Alan Boyle is going to be at The Grove in LA tomorrow night for a book signing. I may try to make it.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of Alan, he has a roundup of the latest prospects for fusion — cold, medium and hot — over at Cosmic Log.
15 thoughts on “The Case For Pluto”
Comments are closed.
Nuke Pluto!
Speaking of sciencegates, how about tokamak research? One hears it said that the fusion physics community has been overselling tokamak for decades now, both in absolute terms and in relation to the alternatives. Not really with fudged basic science, but with plenty of slant and consensus-enforcement.
Don’t miss this! “The Case for Pluto” is a terrific book and presents solid scientific arguments for why Pluto and all dwarf planets should be considered planets. This debate is far from over.
Magnetic fusion isn’t really a science fraud, but more of a policymaking failure. The engineering studies have consistently shown tokamak reactors would at best be marginally competitive with fission reactors, and at worst completely uncompetitive.
The outrage is not that this has been kept secret (it hasn’t), but that the policymaking machinery doesn’t seem to care. Politicians get what they get out of supporting R&D if it merely appears to be useful; actual utility years hence is irrelevant.
As for Pluto: the change here should be to retire the whole concept of “planet”. It’s a holdover from astrology. There are bodies orbiting the sun; some were called “planets” in prescientific days, but now we can should them something else.
Gah, “should call them something else”. Silly edit-typo.
As for Pluto: the change here should be to retire the whole concept of “planet”. It’s a holdover from astrology. There are bodies orbiting the sun; some were called “planets” in prescientific days, but now we can should them something else.
How about “planets”? I never understood why it was supposed to be a problem to have say, 150 “planets”, but not a problem to have 150 “minor planets”. Especially when the planet/minor planet terminology only holds for one star system.
Because there are a heck of a lot more “minor planets” than that, using the current definition of that term. Where do you draw the line on a minor planet, anyway? Is a pebble a minor planet? A grain of sand?
Where do you draw the line on a minor planet, anyway?
It would have to be large enough to be spherical, in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Alan’s point (I did go and had dinner with him afterward) is that, rather than viewing Pluto as odd man out, we should really view the minor planets as the norm for planets, and the rare oddballs are the terrestrial planets and gas giants.
It would have to be large enough to be spherical, in hydrostatic equilibrium.
That’s “dwarf planet”.
I am once again reminded of how small-minded this whole debate is. The IAU ended up calling these things “dwarf planets”, yet we’re supposed to be all worked up if someone confuses a dwarf planet with a planet. My view is that there was zero scientific value in the debate over whether to keep Pluto as a planet or not.
Karl, I do agree that there’s not much *scientific* significance in the planetary debate. The scientists involved in the study of planetary objects know what’s what, and the dwarf planet vs. dominant planet distinction is something they don’t need to debate. But the *cultural* significance can make a big difference, not only in culture but also in science. For example, if congresscritters were under the impression that Pluto was not a “real” planet, would they have basically forced NASA to send a probe to the Kuiper Belt, as they did in the run-up to New Horizons? The PI for the mission, Alan Stern, thinks not. We would have lost out on the coming avalanche of data about our solar system’s icy frontier. If Ceres and the asteroids were truly counted among the planetary tribe, would scientists have so much trouble today drawing attention to the threat and the opportunities presented by asteroids? Our brains need to accommodate a bigger and more interesting solar system, not a smaller list of eight names to memorize. But I’m repeating myself. It’s all in the book, which I hope you’ll pick up …
By the way, thanks so much to Rand for attending the L.A. event and for the great chat afterward. I’m linking to a number of articles on Climategate (including the one you recommended) but I’m still in research mode.
Pluto has been considered a planet since its discovery – and longer than most IAU astronomers have been alive. They made a mistake. They could have come up with any definition for a planet that they wanted (better if they called it “interim” or “under consideration” or “subject to review”) but they ahould have then grandfathered in ALL of the current planets, including Pluto.