Posts by Laurel Kornfeld

Boffins: There's a ninth planet out there – now we just need to find it

If there is a large planet out there, it is NOT the ninth planet but more like the 15th. In referring to this potential object as "Planet Nine," Brown is being extremely disingenuous by portraying his view of the solar system and planet definition as THE view when this is far from the case. He is once again promoting his obsession that he somehow "killed" planet Pluto.

It is unfortunate that the media repeat his position without acknowledging the reality is that the IAU definition is just one among many currently in use.

Numerous planetary scientists continue to reject the controversial IAU planet definition, which was adopted by only four percent of the organization, most of whom were not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers. That petition was immediately rejected by hundreds of professional astronomers, who reject the notion that an object has to clear its orbit to be a planet.

Brown deliberately chose the term "ninth planet" knowing it would be repeated ad nauseam by the media, most of whom simply rewrite what is written in the press release.

Dwarf planets ARE planets too, and their discovery means that far more than two full planets have been discovered in the last two centuries. The solar system's current planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris--and counting.

NASA spies weird glow from Pluto's FRIGID pole

Re: "The US has been the first to flyby every planet of the Solar System"

Stern and many planetary scientists do not accept the demotion of Pluto, which was done by only four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists, and which was rejected by an equal number of professional astronomers. Ironically, Stern is the person who first coined the term "dwarf planet" but he did so with the intention of designating a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians and not to refer to non-planets.

SWELLING moons of ice dwarf Pluto snapped by NASA spy-probe

Re: Its a planet.

Not necessary. The ecliptic is not the path of the Sun; it's the path the Earth takes around the Sun. Why does an object have to follow Earth's path to be a planet? Is Earth the center of anything? Many giant exoplanets orbit their stars in orbits far more elliptical than Pluto's.

Re: Its a planet.

Pluto's Wikipedia being locked is a travesty and an affront to free speech. It is why I will never contribute any money to Wikipedia.

Eris is a planet too. Arguments have been made for its planet status since its discovery. To those of us who prefer a geophysical planet definition, which does not require an object to "clear its orbit" to be a planet, Eris is a planet because it is a non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star.

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was opposed by hundreds of professional astronomers in a formal petition led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern. Why does Wikipedia have a problem acknowledging that this issue is an ongoing debate?

Re: Its a planet.

Yes, Pluto is a planet because dwarf planets are simply a subclass of planets. That was the intention of New Horizons Principal Investigator when he first coined the term dwarf planet back in 1991. Our solar system actually has 13 planets and counting--14 if Charon is considered a binary companion planet to Pluto. These are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, (Charon), Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.

"Ice dwarf" is probably not the best description of a planet that is estimated to be 70 percent rock.

PlayStation-processor-powered plutonium probe prepares Pluto pics

Pluto IS still considered a planet in its own right by many planetary scientists and astronomers. It is unfortunate that you report one position in an ongoing debate as fact when this is not the case. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most were not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Stern, Principal Investigator of the New Horizons mission. Ironically, Stern is the person who first coined the term "dwarf planet," but he intended it to designate a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians, not to designate non-planets.

It turns out that other than there are no known objects larger than Pluto in the region beyond Neptune. Eris was initially thought to be larger than Pluto, but in November 2010, a team of astronomers led by Dr. Bruno Sicardy obtained a more accurate measurement of Eris when it occulted a star and found it to be marginally smaller than Pluto.

Google bus protests are Kristallnacht against the rich – tech VC legend

As the child of a Kristallnacht survivor and as a supporter of Occupy, I find Perkins' comments bordering on the obscene. Kristallnacht was a targeting of innocent people for nothing more than their ethnic identity. It was the beginning of one of the darkest periods in human history, leading to the systematic murder of 12 million innocent civilians. Occupy, in contrast, is not a violent movement, and it is not targeting people for who they are; it is targeting predatory behaviors by the one percent that are decimating the middle class and driving more and more Americans into poverty. There is a huge difference between bigotry, which is hate blindly based on who people are, and righteous indignation in response to things people do--specifically, perpetrating injustice and oppression. What Occupy opposes are the means by which the one percent continue to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else in this country.

Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record

Proud to be a hippie

I don't work for Greenpeace, but I am proud to be a hippie and wear that label as a badge of honor. Hippies are idealists who care about changing the world, not about accumulating as much money and as many material things as possible. Better a hippie than a welfare leech like Schmate Middleton who does nothing and lives off her country's taxpayers.

Galaxies to get the Pluto treatment?

But the IAU screwed up big time on the term "dwarf planet." Dr. Alan Stern coined the term in 1991 to refer to a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians, small planets large enough to be rounded by their own gravity but not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. The IAU misused his term by voting that dwarf planets are not planets at all, a claim that continues to make no sense and be inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies.

Pluto is a planet

Pluto did NOT lose its planet status. The media is doing a tremendous disservice by continuing to treat the controversial IAU decision of 2006 as fact when it is actually nothing more than one opinion in a very much ongoing debate. Only four percent of the IAU voted on this, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was opposed by hundreds of professional astronomers in a formal petition led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern. Stern, the person who first created the term "dwarf planet," intended it to refer to a new class of small planets. He never meant for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all.

The notion that science happens by decree is ridiculous. The IAU is not the "decider" of what is truth. They messed up big time with Pluto, which is why their definition remains unaccepted by many in the field. The IAU is the last place we should look to for another such decision unless we want a second debacle.

Bit-part actress slings sueball at IMDb over age gripe

Being an actress isn't "sad"

It's actually an amazing life. First, no casting director is legally permitted to ask an actor's age. If they do, most actors give a range, and a wide one at that. Second, Junie should look into comedy and character roles. Not only are those the most fun, they also are the least constrained by age. I love doing drama but the industry sees me as comedic, and now, I'm always playing offbeat, quirky types--in other words, versions of myself. Character roles are about finding and creating a unique niche for yourself. And I don't mind running from zombies or playing zombies. Whatever role an actor plays becomes part of their repertoire, part of the story that makes him or her unique.

Some of us also have good genes. My mother and aunt look about 15-20 years younger than they really are. I avoid the sun like the plague, and so far, it's working, no visible lines or wrinkles.

IMDB is a racket

Many films are never listed on IMDB at all. To list anything, an actor or director has to pay for IMDBPro. That means directors of low budget movies are less likely to bother because they are already struggling financially. The whole thing is just a money-making racket.

I do the same thing

And so do many other actors. All that matters is how you look. I'm going to exploit the cute look as long as I live. Retirement--never??? Yuck, yuck, yuck, yuck, yuck!

Mid-life? Please. This is a young woman. As an actress myself, I applaud her in fighting injustice and doing whatever it takes to get the career she deserves.

NASA probe now closer than ANY OTHER spacecraft to Pluto

Yes, they are

Sedna, Eris, Quaoar, Ixion, Orcus, Varuna, Haumea, Makemake, and Ceres are all planets because they orbit a star and because they are large enough for their own gravity to squeeze them into a round shape--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium. However, the latter is not true for the majority of Kuiper Belt Objects, which are not similar size to these bodies but much,much smaller, far too small to be shaped by their own gravity. The larger objects that are in hydrostatic equilibrium are small planets. It makes no scientific sense to keep the number of planets small artificially just for the sake of memorization. Memorization is not important for learning. We don't ask kids to memorize the names of all the rivers or mountains on Earth or of all the moons of Jupiter. A better option is to teach kids the different types of planets and the characteristics of each type.

Dwarf planets are planets too

Yes, Pluto IS a planet because dwarf planets are planets too. It just happens that New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern is the person who coined the term "dwarf planet" back in 1991. He intended it to refer to a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians, small planets massive enough and big enough to be rounded by their own gravity but not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. The controversial demotion of Pluto by four percent of the IAU in 2006 went directly contrary to Stern's intention when he coined this term, was opposed by hundreds of professional astronomers including Stern, and therefore should not be taken as fact but merely as one viewpoint in an ongoing debate.

NASA restores Pluto to league of planets

That's work at overturning the demotion

This "they" you speak about were never in a position to dictate their interpretation to the world and expect the world to accept it as fact. They also violated their group's own bylaws by conducting this vote and are now refusing to reopen the discussion on the matter. Who appointed these 424 individuals, most of whom are not planetary scientists, as the "deciders" for seven billion people. What happened in 2006 was politics, not science. I'm getting back to work all right--work on a book about why Pluto is a planet and why the 2006 vote should be either ignored or overturned.

Wrong

They are all planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity.

Ceres is a planet

Ceres is a planet because it is large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning rounded by its own gravity. Nineteenth-century astronomers' telescopes were not powerful enough to resolve Ceres into a disk, which is the reason it was demoted in the first place. Now that we know Ceres is spherical, we also know that demotion was wrong and premature--just like the demotion of Pluto by four percent of the IAU. Both of these are complex, geologically differentiated worlds, very different from asteroids and most KBOs, which are shapeless rocks or iceballs. Pluto is estimated to be 70-75 percent rock.

Not the case

Eris does have a moon, but it is not larger than Pluto; it is actually marginally smaller. This was determined only in November 2010 when Eris occulted a star. Eris is still more massive than Pluto. None of this changes the fact that according to the geophysical planet definition, in which a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star, both Pluto and Eris are planets, as are Ceres, Haumea, and Makemake. They are planets of the dwarf planet subcategory.

Thanks for the mention

It is not only Americans who oppose the controversial demotion of Pluto. Opposition to the demotion is based on the very legitimate geophysical definition of planet, which focuses on an object's composition and structure. The IAU definition is based solely on dynamics, classifying objects only by where they are while ignoring what they are. It is inherently flawed in that the further an object from its parent star, the bigger an orbit it has to "clear." If Earth were in the Kuiper Belt, it would not be considered a planet either. This results in the absurdity where the same object would be a planet in one location and not a planet in another. Since someone will undoubtedly raise the issue of spherical moons of planets, according to the geophysical planet definition, these are "satellite planets" because structurally, they are far more like planets than like asteroids. They just happen to orbit other planets. The term "dwarf planet" is a useful categorization only if it is recognized the way it was intended--as an adjective modifying a noun. A dwarf planet is a type of planet just as a dwarf star is a type of star, and a dwarf galaxy is a type of galaxy.

Wikipedia does NOT set the record straight

Wikipedia does not set the record straight--they do exactly the opposite, a disservice to the public by presenting only one view in an ongoing debate as fact when this is not the case. From the beginning, Wikipedia has refused to recognize that the vote by four percent of the IAU to demote Pluto was not the last word on this matter. Only four percent of the IAU even voted on this, and most are not planetary scientists. An equal number of professional astronomers formally opposed the demotion in a formal petition led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern. Stern is the person who coined the term "dwarf planet," back in 1991, to refer to a third class of planets in addition to terrestrials and jovians, objects large enough to be rounded by their own gravity but not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. He never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. Significantly, in astronomy, dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. It is disingenuous for you to support Wikipedia's one-sided coverage of this issue and refusal to acknowledge that this debate is far from settled, and it also promotes authoritarianism because the message is, the IAU voted; therefore something is fact. Science does not work this way. It is a perfectly legitimate scientific position to regard dwarf planets as a subclass of planets.

Hubble peers closely at Pluto

Many Reject Controversial IAU Demotion

It's not just Ilinois that does not accept the controversial IAU demotion of Pluto. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. Stern and like-minded scientists favor a broader planet definition that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star. The spherical part is important because objects become spherical when they attain a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they are large enough for their own gravity to pull them into a round shape. This is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. Pluto meets this criterion and is therefore a planet. At the very least, you should note that there is an ongoing debate rather than portraying one side as fact when it is only one interpretation of fact.

Pluto still a planet, says Ronald McDonald

Semantics Do Matter

@Christopher Martin I agree that sometimes it's hard to tell if an article is intended to be sarcastic or tongue in cheek. When an article is clearly intended to be humorous, I try to respond in an equally humorous way.

That said, as a writer, I do believe semantics matter. What we choose to call things shapes public perception, and in many cases, perception "becomes" reality. For example, the mainstream media and Hollywood choose to call people of normal weight, especially women, "fat," if they do not have what has been artificially designated as a "beautiful body," specifically one that is super-thin. How many women and girls torture themselves to get that super-thin look when in reality their bodies are healthy and normal as they are? How many talented actresses are denied roles just because they aren't a size 4?

While curricula should not be so inflexible as to deduct points from students who include Pluto with the planets, the fact remains that in real life, as a result of the very problematic IAU decision, they are. The lesson is that an "authority" can change what is and that the role of students, teachers, and the public is to blindly accept it, even if it is highly flawed and makes little sense.

You should be directing your comments to the IAU, the Register, and others that adamantly support the IAU decision, such as the German astronomer who was quoted. The Register and the astronomer expressed outrage that kids are being taught "American propangada" and "conned" into believing Pluto is still a planet. Conned??? These critics completely ignore that this is still an ongoing debate. And the IAU itself cannot agree on what its role even is. IAU spokespeople have been heard to say that IAU definitions are only for internal use within the IAU. If that is so, why do IAU officials and those who support them then become outraged when those outside the IAU choose not to accept their definitions? Which one is it? If IAU definitions are only for IAU internal use, why did World Book Encyclopedia hold off on printing its 2007 edition until the IAU made its decision and then subsequently portray the IAU view as the only reality?

Obviously, I believe what we call Pluto does make a difference. Yes, some of it is a question of values--in other words, is it sufficient to teach a simple version of the solar system with eight planets and blur the distinction between big rocks and objects in hydrostatic equilibrium that behave like planets do? To me, doing this is a disservice to all students. Pluto is not a big rock like many others. It is a small planet, and as such, it has important lessons to teach us about this new third class of planets, the dwarf planets.

You of course have the right to disagree with me and to direct your energies toward any cause you choose. I believe I am making a difference in getting people to seriously think about this and that some people are bothered because my efforts and those of other like-minded people have had an impact in keeping the debate going and maintaining a continued resistance to the IAU decision (why not ask the IAU why they bothered to take so much time and effort to address this issue in 2006?). If you don't care about this issue, why does my refusal to "let go" of it (God, I hate that term with a passion) bother you?

Some Responses

@ brian murray 1: First, to get definitions straight, I am a she, not a he. Spherical doesn't mean an object is perfectly round; rather, it means the object has been shaped by its own gravity rather than by chemical bonds. Objects must achieve a certain size to attain this status, known as hydrostatic equilibrium. They can be oblate spheroids or have a squashed round shape; the important point is that it is their gravity that shapes them.

Stern's opposition to the IAU decision is not about New Horizons. That probe was already launched before the IAU made its horrendous decision. The Dawn probe, of similar expense to New Horizons, was launched to Vesta and Ceres, when both were considered merely asteroids. We have also launched missions to comets. This argument is a red herring. Stern's argument is based on his position as a planetary scientist, favoring a definition that classifies an object by what it is rather than only by where it is.

@ Martin Nicholls: Support for Pluto's planet status has nothing to do with Disney. Most who are concerned about this already have some interest in the solar system and astronomy. Tyson says he cannot account for public affinity for Pluto; therefore, it must be due to the dog. There is no logic in this statement. Just because he can't explain the phenomenon doesn't mean he can just pick any answer and claim it is the right one.

@doh: If two objects of the same size orbit one another and orbit the Sun, what we have is a binary planet system. Both should be considered planets. Even though Charon is about half the size of Pluto, the center of mass around which the two bodies rotate is outside of Pluto and in between the two, making a good case for classifying Charon as a planet as well.

@Mike Flugennot: There is only one known Kuiper Belt Object larger than Pluto, and that is Eris, which should also be considered a planet. In the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, Ceres should be considered a planet, as it is in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium. Vesta is questionable, as it appears to have been spherical and then had its south pole lobbed off by an impact from an asteroid. The Dawn mission will likely tell us more about Vesta's composition and help determine in which category it belongs. As for Jupiter, it never fused hydrogen or deuterium (the latter is an isotope of hydrogen fused by brown dwarfs, true failed stars), so it remains in the planet rather than star category.

Pluto IS still a Planet

Forget the word "plutoid," which almost nobody uses. Pluto IS still a planet, and kudos to McDonalds for recognizing that and not blindly following a controversial dictate by four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists, that was enacted in violation of their own bylaws. McDonalds is not alone--hundreds of planetary scientists led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, signed a formal petition immediately rejecting the IAU decision. They prefer a broader planet definition in which any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star is a planet. The spheroidal part is important because it means an object is large enough to be rounded by its own gravity, a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium. By that definition, our solar system has 13 planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. No one should be forced to accept the IAU's nonsensical definition, which states that dwarf planets are not planets at all and defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. Notably, according to the IAU definition, if Earth were in Pluto's orbit it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not another is useless.

Kudos to McDonalds for standing up to the IAU, or rather, to the tiny percentage who hijacked the 2006 vote to promote their own agenda. Their definition is already being ignored by many scientists and educators and will go the way of the dinosaurs once New Horizons flies by Pluto in 2015 and shows it to be a planet with geological processes, differentiation, and weather similar to those on Earth.

Illinois restores Pluto's planetary status

Pluto IS a planet; it's the IAU that screwed up

The Illinois legislature has way more sense than the International Astronomical Union has shown in two-and-a-half years. It’s the IAU who have acted like idiots, with one tiny group forcing a nonsensical planet definition on everyone. The truth is there is NO scientific consensus that Pluto is not a planet. The criterion requiring that a planet “clear the neighborhood of its orbit” is not only controversial; it’s so vague as to be meaningless. Only four percent of the IAU even voted on this, and the vote was driven by internal politics. A small group, most of whom are not planetary scientists, wanted to arbitrarily limit the number of planets to only the largest bodies in the solar system. They held their vote on the last day of a two-week conference with no absentee voting allowed. Their decision was immediately opposed by hundreds of professional astronomers in a formal petition led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto.

Stern and like-minded scientists favor a broader definition of planet that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star. The spherical part is key because when objects become large enough, they are shaped by gravity, which pulls them into a round shape, rather than by chemical bonds. This is true of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and comets. And yes, it does make Ceres, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake planets as well, for a total of 13 planets in our solar system.

Even now, many astronomers and lay people are working to overturn the IAU demotion or are ignoring it altogether. Kudos to the Illinois Senate for standing up to this closed, out of touch organization whose leadership thinks they can just issue a decree and change reality.

Say hi to Haumea - our fifth dwarf planet

Dwarf planets vs. Asteroids

@Anonymous Coward: There is a clear difference between dwarf planets, which are objects in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they have enough self-gravity to pull themselves into a round shape and therefore have geological processes akin to those of planets, and shapeless asteroids, which do not have these processes. Most asteroids and KBOs are not in hydrostatic equilibrium. Moons of planets that have attained this state can be called "secondary planets," as was frequently done in 19th century textbooks. They have all the qualities of planets, but they orbit other planets instead of orbiting the sun directly. There is no scientific reason to artificially limit the number of planets in our solar system. If we have several hundred primary planets (those directly orbiting the sun) and several hundred secondary planets, so be it.

@ Christopher P. Martin: Pluto is not dead. Reality cannot be changed by dictate of an organization, in this case one composed largely of astronomers who are not even planetary scientists. If teaching Pluto as a planet drove you away from the classroom, then maybe you didn't belong there to begin with. This controversy is being taught as an ongoing debate, not as a matter in which a final decision has been reached. And there is no reason for anyone to "let go" if they genuinely believe the IAU decision was wrong and irreparably flawed.

We now have 13 planets

Pluto IS a planet, as are all objects in hydrostatic equilibrium orbiting stars. If Haumea is in hydrostatic equilibrium, then it's a planet of the dwarf planet subcategory. What we really need to pressure the IAU on is reversing its ridiculous definition that dwarf planets are not planets at all. They are planets, just of a different type. That means our solar system now has 13 planets, not eight.