I agree with previous statements that the Pluto story is printed more because its easier to write. It’s also because anyone who doesn’t know what Pluto is wouldn’t be reading a paper, whereas, a lot more people didn’t even know dark matter was yet to be “discovered” or proven. It becomes a matter of what people will read. It doesn’t help that many people still believe astronomy is not useful to anyone on Earth and some mistake it for astrology.

I am excited about this discovery, as I know all of you are, too. So let us put up that poster, celebrating with those who understand it and telling the story to people who look at it with an questioning look.

Long live truth and the scientists who pursue it.

I want it in my office

and I want it in my apartment

I stumbled on this site looking for a better (hopefully graphical) way to explain reference frames to my son — which is exactly tied to Pluto as we discuss conceptualization and what has and hasn’t changed with the recategorization of Pluto.

I thought that it would be a good starting point for your little boy since you were looking for info on Pluto. But from your response it looks like you found whatever info you needed.

I am, perhaps in error, assuming that the link to Pluto for kids was in response to my post. If so I appreciate it, but that really wasn’t my point. My point was more along the lines of your earlier comment regarding the element of disrespect often given to individuals who are not “into” science in neglecting what knowledge the individual may have, be it from formal education and career or from simply life experiences.

I don’t need to know one more bit of information about Pluto and neither does my son — it means nothing in either of our lives and effects us in no significant way. That does not mean either of us shouldn’t know more about Pluto proper or about Pluto indirectly or that more information would not be nice. However, a better understanding of the manner in ways conceptualization and/or categorization effects our understanding and development of ideas is much more important and something that one should always diligently be on lookout for a greater understanding of.

The problem is that the question is why don’t people care about dark matter or science in general, then we use science to make people feel stupid or to laugh at them. That’s why if I’m ever asked a question on a poll that’s getting at if I know the earth orbits around the sun I will answer incorrectly; the ignorance of asking a question like that is much worse than the ignorance of not knowing the “correct” answer.

If we think there is some super duper special reason why scientific knowledge is generally better than the knowledge of history or mythology or art we have turned science into a religion and as a religion it really sucks. Looking at the applied results of science in Lebanon and Iraq (and everywhere else) maybe we should not laugh at the person who doesn’t know or care about Pluto and dark energy but at the person who doesn’t have a significant understanding of Gandhi.

The problem isn’t a lack of understanding or appreciation of science. The problem is the misanthropy that underlies the two political parties in the United States and is used to keep citizens at odds with each other instead of focusing on the blatant incompetence of BOTH parties and thus the true causes of the lack of understanding or appreciation of science. Peace.

Anyone here up to the task of writing about the Dark Matter discovery for kids? I found an explanation from 2003.

Read the article in the New York Times that is linked in these comments. Let’s do our best to make these people, or similar people like them, feel stupid because they do not know what we know (although this really isn’t important since we all know that the blunt foreheads among us don’t read such sophisticated writing as that present in the New York Times!)

The article also points out that these people who care about Pluto don’t know jack about Pluto; It’s far away, it’s cold, it’s small. Now honestly I don’t know much more about Pluto except for more than a few basics like that it’s a slush ball and if one moon is called Charon another should be called Acheron. That info really makes a big difference in my life on those deep nights when I’m wondering where my life is going.

I fit into the category of the 1 out of 4 or 5 Americans that don’t know the earth goes around the sun. I stumbled on this site looking for a better (hopefully graphical) way to explain reference frames to my son — which is exactly tied to Pluto as we discuss conceptualization and what has and hasn’t changed with the recategorization of Pluto. He didn’t like the idea a few weeks ago that we might wind up with over a hundred planets (what’s so special about that?) but dislikes the new proposal even more. Of course he knows it’s just a name, but then he asks the question, he is only 10, that if it is really just a convention, can’t the scientists just build the definition around the nine planets as they are? Of course they could, but the audacity of thinking that the input of the masses of morons should have anything to suggest to science? Science shall bring the stone tablets to the masses.

Now Pluto has also given a way for me to introduce him to paradoxical statements, as when I tell him that the moral of the Pluto debacle is that you should never listen to someone who tells you they know what they are talking about, and the more authoritatively the more so.

A couple of reasons that Pluto is more interesting than Dark Matter:

1. People are interested in Pluto partly because it represents the “edge” of our solar system.
2. Children like Pluto because it is small, like themselves, relative to the big balls of the neighborhood.
3. It represents the hubris of science being knocked of its pedestal.
4. It is relevant in these days where we are not sure what to believe in what we hear from those people who have set themselves up as “priests” governing the world; the politicians, the filthy rich, and academia.

BTW, I enjoyed the article on Dark Matter and this post is NOT directed toward that or all the comments (although some do qualify and the author(s) probably aren’t even aware), but honestly I found the gravitational lens very interesting. I never knew that.

“And may I just add here that now I’m really confused — 8 planets and 4 dwarfs??? I just taught my kids about 12 planets a couple of days ago!”

Where one can answer to the kids:

There is a protest about the decision in motion, since less than 5 percent of the astronomical community voted at the Prague IAU for a definition of ‘planet’ that uses dynamics (location) rather than intrinsic properties to decide if an object is or is not a planet. So Pluto-supporters should not give up hope yet, a more democratic vote could be taken. Think of how active and dynamic is the solar system; gravity’s forces can give surprising results with some objects being trapped in some places (resonances) and bouncing other objects around, and sometimes even the smallest solar system bodies can sculpt the positions of the other bodies that we see. The astronomers are discovering new solar system objects all of the time that are larger than Pluto, but sometimes they need time to learn how those new objects could be at the location that they are. And because they are so far away, the astronomers don’t know yet their shape and other basic properties such as their mass or of what material those bodies are made. Because astronomers are people like you and me, they have heated discussions about it because they have different explanations . But in the end those disagreements are usually resolved when they have more data from the new instruments that they are building.

If you can explain this to your kids, then it would make the discussion more interesting and fun. It can also open the door to other science topics like.. gravity. I’m sure that Sean could bootstrap from any popular science topic involving gravity to quickly jump into the dark matter topic.

From this link, you can see how the Pluto topic has grabbed the public imagination. Just like when comet Shoemaker-Levy9 crashed into Jupiter, here we have a hot science topic. I say seize _any_ opportunity to support the public’s interest in science. If you find that precious tidbit, use it for all its worth, because the public’s attention span for science is usually short. Once you have hooked them, then go to topics that are more difficult to explain (and the science popularizers can learn at the same time what works well to hook the public’s interest for future efforts).