Comments on: The Bat Segundo Show: Neil deGrasse Tyson http://www.edrants.com/the-bat-segundo-show-neil-degrasse-tyson/ a cultural website in ever-shifting standing Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:01:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Phil Windley's Technometria http://www.edrants.com/the-bat-segundo-show-neil-degrasse-tyson/comment-page-1/#comment-251598 Phil Windley's Technometria Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:47:37 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/?p=10524#comment-251598 <strong>Pluto and the Importance of Nomenclature...</strong> This Moira Gunn interview wth Neil deGrasse Tyson , director of The Hayden Planetarium and author of the book The Pluto Files is a fun and humorous discussion of the importance of nomenclature. Calling Pluto what it is--a drawf...... Pluto and the Importance of Nomenclature…

This Moira Gunn interview wth Neil deGrasse Tyson , director of The Hayden Planetarium and author of the book The Pluto Files is a fun and humorous discussion of the importance of nomenclature. Calling Pluto what it is–a drawf……

]]> By: Laurel Kornfeld http://www.edrants.com/the-bat-segundo-show-neil-degrasse-tyson/comment-page-1/#comment-251293 Laurel Kornfeld Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:43:54 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/?p=10524#comment-251293 Edward, you're wrong about Pluto. It is a planet. Only four percent of the IAU voted on this, and most are not planetary scientists. Hundreds of professional astronomers rejected their decision in a formal petition. Many of these astronomers are working to overturn the demotion or are ignoring it altogether. That is why you will continue to see books and articles including Pluto as a planet. The IAU definition makes no sense in stating that dwarf planets are not planets at all and in classifying objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. Many astronomers prefer a broader planet definition that states simply that a planet is a non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star. This is why Pluto is NOT like most other objects in the Kuiper Belt. It is spherical, which is a hallmark of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. Blurring this distinction does a disservice to science. We can distinguish between types of planets through use of subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, etc. There should be no "adjustment period," not even fifty years, because people should not adjust to a definition that makes no sense. That is why many scientists and lay people are working even now to overturn the demotion, and there is a good chance we will succeed. This debate is far from over. Edward, you’re wrong about Pluto. It is a planet. Only four percent of the IAU voted on this, and most are not planetary scientists. Hundreds of professional astronomers rejected their decision in a formal petition. Many of these astronomers are working to overturn the demotion or are ignoring it altogether. That is why you will continue to see books and articles including Pluto as a planet. The IAU definition makes no sense in stating that dwarf planets are not planets at all and in classifying objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. Many astronomers prefer a broader planet definition that states simply that a planet is a non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star. This is why Pluto is NOT like most other objects in the Kuiper Belt. It is spherical, which is a hallmark of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. Blurring this distinction does a disservice to science. We can distinguish between types of planets through use of subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, dwarf planets, etc. There should be no “adjustment period,” not even fifty years, because people should not adjust to a definition that makes no sense. That is why many scientists and lay people are working even now to overturn the demotion, and there is a good chance we will succeed. This debate is far from over.

]]>