Chris A : “Third, you are apparently claiming not to be the same Steve R. who posts passionately against the IAU’s Pluto decision on Dome-L, the planetarium professionals’ list serve, often using CAPITALS to emphasize his points, and using some of the exact same arguments and syntax, and often rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Whatever, it matters not.”

Yes, I am indeed saying that wasn’t me at least I’m pretty sure its not. It is true that I’ve posted these arguments before but mostly on the Bad Astronomy thread and NOT in capitals. (well okay perhaps just the odd word in capitals but not more than the odd word.)

The Dome-L planetarium profesionals listserve does NOT ring any bells at all for me. When was this if I may ask? My tag is usually StevoR – with an ‘o’ and no space before the R and NOT Steve with an “e” and space before the capital R so we probably have a case of mistaken identity. Steve is a pretty common name .. Or maybe the person was giving me credit for my article (My X points showing why Pluto is a planet?) and you got confused there? You may want to check again. Esp. before you launch into any
more ad hominanm attacks.

“Second, if you’ve rebutted Steve Soter’s paper, I have yet to see it. Please direct me to where I can read your rebuttal.”

It was on one of these threads where Pluto’s planetary status was debated
on the Bad Astronomy /Discover blitzfeed thingummy. I’ll have to go back & find the thread and link it here myself – one of the more recent of many …

Suffice to say I did read the paper and was very far from convinced it was either clear or reasonable as a definition as it seemed arbitary – just Soter’s view & who is this Soter that his view should overide that of many others who disagree with him eg. say Alan S. Stern? It also struck me as
being full of obscure techno-babble terminology rather than saying anything
in plain, comprehensible english and thus is hard to comprehend for the average person on the street and especially for non-anti-Plutoneans like myself!

Chris A : “Third, you are apparently claiming not to be the same Steve R. who posts passionately against the IAU’s Pluto decision on Dome-L, the planetarium professionals’ list serve, often using CAPITALS to emphasize his points, and using some of the exact same arguments and syntax, and often rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Whatever, it matters not.”

Yes, I am claiming that wasn’t me at least I’m pretty sure its not It is true that I’ve posted these arguments before but mostly on the Bad Astronomy thread and NOT in capitals. (well okay perhaps just the odd word in capitals but not more than the odd word.)

The Dome-L planetarium profesionals listserve does NOT ring any bells at all for me. When was this if I may ask? My tag is usually StevoR – with an ‘o’ and no space before the R and NOT Steve with an “e” and space before the capital R so we probably have a case of mistaken identity. Steve is a pretty common name .. Or maybe the person was giving me credit for my article (My X points showing why Pluto is a planet?) and you got confused there? You may want to check again. Esp. before you launch into any
more ad hominanm attacks ..

Chris A : “This is all evidence of arguing from emotion, not logic. Changing the label we choose to refer to Pluto is not “anti-Pluto.” Pluto is not harmed in any way.”

Actually I think science and, especially astronomy, is harmed by this. Its reputation suffers when it appears – as I’ve stated earlier – that astronomers can’t tell a planet if they’re standing on one! Morover, if they need to refer to an obscure academic paper to explain what the word means its seems well a bit emabarasasing and silly frankly. Its like a mathematican not being able to tell you what a numeral is or a biologist what an animal is.

As for harm coming to Pluto – I guess its reputation – along with that of the IAU is in question. Do planets have reputations – well perhaps not that that they know about it no, but in the sense that we know about them, yes!

Chris A : “There is nothing “proper” about a planet or “improper” about a KBO (or asteroid, or comet, or dwarf planet, or…). To suggest this is purely emotional, and based not at all on logic or reason.

Except in terms of definition. I’ve used lots of logic – reductio ad absurdum as well as using logical consistiency (eg. dwarf star = proper star that is called and counted as a star therefore ..) as well as yes some emotion. I think there is a place for using both in making arguments. Outside of the narrow confines of a logic or maths classroom you’re going to find there is an emotional component to everything.

Chris A : “I have nothing “against” Pluto. To suggest that I do implies that I, like you, have some sort of emotional relationship with it.”

Yes, I do get the distinct sense that you are emotional against Pluto – you seem unreasonably hostile to the idea that Pluto is a genuine planet along with Eris, Ceres, Neptune, Earth and Jupiter! Pluto in fact has more in common with Earth than Earth has in common with Jupiter! To quote Darth Vader : “Search your feelings you know it to be true!”

So I’ll ask again – what particular reason do you, Chris A have to be so hostile and dead set against Pluto? Are you anti-American and wish to not be reminded of Clyde Tombaugh’s very proudly American achievement in his
discovering that world? Do you have a crush on some crazed orbital dynamicist or did you once have a feud with Alan Stern or ..well what? What possible reason do you have for your evident hatred of this fascinating little planet?

Chris A : “It’s {Pluto} one of a thousand similar, small balls of ice and rock, for crying out loud.”

No and here you’re emotional bias is clear. Pluto is NOT just one of many -it is the first Kuiper Belt object to be found, the brightest, the second-largest, (far larger than all but a handful of others and even Eris only
beats it by a very small fraction), the most famous and culturally significant, the prototype for its class, a world that has 3 moons (more
than any other TNO /KBO /Plutino /whatever y’call’em! I think) and so forth. The discovery of many other ice dwarf type planets and Kuiper
Belt / Oort Cloud asteroids makes Pluto no less significant and less a
planet than the discovery of other exo-Jupiters makes our Jupiter less a
planet!

Chris A : “Is a mountain “better” than a hill?”

Ask a mountainer! They’ll tell you – yes! “Better” is of course a subjective term that depends on what you want to do but in this case the dwarf planet term seems to disciminate unfairly against smaller planets so yes I’d say planet is better than mere dwarf. Oh and has anyone used the IAU’s silly “classical planet” term outside of this debate yet? Anyone at all?

“If someone wants to reclassify Greenland as a continent, does that make them “pro-Greenland?”

Yes! I’d say so. In fact I’d suspect such a person was probably from the
Greenland tourism bureau ..

Second, if you’ve rebutted Steve Soter’s paper, I have yet to see it. Please direct me to where I can read your rebuttal.

Third, you are apparently claiming not to be the same Steve R. who posts passionately against the IAU’s Pluto decision on Dome-L, the planetarium professionals’ list serve, often using CAPITALS to emphasize his points, and using some of the exact same arguments and syntax, and often rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Whatever, it matters not.

Fourth, my “accusation” that you are threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue was, to anyone with a functioning sense of sarcasm (as you claim to possess), obviously sarcasm. But you knew that.

Fifth, and this one is the most significant: I have called your arguments emotional, and you have claimed that it is merely your presentation style, not the arguments themselves, which are emotional.

Allow me to quote you:

1) “Have you even thought about how many other better definitions…were…rejected…by the anti-Plutonean lobby?”

2) “…why should a dwarf planet be dismissed from being a proper planet?”

3) “Where are you coming from and what do you have against Pluto anyway ..?”

This is all evidence of arguing from emotion, not logic. Changing the label we choose to refer to Pluto is not “anti-Pluto.” Pluto is not harmed in any way. It doesn’t lose is parking space, corner office, or dental plan. Nor is calling Pluto a planet “pro-Pluto.” Pluto is a ball of ice and rock. It is incapable of being harmed or helped by what we call it.

There is nothing “proper” about a planet or “improper” about a KBO (or asteroid, or comet, or dwarf planet, or…). To suggest this is purely emotional, and based not at all on logic or reason.

I have nothing “against” Pluto. To suggest that I do implies that I, like you, have some sort of emotional relationship with it. It’s one of a thousand similar, small balls of ice and rock, for crying out loud. Is a mountain “better” than a hill? If someone wants to reclassify Greenland as a continent, does that make them “pro-Greenland?”

Read the paper, present your objections, and we can discuss. Until then, it’s wasted bandwidth.

Sometimes you get the acronymns,sometimes they get you!

Cheers!

——
ChrisA claimed that I said :“Pluto is a planet and I’m going to hold my breath until I turn blue unless everyone agrees with me” rants.”

I have never, ever said I was going to hold my breath and turn blue unless folks agreed!

I made my case by setting out a series of valid if sometimes strongly worded – and I hope amusingly put – reasons. I used logic and humour, a bit of emphasis and sarcasm too.

Stubborn? Maybe.
Emotional? Well I’m human & we all have feelings but I think I was still logical just entertaining & passionate with it!

I happen to think I’m right and have better reasons for thinking as I do than you do, ChrisA. Far as I know that’s not a crime!

(Oh are you going to object to my using emoticons or suchlike? Get over it – & yourself!)

In what amounts to an ad hominam attack, Chris A. ranted away himself on Sept 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm :

Sorry for the snark, but my patience with StevoR’s stubbornness and emotionality on this issue has run thin (speaking of which, it’s interesting that contributors to this forum have noted the resemblance of StevoR’s arguments to those of the creationists, apparently independently of my having done so on the aforementioned Dome-L).”

Dome-L? Sorry but that doesn’t ring a bell with me, mate. Yes, I’ve commented on this matter before – its something I do feel strongly about -as clearly from the opposite side do you. I think it hurts astronomy to have the leading internat’l organistaion for astronomers make such an “idiotic” decison – and that was Alan Stern’s description not mine! You going to abuse him now?

Let me make this clear – I think I’ve got a valid right to self-expression and to express my views every bit as much as you do. You want to argue with me, fine. Make your case. But don’t abuse me just for having my say and perhaps using a diferent style to yours.

ChrisA : “Pluto is a planet and I’m going to hold my breath until I turn blue unless everyone agrees with me” rants.”

(Oh are you going to object to my using emoticons or suchlike? Get over it – & yourself!)

Chris A :
“Despite my repeated attempts to get StevoR to read the following paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0608/0608359.pdf) by Steven Soter, which elucidates a clear, unambiguous definition of what “clearing the orbit” means, and how Pluto doesn’t make the cut by a country kiloparsec, he either :

2) hasn’t bothered read it at all.”

Or what has actually happened is :

Option 3) I have read it, disagreed with it and rebutted it. I have responded to that elsewhere – was that you who I responded to with that before? Didn’t you see my response? Tell me then if you can what holes you see in my logic – coz I sure as heck can’t see any!

Have you, Chris A tried conducting a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ logic test on the implications of the (Socratic method) on the IAU definition and how absurd its implications are?

Have you even thought about how many other better definitions – like the original IAU proposal otr the hill-mountain arbitrary cut-off at, say, about Ceres size that would have included Pluto as a planet and which were, evidently, rejected as such by the anti-Plutonean lobby?

And tell me this – by way of analogy – if a dwarf star is still a star then why should a dwarf planet be dismissed from being a proper planet?

Where are you coming from and what do you have against Pluto anyway ..?

Well ChrisA?

AFAIU = As Far As I Understand

Hope this hasn’t converted the whole thread to them … Yeck. ;-(

(I’m on Sciences side there ok! )

If Jupiter existed in the region of the Kuiper belt, there would be NO Kuiper belt, as Jupiter would very quickly absorb or eject all the KBOs. If Earth existed in the region of the asteriod belt, similarly, there would very quickly be no asteroid belt.

I’m not sure what would happen if earth were positioned in the Kuiper belt, though.

As far as I’m concerned, if Pluto is a planet then Ceres must be one as well. If Ceres is not a planet, then Pluto cannot be one either. Either option is fine with me. I just think a decision should be made one way or another, and then we should stick with it. Definitions are simply tools for classification, it doesn’t matter exactly what they are, so long as they are consistent and useful.

Pluto is a KBO and also a “dwarf planet”. When the IAU says planet w/o adjectives they mean major planet which is pretty well defined in the paper noted above – it even makes sense if you skim it. Major is of course silent

And I still have a problem with Plutoid. Computer science got into this with “virus” in the late 80′s. There were all kinds of variants with special names. There were even good viruses. Now there are very technical names but to the public they’re all viruses or malware.

The problem I have with defining it as a KPO and nothing more, is that the definition is meaningless when considering similar objects outside our solar system. If we find other systems with a similar collection of far-out orbiting objects, we can’t exactly call them KPOs, can we? But if they share all the same characteristics as Pluto, et al., shouldn’t there be a common term?

I guess I like the adjective approach.

Language and language change is very democratic despite what our English teachers tried to tell us. When that happens you will waste a lot of time and energy unless you recognize there is common and technical usage. Dwarf or minor planet works for me. But saying it isn’t a planet is like saying a white horse is somehow not a horse. It just sounds silly. Not something that can be quickly explained before young (or old) eyes glaze over.

Good paper BTW. Funny the whole planets not colliding with each other aspect didn’t seem to make it into the public debate.

First StevoR clogged up the planetarium professionals’ list serve (Dome-L) with his “Pluto is a planet and I’m going to hold my breath until I turn blue unless everyone agrees with me” rants there, and now he’s hosing down the BA blog to boot.

Despite my repeated attempts to get StevoR to read the following paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0608/0608359.pdf) by Steven Soter, which elucidates a clear, unambiguous definition of what “clearing the orbit” means, and how Pluto doesn’t make the cut by a country kiloparsec, he either

1) has read it and refuses to comment on it because it shoots holes in his “logic”, or
2) hasn’t bothered read it at all.

Either case suggests a sort of “don’t confuse me with the facts” or “I reject your reality and substitute my own” (with a nod to Adam Savage) mode of thinking. (BTW I highly recommend this paper (especially figs. 1 and 3) to anyone who needs convincing that Pluto is fundamentally a different type of object than the planets.)

Sorry for the snark, but my patience with StevoR’s stubbornness and emotionality on this issue has run thin (speaking of which, it’s interesting that contributors to this forum have noted the resemblance of StevoR’s arguments to those of the creationists, apparently independently of my having done so on the aforementioned Dome-L).

I’m in the adjective camp. Pluto is a dwarf planet, but still a planet. Exoplanet … still a planet. etc. It does make it easier to talk to the public and do education. KISS principle. Natural round thing orbiting a star (that is not another star). Regular people will understand moving the goal posts on the adjectives as a technical thing. Then they can memorize notable dwarf planets, first discovered, biggest, longest orbit, etc. Even if you find a 100 of them you’re not likely to have more than a handful of notables. And everybody should be happy.

The clearing neighbourhood thing is a just hinky. Time dependent. Distance from star dependent. Inclination dependent. Move Mercury out to Pluto’s orbit and what happens?? Even at, about 8x volume and 15x mass, would it be enough? Not sure it would still be a planet. Or take the Moon and put it in the inner solar system by itself. What would it be?

And plutoid? Give me a break, it sounds like an embarrassing condition that requires an ointment from the pharmacy.

Now Drac (2008 KV42) is not likely to be a planet but is one heck of a weird KBO/asteroid/comet? Hard to tell out past the snow line.

=)

-Ed