earth which the IAU would not define as planets.
So what does this mean? Well, many astronomers are now coming toward the theory that that any planet large enough to be pulled into a sphere by its own gravity should be considered a planet. Of course, by this definition, not only would Pluto be a planet, so would Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris, all currently considered dwarfs.
Way to go, guys. Everyone knows that once you let Makemake and Eris into the neighborhood, the property values plummet like there’s no tomorrow.
Pluto is NOT a “former planet.” And it doesn’t need to “come back” because it never left. Pluto did not stop being a planet because 424 astronomers made a controversial decision and adopted a vague, unusable planet definition. The requirement that an object “clear its orbit” was concocted specifically to exclude Pluto and keep the number of planets in our solar system low. The IAU definition makes no sense in stating that dwarf planets are not planets at all, a departure from 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 this 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 location is essentially useless.
The IAU should take responsibility for the highly flawed definition adopted by only four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in 2006. However, the IAU should not be viewed as the sole authority on the definition of planet. Many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU. Should they not have a say in this matter? Something does not become fact simply because a tiny group that calls itself an authority says so. It is significant that hundreds of planetary scientists led by New Horizons Principal Investgator Alan Stern immediately signed a formal petition opposing the IAU definition.
There are other venues through which a planet definition can be determined, such as last year’s Great Planet Debate at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. Audio and video proceedings from this far more balanced conference, which I was fortunate to attend, can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ . You can also read more about this issue on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com .
So, are we purporting that there’s a secret conspiracy by the IAU to create a new form of racism vis-a-vis planets?
Because that’s honestly not the kookiest conspiracy theory that I’ve heard this year.
I wish the IAU would stop trying to control my brain. That’s all I ask.