Computer-generated map of Pluto from Hubble Space Telescope images (Wikipedia)
I really wanted to keep my mouth shut on this blog. I didn’t want to get into any flame wars or controversies. I didn’t want to be mean or nasty. But I just can’t hold back any longer.
You suck, Pluto.
I recently got caught up on the debate centering on the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a “dwarf planet.” I completely agree with the demotion — except for the ridiculous term “dwarf planet,” which I’ll deal with later.
Of course you’re not a planet, Pluto. I never liked you from the beginning. First of all, we can never get a decent picture of you. You’ve always been a fuzzy white dot. Even the Hubble Space Telescope can’t get a shot of you. Hubble can take pictures of infant galaxies at the edge of the universe, staring 13 billion years into the past, and it can’t even snap a pic of you.
The fact that your orbit periodically comes within that of Neptune, so that Neptune is the outermost planet, not you, proves that you’re just a wonky, fly-by-night pretender. And the fact that you travel way over the plane of the ecliptic just seals the deal. You’re a poser, Pluto. No decent planet worth the name would behave the way you do. You’re actually a comet, in my opinion.
This Tuesday, PBS will broadcast the “Nova” episode “The Pluto Files,” hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and based on his book of the same name. I haven’t seen the episode yet and am looking forward to it (Tyson is a great advocate for science and an entertaining presenter), but the facts are out there anyway. Tyson had a hand in your reclassification, Pluto, and bravo.
The region of the solar system called the Kuiper Belt was discovered in 1992. It’s full of celestial objects left over from the formation of the solar system. In 2005 an object larger than you, Pluto, was discovered within it, sparking controversy about whether you were actually a planet.
On August 24, 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined the term “planet” for the first time. This definition excluded you as a planet and added you as a member of the new category “dwarf planet.” Then in June 2008 the IAU put out a press release declaring the term “plutoid” as the “name for transneptunion dwarf planets similar to Pluto.” Some scientists continue to assert that you should be classified as a planet.
“Dwarf planet” still makes you a planet, so go ahead and be smug, Pluto, but you don’t fool me. I would have been happy with the term “planetoid” or something else that implied “planet-like.” “Plutoid” is just a play on your name. “Dwarf planet” is a cop out, which is what you wanted all along, since it matches your misfit, pretentious delusions.
You were always iffy to me, Pluto. No one was ever actually sure about you. I feel totally vindicated now that you’ve been demoted. You’ve always been a mealy-mouthed, bipolar, weaselly, lying ball of … ice.
What’s my standard for something being called a planet in our solar system? If Gustav Holst didn’t write a song about you, you’re not a planet. And he didn’t. It doesn’t matter that you hadn’t been discovered yet when he composed The Planets. No one cares that you recently celebrated the anniversary of your discovery in 1930 on Feb. 18.
If Holst had known about you, he still wouldn’t have written a song about you — perhaps because you happen to suck. You’re one-fifth the mass of the Earth’s moon. I say if you’re not near enough or big enough to be detected by a telescope of moderate technological competence from a hundred years ago, you’re not a planet.
Furthermore, what good could possibly come from naming a planet after the god of the underworld? Everything about you is just asking for trouble.
I don’t blame people for wanting to defend you. I actually think it’s great, so that the public can learn more about space science. No, I don’t blame them; I blame you, Pluto. This is all your fault.
You suck, Pluto. I never imagined I’d hate a celestial body as much as I do you.
P.S.
This has nothing to do with the dog Pluto. I like the Disney character and wish I had permission to reproduce here the charming photo of Dr. Tyson showing the sky to Pluto found on the “The Pluto Files” description page.
But I still hate you, dwarf planet Pluto. That will never change.
(signed)
The Tower Attendant
It’s the IAU you should hate. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. 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. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity–a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned.
Notably, even Tyson has distanced himself from the IAU decision, which he describes accurately as “flawed.”
If being distant or having an eccentric orbit makes an object not a planet, then most of the 429 exoplanets we have discovered orbiting other stars should not be considered planets either.
Thank you so much for your comment, Laurel. I hope it’s clear that my tongue-in-cheek approach is in the interest of promoting knowledge about the subject and science in general.
I appreciate the serious side of it too. The term “dwarf planet” doesn’t solve the issue, I agree. Calling something a “plutoid” makes a definition depend on a particular object. The waters are muddied in regards to rewriting textbooks, etc. I’m looking forward to the “Nova” program. A clip on the program’s Web site shows Tyson talking about the diversity of “stuff” that orbits around the Sun. Perhaps he’ll take the approach that more work needs to be done to define all the different types of objects we find.
Pluto’s eccentricity at least contributes to our trying to come to terms with what we do find, more so than if the planets were wrapped up in neat packages. There are many reasons why we wouldn’t be here if Earth had no moon, and many reasons why we wouldn’t be exploring space without seeing something like the Moon in the sky and asking, “What the heck is that thing?”
That was so funny! It almost made me hate Pluto too. :) But the truth is, I don’t care much about Pluto, whether it’s called a planet or a dwarf planet. “Plutoid” keeps some respect and dignity at least, so my vote goes for plutoid.
“The Pluto Files” show was a hoot. When Tyson showed the sky to Pluto the dog with a telescope, what did Pluto see? An asteroid shaped like a bone, of course.
Tyson also visited the small town that the discoverer of Pluto, Clyde Tombaugh, was from. Tombaugh was basically a farm boy from Illinois who made telescopes from discarded equipment. He is deeply revered in his hometown, and now some of his ashes are aboard the New Horizons spacecraft, currently on its way to Pluto. Very cool.