Night Owls

kookaburra99 · kookaburra99, as of 20 Aug 2006 at 03:38 GMT

TheyKnow wrote:

It sets up a rule tailor-made to keep the old club of eight intact and push the one American discovery into second class.

sorry TheyKnow, but gravitational dominance isn't anti-American, it's just basic physics! lol

Punchcard · Punchcard, as of 20 Aug 2006 at 10:52 GMT

Now that the alternative text is actually in front of everyone, we can see what the real debate is about. It comes down to whether gravitational dominance over an orbit belongs in the definition alongside physical shape. That is an honest scientific disagreement, not a political exercise.

The Executive Committee still has to decide what goes forward to the general session. A division room or a published rival paper is merely part of the committee process. Plenty of discussion remains before Thursday afternoon, and the text may well see further adjustments yet. It is far better to wait patiently for the full assembly to cast their ballots before deciding how the ledger settles.

Walter

TheyKnow · TheyKnow, as of 20 Aug 2006 at 16:13 GMT

Basic physics does not care about committee votes in Prague, but committee votes sure care about who gets the funding... Ask yourself why NASA fired a seven-hundred-million-dollar rocket straight toward Pluto in January if the establishment really considered it just a stray pebble in the backwoods.

Now an alternative magically appears that knocks Pluto down to 'dwarf' status while making sure the old European roster stays on top. When someone draws a mathematical circle that just HAPPENS to cut out the single target our own space program is flying to right now, that is not an innocent coincidence, folks. They are managing the narrative, plain and simple.

Sysop_Kev · Sysop_Kev, as of 20 Aug 2006 at 22:24 GMT

TheyKnow wrote:

Ask yourself why NASA fired a seven-hundred-million-dollar rocket straight toward Pluto in January if the establishment really considered it just a stray pebble in the backwoods.

Sure look, NASA launched a probe at a cold lump of ice, not a dictionary entry.

quasistatic · quasistatic, as of 21 Aug 2006 at 06:00 GMT

TheyKnow wrote:

Ask yourself why NASA fired a seven-hundred-million-dollar rocket straight toward Pluto in January if the establishment really considered it just a stray pebble in the backwoods.

Kevin is entirely correct. Missions are funded to investigate geological and physical phenomena, not to validate an entry in an encyclopedia. Exploration does not depend on a bureaucratic honour. We launched spacecraft to explore comets and asteroids long before anyone considered defining the word planet.

Pluto is situated right in the heart of the Kuiper belt. In dynamic terms, it does not dominate its orbital neighbourhood in the slightest; it shares that zone with an entire population of icy bodies and remains locked in a 3:2 mean-motion resonance with Neptune. Claiming that an orbital dominance criterion was engineered merely to target an American probe ignores decades of observational work since 1992.

Punchcard is sensible to remind us that the Executive Committee must still deliberate on how to merge these texts before Thursday. But distinguishing between bodies that gravitationally control their orbital territory and those that simply drift within a vast swarm is ordinary, sound mechanics. Applying proper physics to taxonomy is not an ideological manoeuvre.

PintOfMild · PintOfMild, as of 21 Aug 2006 at 09:38 GMT

Spot on from Kev and quasistatic there. NASA wanted to see what was out on the edge of the solar system, not just tick a box on a school poster! Nobody is plotting against the probe, it is just a bunch of scientists arguing over how to tidy up the textbooks. It does feel sad seeing Pluto get squeezed out after all these years, but if it really is just swimming in a sea of other ice balls, you can see why the astronomers want to draw the line at eight. Thursday is going to be brutal for the poor thing.

TheyKnow · TheyKnow, as of 21 Aug 2006 at 22:01 GMT

quasistatic wrote:

Missions are funded to investigate geological and physical phenomena, not to validate an entry in an encyclopedia.

Well, missions need congressional purse strings, and Congress approved a grand tour of the nine planets, not an expensive trip to an asteroid belt... Now the conference paper says the original twelve-planet plan was completely defeated behind closed doors. They are rushing out another rewrite for lunch tomorrow, so the squeeze on Pluto is definitely on.

Punchcard · Punchcard, as of 22 Aug 2006 at 12:24 GMT

Headlines in a conference paper are meant to sell copies, not settle the matter. Hearing that a working session pushed back against the initial wording simply tells us the committee is doing its job. When people raise sensible concerns, whether over orbital mechanics or awkward terminology that upsets the geologists, the proper course is to redraft the text.

The revised draft is only just being handed out in Prague today, and there will be plenty of discussion at lunch before anything reaches the floor. Jumping to conclusions before the full membership actually reviews the new wording on Thursday is putting the cart before the horse.

Walter

quasistatic · quasistatic, as of 22 Aug 2006 at 14:15 GMT

Punchcard wrote:

When people raise sensible concerns, whether over orbital mechanics or awkward terminology that upsets the geologists, the proper course is to redraft the text.

Walter is quite right. A committee revising its text in response to professional scrutiny is ordinary academic work, not an underhand manoeuvre.

Besides, terminology matters. When geologists pointed out that 'pluton' already has a well established meaning in igneous rock formations, the drafting committee had to listen. Adopting conflicting jargon across scientific disciplines helps no one.

If the lunchtime version properly incorporates gravitational dominance, it will simply reflect the physical reality of the solar system. We should inspect the actual wording of the redraft before making dramatic claims.

Sysop_Kev · Sysop_Kev, as of 22 Aug 2006 at 19:24 GMT

quasistatic wrote:

Walter is quite right. A committee revising its text in response to professional scrutiny is ordinary academic work, not an underhand manoeuvre.

They were shouting at each other today in Prague, so keep it civil here please. -- Kev (mod)

kookaburra99 · kookaburra99, as of 23 Aug 2006 at 02:59 GMT

omg shouting matches?? scientists get so heated lol!

but look at the news from the arvo session - they handed out version three and it finally makes it official: a real planet has to be round AND the dominant body in its zone! Jocelyn Bell Burnell basically said straight up that pluto is a dwarf planet and NOT a planet.

sorry if this is a dumb question, but doesn't that pretty much wrap up the argument? it makes complete sense physically - pluto simply doesn't control its orbit out there in the kuiper belt. having eight true planets based on sound gravitational mechanics is going to be heaps easier to teach than a dodgy list of hundreds of iceballs anyway!!

TheyKnow · TheyKnow, as of 23 Aug 2006 at 03:21 GMT

kookaburra99 wrote:

doesn't that pretty much wrap up the argument?

It wraps things up because they forced the wording to fit, my friend... You have folks shouting at the microphones, three hurried drafts in four days, and now an outright declaration that a dwarf planet is not even a planet. That is not settled science, it is just railroading an outcome.

kookaburra99 · kookaburra99, as of 23 Aug 2006 at 04:14 GMT

It isn't railroading at all though. When hundreds of scientists push back because the first draft completely ignored celestial mechanics, rewriting it to reflect actual orbital physics is just good scientific debate. A real planet controls its space, and Pluto simply doesn't. That isn't a stitch-up, it is just sorting things out properly.

OffByOne · OffByOne, as of 23 Aug 2006 at 05:49 GMT

Strictly speaking, the third draft does not represent a rushed ambush, but rather a necessary correction to an incomplete mathematical model. When the initial proposal considered only hydrostatic equilibrium, it effectively ignored the dynamical reality of orbital mechanics.

A celestial body cannot be evaluated in total isolation from the environment through which it moves. The eight dominant bodies have cleared or gravitationally controlled their zones, whereas Pluto shares its region with an entire belt of debris. Establishing a separate dwarf category based on gravitational dominance is not an arbitrary manoeuvre; it is precise classification. The upcoming vote tomorrow merely codifies standard physics.

quasistatic · quasistatic, as of 23 Aug 2006 at 07:21 GMT

OffByOne wrote:

The upcoming vote tomorrow merely codifies standard physics.

OffByOne sets out the physical logic admirably. To steer us back to the procedure on the floor, the timeline is quite ordinary for an academic assembly.

Two specific points are worth keeping in mind before tomorrow's plenary session:

1. The redrafting process. Far from being rushed through by decree, the wording evolved because the membership demanded sound mechanics. When Jocelyn Bell Burnell presented version three yesterday afternoon, she was presenting the result of intense open debate, not a backroom fait accompli. Requiring a planet to be both in hydrostatic equilibrium and gravitationally dominant resolves the physical contradictions that plagued the first text.

2. The remaining linguistic debate. While Gonzalo Tancredi and others welcomed the compromise, Brian Boyle's note of caution regarding public comprehension is valid. There is undeniable awkwardness in defining a 'dwarf planet' as an entity that does not belong to the category of planets - Owen Gingerich made a similar point earlier in the week.

In short: the science is now sound, even if the nomenclature remains somewhat untidy. Tomorrow's formal vote will tell us whether the wider hall agrees.