Comments on: States have Rights, but I don’t think this is one of them

By: linlin

linlin — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 03:05:29 +0000

i think, pluto is still a mystery to us. any pre-classification probably prove later a big joke.

as for the legislature, i don’t think they know anything about science, astronomy….

By: Laurel Kornfeld

Laurel Kornfeld — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:03:37 +0000

In no way are supporters of Pluto’s planethood similar to creationists. Science has NOT sufficiently established a definition of the term planet on which experts can agree nor has a consensus of astronomers agreed that evidence shows without a shadow of doubt that Pluto does not meet the qualification for planethood. Instead, we have a divide with some of the leading planetary scientists in the world rejecting the IAU definition and the exclusion of Pluto as a planet. That’s hardly co-opting scientific ideas to arrive at a pre-selected conclusion. If anything here is to be questioned, it is the political and highly surreptitious process by which a fraction of the IAU, mostly not planetary scientists, presumed to make a decision for not only their entire field, but for the whole world.

By: Stephen Uitti

Stephen Uitti — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:05:20 +0000

…brontosaurus isn’t a dinosaur?

According to this:
http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm
… the brontosaurus is alive and well, as a synonym. I still don’t see how the name apotosaurus should have priority.

The story i’d heard was this: The apotosaurus body was mated to the skull of a Camarasaurus. The animal got renamed when this mistake was discovered. This story makes sense, but doesn’t really cover it.

Really, the issues, the Brontosaurus, and Pluto, are similar. Politics, and hyperbola, not reason, have guided decisions.

My interpretations of the new IAU definition of the word “planet” lead to one of two results.

1. There are no planets in our solar system.

2. Only Jupiter is a planet. It’s the big bully. Nothing else matters.

By: andy.s

andy.s — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:31:25 +0000

That was a bill in the Indiana legislature in the 19th century.
I don’t think it ever got out of committee.

See the Straight Dope website.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:37:02 +0000

Was it New Mexico that once ruled that the value of pi was four? Or was it Ohio?

By: Sacha

Sacha — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:19:57 +0000

Apparently the Fiscal Impact of the bill was “NFI”. Seems fairly accurate.

By: Risa

Risa — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 05:51:19 +0000

My favorite comment on this was on a T-shirt that my cousin’s 8th grade academic team created — “That’s okay, Pluto. I’m not a planet either”.

By: Amara

Amara — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:54:35 +0000

Upon applying the dynamic definitions set in Prague last August, not only is Pluto not a planet, but Earth is not a planet, Mars is not a planet, Jupiter is not a planet, and neither is Neptune.

Anyone up for writing this entry in Conservapedia?

By: New Mexico’s Planet « any illimitable star

New Mexico’s Planet « any illimitable star — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:29:41 +0000

[...] Mexico’s Planet Jump to Comments Apparently, the New Mexico Legislature has declared Pluto to be a planet when it’s over theNew Mexican sky. As the science blog Cosmic Variance points out, it’s a “remarkable display of scientific federalism.” [...]

By: Navneeth

Navneeth — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:11:10 +0000

We gave up the brontosaurus without a whimper.

Now that this info is out on the internet, in one of the popular (science) blogs, with silly news media all around us, we’re probably going to witness a delay…ed hue and cry on this issue.

By: andy.s

andy.s — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 04:08:25 +0000

Of course the States have the right to declare Pluto a planet. See the 10th amendment to the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”

So not only are the States allowed to declare things as planets, so are the people!

You see, the list of planets is often the only bit of science that most people know, and now you eggheads took it away from them. Hell, even Bart Simpson could name the planets.

Let’s burn down the observatory so this will never happen again!

By: Happy Birthday, PZ! | Cosmic Variance

Happy Birthday, PZ! | Cosmic Variance — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:33:03 +0000

[...] links « States have Rights, but I don’t think this is one of them digg_url = ‘http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/08/happy-birthday-pz/'; digg_skin = ‘compact’; [...]

By: mollishka

mollishka — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:07:06 +0000

Waaaait … the brontosaurus isn’t a dinosaur? When did that happen, and how did I miss it???

And I seriously don’t get the whole Pluto fuss. I’m scared to tell people on planes I’m an astronomer now.

By: Mike Batchelor

Mike Batchelor — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:53:37 +0000

If you check this finder chart for Pluto, you’ll see that it stays near 17 degrees South Declination for all of 2007. Declination on the sky corresponds exactly to latitude on the ground. Both are measured in degrees of arc, with the poles at 90 degrees and the equator at zero degrees. So Pluto will spend all of 2007 “over” the tropics south of the equator. It will also spend the next year, and the next and the next after that near 17 degrees south declination. Pluto does not move on the sky very much from year to year. It will be nowhere near “overhead” in New Mexico for a very long time, centuries if ever.

http://www.rasnz.org.nz/SolarSys/Pluto.htm

By: Analyzer

Analyzer — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:05:17 +0000

The attitudes aren’t all that different – the Creationists and the Pluto-savers are both trying to co-opt scientific categories and ideas in order to arrive at a preselected conclusion

I think that’s a bit unfair. Pluto’s “planetness” is not really a scientific question. Calling it a planet or not calling it a planet changes absolutely nothing about any scientific model or theory. It’s pure terminology, and it’s purely for our convenience.

By: rejewvenator

rejewvenator — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:34:50 +0000

I remember a hue and cry over the brontosaurus!

In any case, I think it’s interesting to compare the Pluto-savers with the Young Earth Creationist types. The attitudes aren’t all that different – the Creationists and the Pluto-savers are both trying to co-opt scientific categories and ideas in order to arrive at a preselected conclusion – that the earth is young, or that Pluto is a planet. Maybe what divides people is not so much their thoughts on religion as much as their woefully inadequate understanding of what science is about.

By: Analyzer

Analyzer — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:32:11 +0000

This is the best Pluto T-shirt.

By: Julianne

Julianne — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:58:07 +0000

According to the clerk's office in the New Mexico House, this resolution was tabled a month ago and is presumably dead. If anyone knows differently, I'd love to hear about it.

That agrees with the on-line information from the NM legistlature's web site. I've edited the entry accordingly. The link does contain the gem that there was a "Fiscal Impact Report" prepared for the proposed legislation!

By: dennis

dennis — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:52:54 +0000

According to the clerk’s office in the New Mexico House, this resolution was tabled a month ago and is presumably dead. If anyone knows differently, I’d love to hear about it.

By: George Musser

George Musser — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:50:17 +0000

The New Mexico legislature is hardly alone. A not-inconsiderable fraction of the astronomical community resists the new planet definition. Was the same true of paleozoologists when the brontosaurus roared for the last time?
George