Dear Members of the Executive Committee, Astronomy Programs Manager and Assistant, and Staff Members,

I am an astronomy graduate student, amateur astronomer and writer, and I am writing to you to express my dismay over your booking Mike Brown to speak in a November 14 lecture titled "How I Killed Pluto, and Why I Had It Coming." Specifically, my concern is that Brown represents only one side of a very much ongoing debate over the status of Pluto and definition of planet, yet he misrepresents his point of view as the only legimitate one in the astronomy community.

In his blog "Mike Brown's Planets," Brown has repeatedly denied that a debate even exists, claiming over and over again that everyone has accepted the "new" eight-planet solar system when this is completely untrue. Several hundred professional astronomers signed a formal petition rejecting the IAU decision; their petition can be found here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest .

Many of these astronomers including New Horizons Principal  Investigator Dr. Alan Stern, Dr. Mark Sykes, Dr. David Morrison, Dr. David Grinspoon, and Dr. Hal Weaver decided to boycott this year's IAU General Assembly because in spite of their multiple requests, the IAU leadership adamantly refused to reopen discussion on the continuing controversy over planet definition.

Because Brown represents only one side of this debate yet misleadingly repeats over and over that there is no debate, it is a tremendous disservice to the public for the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History to host him without booking another astronomer representing the other side of this debate, namely support for the geophysical definition of planet (which defines a planet as any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star). Members of the public deserve to know that the 2006 IAU decision is not a done deal, and that Pluto has never been "killed" as a planet. If you do not sponsor a speaker representing this view, many will be misled into believing Brown is portraying the facts as opposed to one interpretation of the facts.

The fact that this debate remains ongoing can be seen from the popularity of Alan Boyle's new book The Case for Pluto and Pluto Confidential, a book by two astronomers, Laurence A. Marshall and Stephen P. Maran, who represent both sides of this controversy.

The persistence of the debate is also very evident in the audio transcripts of the Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, MD in August 2008, specifically in response to the problematic 2006 IAU General Assembly. Many of the astronomers mentioned above were key speakers at that event, whose proceedings can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu . I urge you all to take the time to listen to this very engaging discussion, which was conducted on a professional level and addressed all points of view regarding the question of "What Is A Planet."

I would be happy to provide you with contact information for any of these astronomers, who I am sure would be happy to give a talk for you. I ask you to also consider having me present the other side. I have run "Laurel's Pluto Blog" for three years advocating the overturning of the demotion of Pluto, went back to graduate school to study astronomy so I can have a voice in this debate, have published many articles on this subject, and have been quoted by many professional astronomers in their blogs on this issue. My blog can be found at http://laurele.livejournal.com . It has been accepted as part of the International Year of Astronomy's Portal to the Universe program and is rated tenth in Facebook's Top 50 Astronomy Blogs. Articles I wrote on this subject can be found here: http://www.space.co.uk/Features/Articles/Plutotheplanetthatwas/tabid/634/Default.aspx and here: http://www.asterism.org/newsletter/2008-10.pdf
At the following sites, journalists and astronomers have noted my persistent efforts to have Pluto's planet status (and the planet status of all dwarf planets) reinstated:

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/how-many-planets-do-you-want-in-the-solar-s ystem/

http://philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1898

http://physics.about.com/b/2009/01/31/the-other-side-of-pluto.htm

Please take my concerns under the most serious consideration and do the right thing by providing your loyal supporters and the general public with a speaker who presents the point of view that Pluto is not only alive, but is very much a planet, as are Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns.

Sincerely,

Laurel E. Kornfeld

Highland Park, NJ,

Graduate Student, Swinburne University Astronomy Online Program

Note to Blog Readers: Contact information for the executive committee and staff of the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History can be found here: http://sbnature.org/about/72.html . The more people they hear from asking for fairness in presenting both sides, the better!

Here is the poster child for what not to display in classrooms and what should not be taught to children: http://davidwboswell.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/pluto-correctness/ . Blogger David Boswell displays this image under an entry titled “Pluto Correctness,” illustrating an actual poster in his daughter’s preschool classroom.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is clearly the picture for the worst possible education children can be given about the solar system. Pluto crossed out—what is the message here? Circling and crossing out exercises are often used with preschoolers. The general idea is circle the right answer and cross out the wrong one. For example, a worksheet will show several objects and ask children to cross out the one that doesn’t belong. A typical assignment might show a truck, a motorcycle, a car, and a television. Crossing out the television, the correct choice, indicates that the television does not belong since the other three objects are vehicles, and the television is not.

In her fantasy novel A Wind in the Door, Madeleine L’Engle invokes the image of “Xing” or crossing things out as a way of negating their very existence. The antagonists in the story seek to “X” whoever they view as a threat to their frightening plans for the universe’s future. Those who are “Xed” are as though they never were.

That is why, as a L’Engle fan, I have never been comfortable with the labeling of my generation as “Generation X.” It sounds too much like a baby boomers’ decision that the generation succeeding them doesn’t exist, has no identity of its own.

So what are the lessons of a solar system display with Pluto crossed out? Some of the likely resulting beliefs by preschoolers who see this are that Pluto no longer exists, that it has been destroyed, that it was imaginary and never existed, that it is really an asteroid, that it was hit and destroyed by an asteroid or by aliens, etc. Every one of these reactions has been reported by parents, teachers, and siblings from young children’s discussions of Pluto.

Boswell erroneously states, “It’s been long enough that younger kids have grown up only knowing that Pluto used to be a planet. It’s a paradigm shift in action with the new generation simply accepting the new status as normal while any disagreements among older generations start to fade away.”

Wow, is he wrong, and on many levels. His views are very much in conjunction with the IAU’s repeated attempt to suppress any continuing debate on planet definition. The problem is, if one has to suppress debate to force an opinion on others, that usually means that opinion is not fully accepted and deep down, those suppressing opposition know that.

Thanks to conscientious teachers, parents, writers, and amateur astronomers, kids are not growing up with simple blind acceptance of a position that is still part of an ongoing debate. Instead, they are growing up learning that some issues can be looked at from multiple viewpoints, that some questions still do not have a single answer, even among the world’s top scientists. The disagreements among the so-called “older generation” are not “fading away.” They are as active as ever, and to say otherwise is a tremendous disservice to children.

In fact, the real paradigm shift is not going from nine to eight planets; it’s going from nine to numerous planets, and that is just in our solar system. This is the paradigm shift so many have trouble accepting, as can be seen from remarks like, “If we count Pluto, then we have to count hundreds of objects in our solar system as planets.” Well, yes, we very well may have to count hundreds of objects in the solar system as planets. Why is that a problem? Who originated the idea that kids cannot understand that our solar system contains four terrestrial planets, two gas giants, two ice giants, and numerous dwarf planets, all of which fall under the umbrella of planets? Whoever did is seriously underestimating the learning capacity of children.

Interestingly, a CNN poll conducted on August 24, 2009, the third anniversary of the IAU’s disastrous decision, resulted in 83 percent of respondents supporting Pluto’s formal reinstatement as a planet. Such a profound public endorsement shows that Dr. Stern is correct in his assessment that people know a planet when they see one. They see a spherical object orbiting the sun, and in spite of convoluted logic about what it means for an object to clear its orbit, they recognize that object as a planet. Don’t expect any “fading away” of Pluto’s planet status, or that of dwarf planets, any time soon.

At the same time, a science quiz by the Pew Research Center takes the wrong approach with a badly-worded question, “According to most astronomers, which of the following is no longer considered a planet,” then listing Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, and Mercury. According to most astronomers? Has Pew taken a poll? How do they come by this information when 96 percent of IAU members never took part in the vote, hundreds of professional astronomers opposed the decision, and many astronomers do not even belong to the IAU. Pew should do the right thing, and re-word this question with only one change. It should read, “According to some astronomers, which of the following is no longer considered a planet?” What they have now is a disservice and not a valid scientific knowledge survey.

Since one focus of this blog is to keep track of opposition to the IAU definition, it is appropriate here to congratulate McDonalds for distributing Happy Meal boxes reading “There are nine planets in total” in our solar system (http://deadlinescotland.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/10185-1916/ ). Some have gone so far as to accuse Ronald McDonald of “conning” kids into believing Pluto is still a planet. The real con, however, is by the IAU, which is attempting to force its one controversial view on the world as fact.

The IAU cannot even agree on what its role in astronomy is. Several IAU members have commented that their planet definition was never meant to be imposed on the entire world, that it is for internal use by IAU members only. Yet at the same time, the same people scream bloody hell when their definition isn’t followed. Scientist Paul Murdin calls McDonald’s inclusion of Pluto on these boxes as “a shame,” while the editor in Chief of the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics has stated, “McDonald’s have got this wrong. It’s a shame they didn’t check their facts.”

No, it’s the IAU that has it wrong. In fact, McDonald’s spokespeople have noted they are quite aware of the Pluto debate and rather than having gotten the facts “wrong,” they simply have chosen to join the many who reject the IAU’s controversial demotion of Pluto.

I would encourage McDonald’s to go further and add Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris to the Happy Meal boxes.

And while fast food is admittedly not the best choice healthwise, I encourage those who plan to purchase it anyway to vote with their dollars and support McDonald’s Happy Meal nine-planet boxes.

There are other ways to vote with one’s dollars as well. Jewelry designer Adriana Soto sells Planet Pluto Earrings and Planet Pluto Bracelets at this site: http://urbanheirlooms.blogspot.com/2009/09/planet-pluto-earring-284.html http://urbanheirlooms.blogspot.com/2009/09/290-planet-pluto-bracelet.html

Now, once more about that old, tired claim that it is only Americans who oppose the demotion of Pluto: the fact is, a very large number of the world’s planetary scientists are American, and planetary scientists make up the bulk of those who oppose the IAU planet definition. It is not surprising that the US is home to the largest number of planetary scientists, considering that the US led the space race and planetary missions for several decades. The issue is not whether Pluto is an “American” planet but the fact that those who study planets are heavily concentrated in the US, which has led the world in planetary research that has transformed the objects in our solar system from little more than names and tiny dots in a telescope’s field of view to real, up close, active worlds. Likewise, it makes the most sense that those who study planets would want a definition based on the traits of the objects they study rather than one based solely on where those objects are.

Finally, in terms of suppressing debate, that offense is being done solely by the pro-IAU camp. Opponents of the IAU definition have no problem admitting there is an ongoing debate, unlike supporters, who insist the debate is over. It seems the latter group is quite perturbed that what they thought was resolved their way has not been resolved at all!

Maybe that’s why Mike Brown has now formally banned me from his blog. That’s right. His reasoning is that I made “uncivil” comments there, but the reality is that went both ways. I did not insult Brown until he referred to me on Twitter as a “nutter,” prompting a British astronomer to write an entire blog entry called “Engaging the Loonies.” To that astronomer’s credit, he removed the offending entry when confronted about just how below the belt it was.

As for the statement that got me banned from Brown’s blog, it was a private email in which I vowed to undo his “killing” of Pluto and noted that even if he banned me, there are many other Pluto supporters active online, and he can’t ban them all.

Over at Alan Boyle’s “Cosmic Log” blog, one commenter, using the name “Harold Nations,” was right on about the suppression of debate by Brown and other supporters of Pluto’s demotion. With no prompting or input from me whatsoever, he wrote the following:

“A thing I find interesting in this debate is that Mike Brown clearly, originally, wanted Eris to be called the tenth planet and for obvious reasons.  He even posted the most telling thing I've ever read in the debate, that the word "planet" is clearly a cultural, not a scientific definition, much like the word "continent".  THEN, for reasons known only to himself, he decided to become oh so politically correct on the entire issue.  Had he stuck to his guns, there would NOT be a debate today, perhaps.  He's been debated time after time by Laurel Kornfeld on  his blog over planet nomenclature, and he's lost so many times he's now banned her from his blog.”

Source: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/05/2020560.aspx

To get back to kids, these kids at the Music Tapes who made “For the Planet Pluto 3” make a definitive statement in their video by ultimately rejecting Pluto’s demotion and welcoming it back to planet status. “Out of the mouths of babes…” Visit http://opticalatlas.com/2009/08/video-the-music-tapes-for-the-planet-pluto-3/ to see this humorous, heartwarming video and song, as this debate continues.

This is a day I long hoped would not come, a sad anniversary for astronomy, and one that could have been avoided if even one IAU member had had the courage to stand up at this month’s General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro and ask fellow members to admit the mistake made three years ago in the infamous vote on planet definition and take action to set it right.

But out of 2,100 attendees, not a single person exhibited that courage. At a General Assembly that started with a lower attendance than the notorious one three years ago in Prague (that one began with 2,500 attendees out of nearly 10,000 IAU members and ended with 424), the major denial of this ongoing issue amounted to the huge elephant in the room that everyone pretended not to see.

And so it is August 24, 2009, the third anniversary of the bizarre drama that resulted in a planet definition so poorly cobbled together that even dynamicists, who favor planet status for only the largest eight bodies in the solar system, admit is so flawed as to be practically useless.

Instead of recognizing its mistake and making an effort to set things right, the IAU has continued its disappointing refusal to re-open this issue, ultimately digging itself into a larger and larger hole.

The only one bright hint of progress was expressed in the August 13 issue of the General Assembly’s daily newspaper “Estrela D’Alva,” where the new IAU president Robert Williams notes that the Executive Committee is “debating the possibility of allowing Union-wide electronic voting on some issues.”

That’s right, they’re debating whether to allow electronic voting, something that should have been discussed and enacted at the General Assembly where, once again, only those in the room on the last day of the conference were permitted to vote.

For those who want to view the General Assembly proceedings, they can be found online at http://www.video.rnp.br/overmedia/videos.jsp?_contexto=grupo&_idContexto=57

And in spite of my disappointment with the non-action in Rio, I do thank the IAU and the editorial board of its General Assembly newspaper “Estrela D’Alva” for publishing a very non-partisan, information-only article I wrote about Pluto in its final issue on August 14, 2009. That can be found here: http://www.astronomy2009.com.br/10.pdf . It’s quite a feat for a group like the IAU to publish an article by someone known as a vocal opponent of their position, a feat that my political opponents here in Highland Park, NJ have yet to accomplish in more than ten years.

The good news is that the IAU is not the only venue to look to for renewed discussion and decisions on planet definition. Anyone can claim to be an authority, as the IAU does regarding astronomical matters. But action—or in this case, inaction—speaks louder than words. By refusing to fix its mistake and clean up its mess, the IAU can be considered to have effectively abdicated its responsibility on this matter.

The Rio conference does mark a turning point, a transition from astronomy having one central authority to becoming a decentralized field of study with multiple sources of expertise, interpretation, and even authority. Some have half-jokingly compared this evolution of events to the Protestant Reformation, arguing that a planetary scientist asking the IAU to reconsider its stand on planet definition is akin to Martin Luther petitioning the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals to vote on his 95 theses (no offense intended to Catholicism here).

It is an appropriate analogy. Where before there was one central, hierarchical organization, now, there are multiple groups, and the erstwhile “one true church” is now just one of many.

Continuing to petition and write to the IAU is still a worthy endeavor, as such action compels the organization to face a strong, consistent public voice rejecting the 2006 decision. But this alone will not suffice toward the goal of bringing about a better, more inclusive planet definition.

What we need to emphasize now are the continuing statements, writings, and discussions on planet definition where scientists opposed to the IAU decision speak out and offer an alternative. The issue is certain to remain a central topic of discussion at scientific conferences. Books on the subject continue to be published and generate interest, with the latest being Alan Boyle’s The Case for Pluto coming in October. Also in October, NOVA plans to film a discussion of planet definition at Harvard University, with Brian Marsden and Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking on behalf of demotion and Mark Sykes and Owen Gingerich presenting the opposing view. No airdate has yet been set, but I will announce it here as soon as the information becomes available.

The long and short of it is, advocacy for Pluto and all dwarf planets being recognized as planets will now have to occur in a more diffuse environment and over a longer period of time. Those of us who want to see a change will need to look to multiple sources, to the many scientists who actively dissent from the IAU view. We will need to cite these scientists and work with them in generating educational materials for classrooms, textbooks, and schools ranging from preschool to graduate school. We will have to generate websites and publications backed by recognized astronomers that credibly maintain a more inclusive schematic for defining planets. And most importantly, we will have to teach both children and adults that no one authority has “the answer,” that they will have to sift through multiple sources with competing views and arrive at their own conclusions.

Real data, of course, always takes precedence over rhetoric. That real data will become available over the next few years, as Dawn flies by Vesta in 2011 and then explores Ceres in 2015, the latter just at the same time New Horizons will be sending home images of Pluto and Charon. All of these missions will clearly show worlds that are not only in hydrostatic equilibrium, but geologically differentiated and far more like Earth and Mars than like shapeless asteroids. Interestingly, the IAU will hold a General Assembly in Honolulu one month after the New Horizons Pluto-Charon flyby; one can only imagine the impact this data will have on discussions at that time.

Personally, I don’t want to wait six more years for vindication. But it might just take that long. Sometimes, it’s better to let time and usage, which evolves over time, especially in the presence of new data, win the day in establishing a new perspective, rather than rushing a process, as the IAU did in 2006. In the meantime, it’s perfectly fine to note in as many venues as possible that there is more than one legitimate perspective on this issue.

I always like to note the cultural and artistic side of this issue, the continuing songs, poems, etc. inspired by Pluto’s plight and the planet debate. Just this month, I found an online video made by children titled “For the Planet Pluto,” at http://www.mergerecords.com/blog/2009/08/the-music-tapes-present-for-the-planet-pluto/ . The fourth graders of Athens, Georgia, who created this video, show more sense and understanding than do many professional astronomers.

A full three years after the decision that was supposed to end the controversy once and for all, the debate is more alive and well than ever, even if it isn’t happening at the IAU. And in a phenomenon that practically defies understanding, Pluto remains one of if not the most popular, most loved, most inspiring of the planets in the hearts and minds of millions. A tiny planet that continues to be talked about, sung about, written about by people of all ages all over the world is most certainly not “dead.” Maybe that is what bothers people like Mike Brown so much. Pluto has resisted all efforts to “kill” it. The more Brown and like-minded astronomers insist the debate is over, the more it sounds like the people they are most trying to convince are themselves.

Once again, in the words of the song by Tim Ophus and Chuck Crouse, who respectively wrote the music and lyrics to “Dwarf Planet Nothing (The Pluto Song),” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlkYe6i3Dns ,

“Pluto’s Going to Rise Once Again!”

August 6, 2009

Dear Dr. Cesarsky, Members of the IAU Executive Committee, Members of the 

         Secretariat, Members of the Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature,

         and Delegates to the 27^th IAU General Assembly,

I am writing to urge this General Assembly to officially reopen the planet definition issue, in light of the tumultuous, controversial, and abrupt manner in which it was addressed at the 26^th General Assembly in 2006. Specifically, I ask that you reconsider and add Resolution 5b from 2006, which would establish “planets” as a broad, umbrella category under which both classical and dwarf planets would be included.

Doing this amounts to reconsidering a simple amendment that, if adopted, would supersede the 2006 vote on this resolution and thereby establish dwarf planets as a subcategory of planets.

Additionally, I urge you to place a resolution on the table to allow electronic voting on all resolutions by all members of the IAU, for the purpose of including the voices of astronomers who for various reasons, including financial difficulties and family responsibilities, are unable to attend the two-week General Assemblies in person. This will make IAU processes more inclusive of its membership and bring them in line with the digital reality of the 21^st century.

Undoubtedly, you are all aware that a significant number of planetary scientists and professional astronomers, as well as amateur astronomers and interested members of the public, have been dissatisfied with the IAU planet definition adopted in 2006. That is why I and many others are asking that a better planet definition be adopted, specifically one that includes exoplanets in its classification system and also reassigns dwarf planets as a subcategory of planets, as had been proposed by 2006 resolution 5b.

This is not about Pluto; it is about the need for a more useful, clear definition that encompasses both dynamics and planetary geophysics. The 2006 definition fails to do that on two counts. First it states that dwarf planets are not planets at all, which is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. This results in blurring the crucial distinction between those objects located in belts but in hydrostatic equilibrium, with shapeless asteroids. Second, it defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to this definition, it would not be considered 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 unusable.

Additionally, the process through which the 2006 definition was adopted was flawed, as it violated the IAU’s own bylaws requiring such a resolution to be first vetted by the appropriate committee before being put on the General Assembly floor, a practice not done in this case.

With planetary science still in its infancy, it is understandable that first attempts at defining terms such as planets will be difficult and may need reconsideration. In that light, the 2006 resolutions represented a good, valiant first attempt in this direction. There is no shame, however, in admitting that this first step is flawed to the point of requiring amending. Specifically, the requirement that an object “clear the neighborhood of its orbit” to be considered a planet is vague; if taken literally, it most certainly excludes Neptune, which does not clear its orbit of Pluto and could also be construed to exclude Earth, Mars, and Jupiter, which share their orbits with large numbers of asteroids.

Significantly, only 424 out of 10,000 IAU members took part in the 2006 vote, and of those, only 237 approved the 2006 planet definition resolution. In no way can this be considered a majority consensus. It is noteworthy that immediately, hundreds of professional astronomers around the world, led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto, signed a formal petition rejecting the IAU decision entirely, adding that they will not use it.

A conference titled “The Great Planet Debate,” held in August 2008 at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, focused solely on planet definition, with open discussion of the fine details representing both the views of dynamicists and planetary geologists on this issue. Even among dynamicists, there was consensus that the 2006 decision needs to be amended. This same view was unanimously upheld at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, “From Planets to Plutoids,” held in March 2009 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where six panelists (three dynamicists and three planetary scientists) and moderator Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson all agreed that a better planet definition is needed.

In her opening statements to the 27^th General Assembly, Dr. Cesarsky noted that while 142 nations are participating in the International Year of Astronomy, only 63 countries are national members of the IAU. I ask that you consider the possibility that this notable difference results from a dichotomy in public perception: much of the general public is fascinated with astronomy, but many have lost respect for the IAU, not because of Pluto, but because the IAU’s decision-making processes appear to be driven more by politics than by science.

In the GA newsletter “Estrela D’Alva,” on August 4, 2009, discussion of a decadal plan to stimulate astronomy education around the world opens with the statement, “the IAU regards stimulating astronomy education and development throughout the world to be one of its most important tasks.” This is in line with the IAU goal of “safeguarding the science of astronomy” and communicating astronomy with the public.

Communicating with the public means listening to members of the public. It is a two-way street. Members of the public around the world, not just in the US, feel disenfranchised and ignored by the IAU planet definition resolution, both in its process and outcome. As an amateur astronomer, writer, and astronomy student, I have personally experienced, both in person and online, this dissatisfaction and disconnect that ultimately turns people away from science, thereby defeating the goals above. Among those most dedicated to astronomy, large numbers worldwide are dissatisfied with the 2006 decision, and many refuse to use it. How will the IAU successfully raise funds needed for its planned Global Development Office and general decadal plan if its processes are alienating so many potential donors?

That is why, to further respectful two-way communication with the public, I urge the IAU to also actively seek input on important issues such as this one from a broader population, including professional astronomers who are not IAU members, amateur astronomers and groups representing them, and astronomy students at all levels.

If the IAU continues to deny that a controversy remains over planet definition and the 2006 resolution in spite of clear data to the contrary, the organization risks becoming less and less relevant and less and less influential on astronomical matters. In the US, a guiding principle is that government operates by consent of the governed, and that the people can withdraw that consent at any time should an existing government begin conducting itself in an unsatisfactory and tyrannical manner. The IAU claims to be the governing body on all celestial objects and phenomena. In this light, the IAU should very strongly consider that public and scientific consent to its dictates are not absolute and may be withdrawn at any time if enough people view the organization as irrelevant or as failing to do its job in “safeguarding the science of astronomy.”

Should the IAU fail to appropriately deal with this issue and the broader question of its closed decision-making process, it is inevitable that other groups and individuals will emerge to fill that void, further eroding the IAU’s credibility and respect in the field of astronomy.

Therefore, regardless of the fact that no action on this issue has been planned for this General Assembly, I implore the IAU’s leadership, delegates to the GA, and members to do what needs to be done, to show courage and sensitivity to both scientists and lay people in admitting the planet definition issue remains unresolved and place a resolution on the General Assembly floor for a vote on August 13, 2009, which will officially adopt resolution 5b of 2006 and establish dwarf planets as a subclass of planets. I further ask a resolution allowing for electronic voting be adopted before any other resolutions are considered to allow the IAU’s full membership to vote on all relevant issues.

Sincerely,

Laurel E. Kornfeld

Highland Park, NJ, USA

Writer, amateur astronomer, astronomy student and blogger

http://laurele.livejournal.com

As a writer and actress, I blatantly reject the so-called “celebrity culture,” which was especially over the top by the media during this past week. As a rebel and stickler for fairness, I believe that talent is talent, and should be valued on its own merit, not because it is attached to a “name.” A so-called “name actor” can be just as talented as one the industry refuses to recognize, and worship of people almost as gods is just plain unhealthy. In that context, I was inspired to write about the similar phenomenon taking place in our solar system.

Pluto Speaks Out: Scorned Planet Defiant about Status

Recently demoted by Earth’s International Astronomical Union, Pluto has endured three tough years, not just among Earth’s humans but in the solar system as a whole, facing ridicule and discrimination from other solar system bodies for defiantly clinging to its planet status. In an exclusive interview for this web site, Pluto speaks out about planetary discrimination, and solar system hierarchies, revealing the inner workings of a system riddled with patronage, favoritism, and jockeying for position.

Interviewer: Pluto, I’m going to start out being blunt. After all, facts are facts. The solar system has seven moons larger than you. Another Kuiper Belt Object, Eris, is bigger than you are, and at least two others are pretty much your size. How then can you justify putting yourself in the same category as the eight Big Guys?

Pluto: The problem here is that you’re arbitrarily choosing size as somehow being of more value than a whole host of other criteria. Size isn’t everything. I say, look at shape. I’ve achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. I’m shaped by my own gravity. That’s what puts me in the same category as your so-called “Big Guys.”

Interviewer: Honestly, Pluto, how many moons of other solar system planets are also in hydrostatic equilibrium? They don’t insist on being called planets. They accept that they’re not in the inner circle. They understand that they’re just not in the big leagues.

Pluto: We’ve got a couple of misconceptions here. First of all, I never denied them the status of planet. In fact, in my view, if they’re in hydrostatic equilibrium, they’re planets too. For some reason, maybe their own low self-esteem, they feel the need to center their lives around other planets instead of maintaining their own orbits.

Interviewer: So you have no problem with calling these moons planets.

Pluto: Of course not. I just feel bad that they don’t think enough of themselves to recognize that they can orbit the Sun directly. They don’t have to attach themselves to the so-called giants to be important. Unfortunately, they’re buying into the propaganda that they’re somehow inferior and will get nowhere unless they faun all over the giants.

Interviewer: And Eris and those other round Kuiper Belt Objects? They’re planets too?

Pluto: Of course. And they’ll tell you that themselves. It’s only these so-called Big Guys who are spreading the lie that if you’re not one of their “Big Eight,” you’re not a planet, and that the best you can do is hang onto their coattails. Here in the Kuiper Belt, we laugh at their self-importance.

Interviewer: But realistically, you can’t say you have the same degree of influence as the giants. Jupiter regularly intercepts comets, stopping them from impacting other planets, including Earth. What do you do that is comparable?

Pluto: First of all, you’re assuming Earth is somehow more deserving of protection than any of the rest of us. Not to mention, what’s wrong with comets? They hang out with me here in the ‘hood all the time. If they want to take a trip into the inner solar system and see what it’s like near the Sun, why should they be prohibited from doing that? We don’t tell Mercury, Venus, Earth, or Mars not to get near the Sun. This is just the same old size discrimination again. That or special favoritism to Earth because it’s directly related to humans.

And you know what? Most comets who take that trip, once they get close to the Sun, they realize it’s hot as hell over there, and they come racing back into the outer solar system very happy to get home. Some of them come back broken and damaged from all that heat, and once they’re back, they choose to live here in the ‘hood, what those Big Guys ridicule as the boondocks.

Interviewer: So comets should be allowed to roam freely all over the solar system.

Pluto: Of course. Why should there be one set of rules for the Big Guys and another set of rules for the little guys? That’s a blatant double standard.

Interviewer: Yet every day comets leave your ‘hood trying to get closer to the Sun. Thousands of asteroids compete just get closest to Jupiter or Saturn. For every one that makes it, thousands don’t. You don’t have asteroids clamoring to orbit you. The overwhelming majority want to be part of the Big Guys’ kingdoms, even if it means just being a speck in their ring systems.

Pluto: You see; that’s where their value systems are all screwed up. Why make your whole life revolve around another planet when you can be one yourself, when you can have your own orbit? Okay, I’m small, but I orbit the Sun directly. They only live vicariously through attaching themselves to the giant planets. Why would I want to orbit another planet when I can have an orbit of my own? Yes, it’s kind of different, but you know, I like it, and I have complete freedom to do what I want.

And you know, having moons isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. And I say this as someone who has three moons myself. The whole planet-moon thing is part of the hierarchical mentality that is the root of most problems here in the solar system. Why can’t we all be planets? In fact, Charon and I are unique in that we co-orbit one another. Ours is an orbit of equals. I love Charon, and I don’t feel the need to make myself superior.

Interviewer: You do have Nix and Hydra orbiting you though.

Pluto: Because they choose to. They happen to like our different way of doing things. And Charon and I are fine with that. If they ever want to go off on their own and be their own planets, we’ll wish them well. We won’t try to keep them in our shadows.

And, you’ve actually made another good point. Charon and I have a system of four. Mercury and Venus have no moons at all. Mars has two little asteroid moons who were rejected by Jupiter. Why should they be planets and Charon and I be some sort of second-class citizens?

Interviewer: You don’t clear your orbit of other Kuiper Belt Objects, and those planets do have clear orbits.

Pluto: Only because they were born in an advantaged location. Put them out here in the Kuiper Belt, and they wouldn’t clear anything.

Interviewer: Many astronomers consider you most like Triton, a moon of Neptune. Why should you be given the coveted title of planet, yet the larger Triton just be a moon?

Pluto: Again with this size issue. We keep coming back to that. Look, I know Triton, and once upon a time, he was a planet just like me, with his own orbit—until Neptune lured him in with all this rhetoric about how popular he’d be if he were associated with a giant planet. Unfortunately, Triton bought into this propaganda, against my advice by the way. And you know what? It’s all going to end in tragedy. His orbit around Neptune is unstable. One day, he’s going to crash into his big blue idol and completely self-destruct. Of course, Neptune never told him that in advance. All because Triton chose to give up his individuality and worship one of the so-called Big Guys. I, on the other hand, will still be here when he’s long gone.

Interviewer: So you really believe you’re as important to the solar system as giants like Jupiter and Saturn?

Pluto: Yes I do. And I’ll tell you something else they don’t want you to know. Those two, especially Jupiter, really wanted to be suns, but they just couldn’t do it. Hell, Jupiter tried and tried but couldn’t even fuse deuterium, much less hydrogen. These guys are wanna bes. That’s why they’ve got their own little solar systems going. And Uranus and Neptune just copied them. They’ve collected all those moons because they want to act like suns, but deep down, they know they’re not. And so they’re compensating. It’s the same thing with the rings. Saturn started the whole thing as one big show of ostentation. Then the other three gas giants copied him. Oh, they love to brag about how objects all over the solar system would kill just to be a tiny moonlet in their rings. So egotistic, so self-important. And they don’t even have surfaces. You can’t stand on them or land a rover on them, but you can do both of those with me.

Interviewer: Then what about Ceres and Vesta? They’re round, but they don’t mind being considered asteroids.

Pluto: Really? Did you ever ask them what they think? Or did you just take Jupiter’s word for it? Nobody even bothered to consult Ceres, Vesta, and a couple of others in that area who happen to be round. No, it’s just, you’re in the asteroid belt, so you’re automatically no better than any little rock floating around out there. Don’t you humans have words for that kind of discrimination on your planet?

Interviewer: I think we’ve pretty much covered everything. It’s clear you’re sticking to your guns on this one.

Pluto: You bet I am. We’re talking about my identity, who I am. And not just my identity, but the identity of every small object in the solar system, especially those of us who have worked hard to attain hydrostatic equilibrium. If it’s good enough for Jupiter, it’s good enough for all of us. I’m not just going to sit here in the Kuiper Belt and let these Big Guys call their reality the only reality. No, I’ve already started mobilizing the little guys here in the Kuiper Belt who are in the same spherical shape as Jupiter. And the asteroid belt is next. Then the Oort Cloud. Some of those over-inflated gas giant egos may start to see their moons suddenly floating away and establishing their own orbits as planets. There is a revolution underway in the solar system, and it starts here.

You know, if they hadn’t messed with me, I might have just left things the way they are and been content to do my own thing. But the humans and these big planets that follow their every dictate made a huge mistake. They picked a fight with me, so now they’re getting what they deserve. The new rallying cry among the solar system’s underdogs is, “let a thousand planets bloom!” And mark my words, they will.

Once again, Pluto is showing up everywhere--in books, DVDs, at conferences, even in a new wine created to honor the little planet.

Tonight, the debate over Pluto and what defines a planet will be discussed at a conference of the American Astronomical Society in Pasadena, California. Once again, Alan Stern and Neil de Grasse Tyson will be on stage together.  Even though I've heard all the arguments--and made most of them myself on the pro-Pluto side--I can't help but feel a twinge of regret at not being able to attend this conference personally. However, if Alan Stern is batting for Pluto, then at least I know the pro-Pluto side is in good hands.

David Grinspoon will be speaking for Pluto as well. You can read some of his views on this issue at http://flyingsinger.blogspot.com/2009/02/giving-pluto-another-chance.html

Just the fact that this discussion is taking place as we approach the three year mark of the IAU's horrendous decision is noteworthy in and of itself. The IAU wanted to "finish this," to "settle" it once and for all at the 2006 General Assembly. Whether in conferences, in print, or in culture, over and over again, the evidence is overwhelming that they failed miserably in that goal.

The number of Pluto-related items coming up could make a collector's dream. The DVD "Naming Pluto," which tells the story of how 11-year-old British schoolgirl Venetia Burney named Pluto in 1930 and subsequently shows her viewing Pluto through a telescope for the first time on the eve of her 89th birthday, can be purchased here: http://www.fatherfilms.com/shop . I already have my copy and will be posting a review of the DVD shortly. Father Films is also selling a "Naming Pluto" poster along with the DVD. Given Venetia's passing away only this April 30, it is fortuitous that the film was made while she was still around to be part of it.

Astronomy Now, a British astronomy magazine, is holding a contest for a free copy of "Naming Pluto." For details, visit http://www.astronomynow.com/AstronomyNowNamingPlutoCompetition.html . Anyone who wants to participate should act quickly because the deadline is this Friday, June 12. The winner will be chosen randomly from the entries who submit the correct answer to a specific question regarding Pluto and does so following the instructions on the web site above. Only one person can win, but everyone interested in the solar system and in public contributions to astronomy is encouraged to buy a copy of this DVD.

A group of California high school students didn't want to wait until their 80s to view Pluto through a telescope. They spent Memorial Day weekend conducting the first Salinas Valley Pluto Expedition over two nights. Read more about it here: http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20090530/OPINION03/305300002/1014/RSS03 . Pluto reaches opposition, the best time of the year for viewing it, when it is opposite the Sun and out all night, on June 23, so now is an excellent time to try and see it. This is one of my personal life goals, but the weather here in central NJ on the weekends when observatories are open has not been cooperating so far. In this state, we need a dark sky site, as even the most powerful telescopes cannot resolve such a tiny, far away object with the light and air pollution in our many heavily populated areas.

In March and April, NASA ran an online contest called "Mission Madness" in which people could vote for their favorite NASA missions, past and present. Out of several rounds, New Horizons finished in the Final Four, showing once again the widespread interest in exploring Pluto.

And not one but two new books will soon be published on the subject of Pluto. As I said in an earlier post, I plan to write a book about Pluto as well, but in this case, these are not "competition." It's a matter of "the more, the merrier," about putting out as much information from as many viewpoints as possible so the ultimate decision can be made by the people, not by a tiny percent of a closed group.

The first book, by award-winning science writer Alan Boyle, is called The Case for Pluto, which makes the case that Pluto should be reinstated as a planet and counters arguments made in previous publications against this viewpoint. Current plans are for it to come out in October of this year. You can learn more about this book and order a copy from http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470505443.html. If you're one of those people who wants to present strong, credible arguments for Pluto beyond simple statements such as "it was always considered a planet," this book should be a great resource. I will write a review of it in a future blog entry. The timing of that entry will depend on when I receive and read the book.

Another book, one I just found out about last night, is co-written by two authors representing opposing sides in this debate. Pluto Confidential: An Insider Account of the Ongoing Battles Over the Status of Pluto was co-authored by Laurence A. Marshall, an astronomer and educator who voted for the IAU resolution, and by Stephen P. Maran, a NASA scientist who signed the petition opposing the IAU planet definition. That book, which comes out in August of this year, can be ordered from http://www.amazon.com/Pluto-Confidential-Insider-Account-Ongoing/dp/1933771801 or from another bookselling website. It is always good to be familiar with both sides of a debate, even if one is very partisan on one side, so this should be a great resource. Again, I will write a review of it as soon as I obtain and read the book.

Speaking of presenting both sides, I do give credit to the IAU for including this blog in its International Year of Astronomy Portal to the Universe Project. You can find this link here: http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/blogs/feeds/view/105/ featuring my picture with a spacescape and Pluto in the background!

A third book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, examines science illiteracy in the US, beginning with the example of the Pluto debate. Authors Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirschenbaum are strong supporters of Pluto retaining its planet status and begin their book by discussing the Pluto debate. The book will be available at http://www.amazon.com/Unscientific-America-Scientific-Illiteracy-Threatens/dp/0465013058 . It has not been released yet though you can read more about it here: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/12/unscientific_america.php Again, a review will be forthcoming here once I obtain my copy of the book.

Anyone taking a trip to the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, the site where Pluto was first discovered in 1930, can literally vote with their dollars for Pluto's planet status. The observatory features donation jars with four categories asking what Pluto should be called: planet, dwarf planet, other, and "I don't care; I just want to support Lowell!" You can see the donation jars here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rqd6DTuStOE/Si4T9IH82JI/AAAAAAAAAIo/0lLhHre5qvk/s1600-h/Lowell-Pluto_donations.jpg . As of June 4, 2009, the Planet jar is ahead with $1,049.65 compared with $739.21 for "I don't care; I just want to support Lowell," $417.06 for Dwarf Planet (note it never says dwarf planets are not planets at all!), and $162.52 for Other.

T-shirt afficionados can wear their support for Pluto by purchasing shirts with many designs from http://besttees.org/cgi-bin/cpshop.pl?i=pluto or from the ever popular Cafe Press.

Anyone on Facebook can join the fast-growing cause, "Bring Pluto Back" at http://apps.facebook.com/causes/241322/14617099?m=830bc981 . The rapidly-growing group has 593 members and counting, including a few professional astronomers.

2 Skinnee Js have released a tune, "Pluto," where they act as "attorneys" representing Pluto. More about this song can be found at http://johnstrophyrun.blogspot.com/2009/04/pluto-is-planet.html

And difficult as this may be to believe, you can now support Pluto by drinking wine--specifically, "Planet Pluto Meritage Red Table Wine" made in California, created to oppose the IAU demotion and support Pluto's planet status. The wine can be ordered from this site: http://planetplutowine.com/planetpluto/home.html

Over the last three months, I have been busy completing an astronomy class, "Exploring the Solar System," through the Swinburne Astronomy Online Graduate Certificate Program. As a writer with no formal training in astronomy, I felt this program would provide me with that training in a stimulating online environment, where I could "talk" with people all over the world via class newsgroups. It has been an amazing experience, and I will write more about that too. Anyone interested in pursuing courses in astronomy should consider this program.  It is most certainly not a "degree mill"; be prepared to work hard and be challenged. But it is well worth it. More information is available here: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/

Finally, in line with the theme of scientific illiteracy, I would like to share a story that to me illustrates the core of the problem with the IAU and its planet definition. Writers, bloggers, educators, astronomers, etc. are of course free to say and print whatever they want online. That does not mean their comments are some sort of gospel truth, even if they are written by astronomers. In the Discovery Space "Twisted Physics"  blog, writer Jennifer Ouellette, in discussing the passing of Venetia Burney, refers to Pluto as an "erstwhile planet," (erstwhile meaning former) meaning of course, she subsequently received an immediate objection comment from me regarding use of the word "erstwhile," as saying that amounts to taking the IAU definition as fact rather than as one interpretation in an ongoing debate. Ouellette responded by writing, "Pluto is an erstwhile planet. Deal with it. If/when the IAU reverses its decision, we'll all revise our descriptions accordingly." The link is here: http://blogs.discovery.com/twisted_physics/2009/05/rip-venetia-phair.html?cid=6a00d8341bf67c53ef011570a25cf3970b

Now just a minute. "If/when the IAU reverses its decision, we'll all revise our descriptions accordingly???" Is the IAU the arbiter of reality? Do they decide what is "Truth," and do all of us just blindly follow? Isn't science supposed to involve at least some brain activity, in other words, thinking for oneself? "We'll all follow" is, at least to me, a frightening statement. As Star Trek's Dr. McCoy would say, "What is this, the Dark Ages?"

Instead of "following," let's all lead. The IAU is only one venue in this debate, but as we approach their August General Assembly, it is crucial that they continue to hear from as many people as possible requesting they re-open the planet definition issue. Keep writing to IAU president Catherine Cesarsky at catherine.cesarsky@cea.fr and to the IAU in general at iau@iap.fr ;cite the professional astronomers who dissent with the 2006 definition, and ask that this year, the organization clean up the mess they made of this issue. It's not over!!!

It was with tremendous sadness that I learned last week that Venetia Burney Phair, the 11-year-old girl who in 1930 first suggested the name Pluto for the newly-discovered planet, passed away in England at the age of 90. That’s one more person whom I will now never get the chance to meet.

New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern did get that opportunity in late 2006 after inviting Phair to the launch of New Horizons. Phair could not make the trip to Cape Canaveral, so instead Stern visited her in England, where he presented her with a plaque commemorating the use of her name on one of New Horizons' scientific instruments, the Venetia Burney Student Dust Counter. That device was chosen to bear her name because it was built entirely by students, echoing Phair’s own student involvement in astronomy by naming Pluto and intended as an example to encourage young people to pursue an interest in science.

The story of Phair’s naming of Pluto is told in a 13-minute film now available for purchase online. Titled “Naming Pluto,” it can be bought from this site: http://www.fatherfilms.com/shop .

Stern describes Phair as “a thoroughly likeable, intelligent, and endearing woman.” He and the New Horizons team pay tribute to her in their latest blog entry at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/news_center/news/20090508.php .

Phair was fortunate in that her grandfather, Falconer Madan, was well connected in the academic world, being friends with Oxford astronomy professor Herbert Hall Turner. Madan presented Turner with Phair’s choice of name, ironically at the same time the Royal Astronomical Society was discussing what to call the new planet.

Today, when the only connection a young person or one of any age needs to potentially have such an impact is a working Internet connection, opportunities abound for everyone to potentially make a lasting contribution, whether to astronomy or any other field of interest. Clyde Tombaugh, who was born in 1906, had to scramble to find astronomy books with which to educate himself as a boy interested in the field. Today, hundreds of books on the subject are geared toward people of all ages and levels of education, and countless web sites can be accessed from the comforts of one’s home.

If anything, making a significant accomplishment to astronomy is easier and more accessible to any person today than in any other time in history. Most of all, this should be emphasized to young people when educating them about Phair and holding her up as an example for what any of them can do.

Phair—unlike this writer, a fake redhead who walks around wearing “Save Pluto” shirts—is the original Pluto girl. It was her interests in both classical mythology and astronomy that led her to suggest the name of the Roman ruler of the underworld for the newly discovered remote, enigmatic planet.

As with many discoveries, there was some contention before the name Pluto was formally adopted in May 1930. Constance Lowell, the widow of Percival Lowell, who had built the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1894 and who had initiated the search for a trans-Neptunian planet but died in 1916, advocated both “Lowell” and her own name, “Constance.” Other names considered were Zeus, Kronos, and Persephone.  Zeus and Kronos were not appropriate, as these are the Greek names for Jupiter and Saturn, and the name Persephone had already been given to an asteroid.

One person strongly reacted against the name Pluto, which he equated with Satan. Captain Charles E. Freeman, superintendent of the US Naval Observatory in Washington, is said to have remarked, “Pluto is the prototype of Satan in many minds, and drops out for that reason, perhaps.”

But astronomers at the Lowell Observatory immediately saw the appropriateness of the name Pluto and unanimously chose it for the new planet.

Freeman’s equating of the mythological Pluto with Satan is reflective of a lack of familiarity with Greek and Roman mythology. The underworld that the mythic Pluto ruled was the abode of the dead, not the hell of eternal punishment. Titled Hades, it was an all encompassing region that did have a designated punishment area for evildoers, known as Tartarus, but also contained many other sections including a version of paradise for the virtuous dead, known as the Elysian Fields. In some versions of the myth, there is support for reincarnation, with souls preparing for rebirth guided by Pluto’s wife, Persephone, back to the world of the living after drinking from the River Lethe, the river of forgetfulness that induced amnesia for past lives and existence in the underworld.

Even though I never met her, I feel a kinship to Venetia Phair, sharing her interests in both mythology and astronomy, interests that all too often today take a back seat to so-called celebrity gossip among young people who do not know the gems they are missing.

And I cannot help but notice several uncanny coincidences that strengthen this personal feeling of connection.

Phair’s great uncle, Henry Madan, a housemaster at Eaton, had proposed the names Phobos and Deimos for the moons of Mars in 1877. In Roman mythology, these are the names of attendants of Mars, the god of war.

This spring, desiring some formal education in astronomy, which I do not have, I enrolled in an online Graduate Certificate in Astronomy program at Swinburne University, based in Melbourne, Australia. The class in which I am enrolled, “Exploring the Solar System,” has two sections, titled Phobos and Deimos. I am in the Phobos section.

Venetia Phair’s obituary notes she was born July 11, 1918. My birthday is one day earlier, July 10, and both my college roommate and my running mate in my campaign for a local council seat in 2005 were born on July 11 (though in different years).

T.S. Eliot, one of my favorite writers, begins his famous poem The Wasteland, a prophetic social commentary on the 20^th century and the meaninglessness of so many ideals previously valued, begins that work with the line, “April is the cruelest month.” It is one thing to find barrenness and death in late autumn, the place where they belong in the cycle of nature. It is an entirely different thing to find barrenness and death in what should be the heart of spring, a time of flowers and new life.

April 2009 was a personal heartbreaker for me. From seemingly out of nowhere, like a thief in the night, pancreatic cancer stole the life of my 95-year-old grandmother, Ethel Rosengarten, who died on April 20, ten days before Venetia’s death. What does a fighter like me do when the death sentence comes, and there is no one and no way to fight? We sat at her bedside, talked to her, and sang, even when she was unresponsive. I pleaded with a nurse to do something, a fleeting vestige of that childhood part of us all that believes the grownup world knows all the answers and can solve all the problems.

Only a week before my grandmother died, my best friend and I visited her in the hospital, both wearing “Save Pluto” shirts we had ordered online. That day, which happened to be both Passover and Easter, she was doing better and was quite popular, with visitors constantly coming. “Pluto,” she read from my shirt, smiling, knowing of my fascination with this tiny planet.  “We’ll look at the picture of Pluto from New Horizons when it gets there in 2015,” I said, hoping against hope that by sheer force of will, I could make it come true.

But it was not to be. Tragically, neither she nor Venetia Burney Phair will be around for that day.

And I could not help but think a lot about death and about Pluto, that mythological representation of death and rebirth, of the unknown and enigmatic, Pluto, whose story reflects the universal human hope that maybe death is not the end of everything, just the end of one cycle.

Eliot, in The Four Quartets, conveys this sentiment in his description of life as a voyage:

“'Fare forward, you who think that you are voyaging;
You are not those who saw the harbor
Receding, or those who will disembark.
Here between the hither and farther shore
While time is withdrawn, consider the future
And the past with an equal mind.
At the moment which is not of action or inaction
You can receive this: "on whatever sphere of being
The mind of a man may be intent

At the time of death"—that is the one action
(And the time of death is every moment)
Which shall fructify in the lives of others:
And do not think of the fruit of action.
Fare forward.
O voyagers, O seamen, You who came to port, and you whose bodies
Will suffer the trial and judgment of the sea,
Or whatever event, this is your real destination.'
So Krishna, as when he admonished Arjuna
On the field of battle.
Not fare well,
But fare forward, voyagers.”

In response to Pluto’s demotion, Phair said she was largely indifferent but then noted she preferred that Pluto remain a planet. I confidently believe that in the long term, it will, and many, many others are convinced of the same.

So to two special women, one known internationally for naming my favorite planet and the other a personal loved one with her own life of courageous accomplishments that spanned the 20^th century and beyond, I choose not to say good-bye, but to use Eliot’s words instead.

“Not farewell, but fare forward, voyagers.”

Today is the 79th anniversary of the discovery of planet Pluto by 24-year-old Clyde Tombaugh at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. The observatory is celebrating that milestone, "Pluto Night," tonight with presentations by astronomer and New Horizons team member Will Grundy and by Outreach Manager Kevin Schindler, who will share the exciting story of Pluto’s discovery and astronomers’ current efforts in trying to understand Pluto and its neighbors. Visitors will also have an opportunity to check out the Orion Nebula and other fascinating objects through their telescopes. More on this event can be found at http://www.lowell.edu/outreach/events.php . This is one event I deeply regret missing, but Flagstaff is a long way from New Jersey. Still, I do plan to make a visit to the Lowell Observatory one of the goals I hope to someday accomplish.

Interestingly, the anniversary of Pluto's discovery is being noted around the world by many articles, blog posts, and events, once again illustrating the compelling draw of this tiny body of which the world cannot seem to get enough.
Several weeks ago, I noted the dedication of Tombaugh's 16-inch telescope at Rancho Hidalgo in New Mexico. Pictures from the dedication ceremony can be viewed at http://community.livejournal.com/pluto_heresy/10456.html

How notable is it that fully two and a half years after the IAU--or, rather, four percent of the IAU--thought they had settled this issue for good, that it becomes more and more evident every day that the issue is not settled. Why should it be? Why should the world settle for a sloppy definition adopted in haste by astronomers more eager to get home after a two-week conference than to deliberate sufficiently so as to arrive at a thoughtful compromise? In the March 2009 issue of Sky and Telescope, Dr. David Grinspoon argues rightly that the world should not be forced to accept a flawed planet definition. His article and an 11-minute podcast on why the planet definition issue needs revisiting can be found here: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/skytel/beyondthepage/38235059.html

Also fascinating to me is the reference to this blog in several blog posts by various astronomers and astronomy journalists. It seems the backlash against the IAU decision is gaining momentum. On four separate occasions in just the last few weeks, this blog was discussed in relation to the Pluto debate. These references can be found at the following sites:

http://philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com "Pluto: A Reader's Contribution" 2/5/09
http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1898 "Defining Planets" (Part 1) 2/2/09
http://physics.about.com/b/2009/01/31/the-other-side-of-pluto.htm "The Other Side of Pluto" 1/31/09
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/how-many-planets-do-you-want-in-the-solar-s ystem/ "How Many Planets Do You Want in the Solar System?" 1/10/09

The Internet has provided people the world over an opportunity to make a difference, to influence this debate in a way we never could have in its absence. In the pre-Internet world, four percent of the IAU would have voted, and that would have been the end. Many people, both scientists and lay people, would still have been unhappy with the flawed decision, but we would have had limited venues with which to express our views. Supporters of the demotion, especially if they are professionals with PhDs, would get the media attention, the op-eds and the interviews, and in spite of the definition's many deficiencies, there would have been precious little the rest of us could do to fight this. Thankfully, today, we have this venue that democratizes this debate, allowing all to have an equal say in this matter and, most importantly, allowing Pluto supporters to counter the claims of those who support demotion that our views are based solely on sentiment. They are not. There is strong scientific reasoning for the continuing classification of Pluto as a planet.

Here is one of the most compelling arguments yet.  A newfound pair of exoplanets has been discovered, which has the same 3:2 orbital resonance as Neptune and Pluto. The two planets revolve around an orange dwarf star named HD 45364 in the constellation of Canis Major, about 110 light years from Earth.  The inner planet completes three orbits around its star in the same time it takes the outer planet to complete two orbits. Therefore, the inner planet at times lies further from the star than the outer planet--just like Neptune and Pluto. For 20 years of its 248-year orbit, Pluto comes closer to the sun than does Neptune. Both of these exoplanets have elliptical orbits.

Both of these are giant planets; the inner one is at least 3.5 times the mass of Neptune. Its average distance from its star is approximately that of Venus from our sun. The outer planet is more massive, at least 2.2 times the mass of Saturn. It is slightly closer to its star than the Earth is to the sun.

According to the IAU definition, neither of these objects would be considered planets, as they do not "clear their orbits" of one another. According to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, crossing another planet's orbit is "no way for a planet to behave." What, then, are these giant objects? Are they really not planets, or more likely, did some astronomers hastily adopt a planet definition based on arbitrary constrictions? More about this planetary system can be found at http://kencroswell.com/HD45364.html

Another exoplanet discovery illustrates that having an orbit that is "comet-like" does not make an object a comet. A large exoplanet, HD 80606b, four times the size of Jupiter, circles its star in only a few days in a comet-like orbit. Is this object, which is bigger than any in our solar system, not a planet but a comet because of its highly elliptical orbit?

More information on this exoplanet can be found at http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=5767

The conclusion is clear. Unless astronomers want to blatantly exclude these giant objects from planet status, they have to recognize that an  object not clearing its orbit, crossing the orbit of another planet, and/or having a comet-like orbit do not in fact disqualify celestial objects from consideration as planets. And it may be just a hunch, but personally, I have a feeling that we are going to see more, not fewer, strange exoplanet discoveries that only confirm the ridiculousness of the IAU's 2006 planet definition.

Another interesting tidbit that further discredits Tyson's claim that affinity for Pluto is limited to the US is that just yesterday, I received a message from an astronomy journalist in Argentina stating his support for Pluto's planet status. People around the world are speaking, and they are celebrating planet Pluto. Forget the silly 1930-2006 line that has graced some blogs and T-shirts. It's 2009, and planet Pluto has not gone anywhere. The debate will not end with a nonsensical definition best described in Jonathan Coulton's song, "I'm Your Moon," as "they invented a reason."

For those further interested in Pluto's fate, Dr. Alan Stern will be at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on Tuesday, March 10 at 7:30 PM for the 2009 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, which will focus on Pluto. Dr. Tyson will act as moderator. Tickets are $18 and should be purchased in advance. More information can be found at http://www.amnh.org/programs/programs.php?event_type_id=3&bytype=1 . I hope to be there and to meet other Pluto supporters there.

On the next night, Wednesday, March 11, NASA Solar System Ambassador Dr. Ken Kremer, a friend of mine, will discuss Pluto and the New Horizons Mission at the Rittenhouse Astronomical Society at the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia from 8-9:30 PM. He will join Dr. Max Mutchler of the Space Telescope Science Institute, who discovered Pluto's two tiny moons Nix and Hydra.  Mutchler will begin the evening program at 7:30 PM. More information can be found at http://www.rittenhouseastronomicalsociety.org/

Meanwhile, all the discussion resulting from Tyson's book has inspired me with the goal of writing a book about Pluto as well, one that will address both the scientific issues surrounding the debate and the cultural aspect of Pluto and worldwide support for its planet status--all from the viewpoint of an unabashed Plutophile. This project is still in the research state, so it's going to be a while before it becomes reality. However, I'm pretty sure the Pluto debate will continue for quite some time, creating a fertile climate for books and articles on this subject. I agree with Tyson, who responded to my project with "the more, the merrier." Of course, I better get it done well before 2015, or New Horizons data will make most of the information obsolete!

Today in Animas, New Mexico, at the Rancho Hidalgo housing development, the 16-inch telescope used by Pluto discoverer Clyde Tombaugh in his later years will be officially dedicated at its new home, where it will serve as a centerpiece in a new educational program.

Members of the Tombaugh family and Tombaugh biographer David Levy, one of the discoverers of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which hit Jupiter in 1994, will be present for the dedication.

As an interesting note, in his later years, Tombaugh was aware of the controversy surrounding Pluto's status. Levy reportedly promised Tombaugh that he would always be a voice for Pluto's planethood, even after Tombaugh was gone.

The 16-inch telescope at Rancho Hidalgo has been refurbished and updated for frequent use. Gene Turner, one of the developers of this community, emphasizes that there are many people eager to look through Tombaugh's telescope. Personally, he has set himself a goal of viewing Pluto and Charon through the telescope as two separate objects, a feat rarely accomplished by amateur astronomers. Charon is half the size of Pluto and very close to the planet, which is why for so long, astronomers believed Pluto was far larger than it really is.  Until the discovery of Charon by James Christie in 1978, nobody realized that they were actually looking at not one but two separate objects in very close proximity to one another.

The owners of Rancho Hidalgo also own the Arizona Sky Village, another housing development geared specifically to skywatchers and therefore also a dark sky site (something that those of us here in light polluted New Jersey can very much appreciate!).

At Rancho Hidalgo, Pluto is a planet, says Turner, who plans to put a provision stating so in the development's official documents.

More information on Rancho Hidalgo and the Tombaugh telescope can be found at http://www.hidalgonm.com/ranchohidalgo_025.htm

After reading Time magazine's interview with Neil de Grasse Tyson, I would like to comment on a statement Tyson makes regarding "Plutophiles," a term he uses for supporters of Pluto's planet status. Tyson is wrong when he says "Plutophiles" are only Americans. I have heard from and read writings by people from all over the world who want to see Pluto reinstated as a bona fide planet, not a dwarf, people from Australia, England, Canada, New Zealand, Egypt, the Philippines, Morocco, India, Pakistan, and many other locations.

But one does not have to take my word for it. There are Internet groups and web sites all over the world organized by people who want to see Pluto reinstated as well as see dwarf planets categorized as a subclass of planets. There are astronomers worldwide, some of whom are IAU members, others who are not, who reject the IAU demotion of Pluto. Some of them were at the Great Planet Debate.  One can see names from around the world in Dr. Stern's petition of 300 professional astronomers who rejected the IAU decision, which can be found here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/

Tyson also overly emphasizes the connection with the Disney dog, to which he attributes much of the public's fascination with Pluto. This is quite a supposition and assumes he knows the motivation of people who want to see Pluto's planet status reinstated. What he does not take into account is that many "Plutophiles" are amateur astronomers and astronomy enthusiasts (both adults and children) whose interest in Pluto the planet is completely independent of Disney. Of the many adults and children with whom I have corresponded or whom I have met, none even mentioned Disney in connection with their convictions about Pluto.

I tried to email Gilbert Cruz, writer of the interview, but all four attempts resulted in a bouncing email address. If anyone has contact information for him at Time magazine, please share it with me.

We are two weeks into the International Year of Astronomy, and already there have been fascinating new developments in the field, including the imaging of exoplanets’ atmospheres; the presence of methane on Mars, indicating it is not a “dead planet”; new information revealing that our Milky Way galaxy is far bigger than previously thought, and much more.

Significantly, today is the third anniversary of the launch of New Horizons, which is now six and a half years from reaching Pluto.

However, one Pluto-related news item this month turns out to be driven far more by the desire for press and public relations than by the quest for knowledge. Specifically, I am referring to the latest book by Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, titled The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet.

Rise and fall? To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of Pluto’s “death” have been greatly exaggerated.

Pluto is about as “dead” as a soap opera character who is presumably killed under mysterious circumstances, yet there is no body to prove the person is truly dead. Of course, everyone already knows the character mourned by others on the show will inevitably return in a few years when the actor renews his or her contract.

Tyson, whose presentation at the Great Planet Debate involved far more show than substance, appropriated the “Pluto is not a planet” stand about eight years ago when the Hayden’s Rose Center for Earth and Space re-opened in 2001, gaining him notoriety for his exclusion of Pluto from the planet display.

Since then, Tyson has used his stand on Pluto to catapult him to celebrity status, conducting tours, lectures, and TV interviews around the country proudly bragging about the hate mail he received from third graders when his exclusion of Pluto from the Rose Center became public knowledge.

Tyson is not a planetary scientist. In fact, he is not a research scientist at all. His interviews are characterized largely by sound bytes, theatrics, and wild statements such as “Pluto is happier with its Kuiper Belt brethren than as a planet.” I guess he has a direct line to Pluto since he comments with such certainty about how the planet “feels.”

In his presentations, Tyson frequently comments on Pluto having an elliptical orbit, claiming “that is no way for a planet to behave,” arguing that such an orbit is more typical of comets. Does he ever consider that maybe planets have a much wider range of behavior styles than he or anyone else has previously thought? Many of the giant exoplanets we have found, most of which are significantly larger than Jupiter, have very elliptical orbits. Does that make them comets instead of planets?

Tyson also likes to argue that if it were placed closer to the sun, Pluto would grow a tail like a comet. That is true, but it is only half the story. Any planet brought close enough to the sun (or to its parent star), including Earth and even Jupiter, would grow a tail due to sublimation and outgassing. Of course, Tyson won’t tell that second point to his audiences.

He also loves to portray “Plutophiles” as ignorant of the fact that there are moons in our solar system larger than Pluto. “How many of you know that?” he questions Pluto supporters in his audience, with the assumption they do not know.

Those who have spent any time studying the solar system are aware of this. However, many of us recognize that the round moons of planets are planets themselves in every way—they are in hydrostatic equilibrium and geologically differentiated, just as the primary planets are. Tyson’s claim that no one has proposed calling them planets is false. Nineteenth-century textbooks referred to them as “secondary planets”; this takes dynamics into account by still defining them as planets but as ones with a secondary orbit around the sun and a primary orbit around another planet.

Referring to these moons as secondary planets immediately does away with the size-based argument used against Pluto.

At the Great Planet Debate, Tyson proposed doing away with the term “planet” altogether and adopting a wholly new classification system where objects are grouped with other like objects. However, he never presented a comprehensive alternative schematic other than to articulate two groups of objects, the terrestrial planets and the gas giants.

If we are to group objects with those like one another, Pluto cannot be grouped solely with other Kuiper Belt Objects just as Ceres cannot be grouped solely with other bodies in the asteroid belt. To do this is to ignore the fundamental characteristic of hydrostatic equilibrium, that is, of being spherical and therefore geologically differentiated.

Tyson never explains why he is okay with glossing over this crucial difference between planets and asteroids. This is a major weakness in his arguments.

Supporters of Pluto’s demotion often discuss how even as children, they viewed Pluto as not fitting into either of the two categories of planets, the terrestrial planets and the gas giants. Quoting Sesame Street, they argue, “one of these things is not like the others.”

But what if there are more than two classes of planets? What if there is a third class, the ice dwarfs, which may lie among a belt of objects but have compositions that significantly distinguish them from most of the other objects in those belts? Isn’t it a disservice to not even consider this possibility?

Personally, I question Tyson’s motivation in his “demote Pluto” quest. A look at his web site shows a list of public appearances and TV interviews across the country. One can be reasonably certain that Tyson will repeat the same lines, practically verbatim, in each one of these presentations.

Those who buy his book or attend his lectures deserve to know that he is being paid well to do the lecture circuit and be the astrophysicist version of a celebrity. There is nothing illegal about this; however, it cannot help but lead many to question how much of this is about Tyson’s celebrity status. Much of his latest book is about himself. Has he been attaining money and fame at Pluto’s expense? Clearly, he benefits personally from this public stand. Could that be at least part of his motivation in being so adamant about categorizing Pluto as a non-planet? The public has a right to know.

Meanwhile, in spite of Tyson’s theatrics, there is a significant backlash underway to get Pluto’s demotion overturned, possibly even at this year’s IAU General Assembly this summer. The January 3, 2009 issue of The Independent article “Planetary Storm Over Status of Pluto,” which can be found here, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/planetary-storm-over-status-of-pluto-1222862.html describes efforts underway to get Pluto’s planet status reinstated.

New York Times science writer Ken Chang, in “How Many Planets Do You Want in the Solar System?” which can be found at http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/how-many-planets-do-you-want-in-the-solar-system/ , published on January 10, 2009, makes clear that Pluto’s status is still very much part of an ongoing debate and notes that he has not met anyone for whom the IAU definition clarifies this issue. I will note that I have a personal appreciation for Chang, who actually quoted me in the text of his article!

Yet a commenter who identifies himself only as “Wayne,” makes what I believe is the most important point in this debate when he points out that we are arguing over something subjective rather than objective. He says:

“It astonishes me that people talk about this as a matter of scientific inquiry, like the discovery of a new species or new information about the atom. This is nothing more than a matter of subjective definition that has no right or wrong to it. Some people say “I choose to define ‘planet” as such-and-such,” while others say “I choose to define ‘planet’ as so-and-so.” Nobody can say that Pluto is or is not a planet in the same sense that s/he can say that the Earth does or does not revolve around the Sun (emphasis mine). Opinions on this sort of question are just as subjective as whether or not Citizen Kane was a great movie (not). That doesn’t mean we can’t argue about it, but we should let go of the idea that we are pronouncing something of scientific objectivity when we make up our mind about our own opinion on the matter.”

Far from having “fallen,” Pluto continues to inspire children and adults, as can be seen from a new 13-minute film titled “Naming Pluto.” Produced by Father Films, it documents the naming of Pluto by British schoolgirl Venetia Burney in 1930 as well as her first view of Pluto through a telescope on her 89^th birthday. Information on the film and how to order it can be found here: http://www.fatherfilms.com/films/namingpluto/

In the words of Tim Ophus and Chuck Crouse, who respectively wrote the music and lyrics to “Dwarf Planet Nothing (The Pluto Song),” which can be found here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlkYe6i3Dns&feature=PlayList&p=C928956660965F3A&index=1&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL

"Pluto’s going to rise once again!!!"

May it be in 2009.

In a Science News article dated November 21, 2008, titled "Debates Over Definition of Planet Continue and Inspire," Dr. Alan Stern addresses just why this issue remains an ongoing debate. Stern presents a compelling case of the recent "revolution" in planetary science with new discoveries taking us from a universe with nine familiar objects we called planets to one with a hundreds of planets known to orbit other stars as well as a new neighborhood in our own solar system made up of a host of small planets akin to Pluto (although as of now, only one of these objects, Eris, is known to be more massive than Pluto).

Stern's discussion of this expansion within planetary science can be found at http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/38770/title/Debates_over_definition_of_planet_continue_and_inspire
It is a very worthwhile read that describes why the IAU's decision has not been widely accepted.

From the standpoint of popular culture, efforts to engage children--and adults--in the effort to overturn Pluto's demotion continue, as in this Youtube broadcast from Little Big Planet's Sackboy here: http://www.littlebigland.com/little-big-planet-news/sackboys-save-pluto-video/
Some may dismiss this as a marketing tool, but such a tool would not attract customers if there weren't already strong convictions by children and adults alike in favor of Pluto's planethood.

As for my personal experience, a presentation I and fellow Amateur Astronomers, Inc. member Mike Luciuk conducted on the topic of "Is Pluto A Planet" drew a full house at Sperry Observatory in Cranford, NJ on a rainy November night, meaning everyone of the enthusiastic crowd who showed up did so purely out of interest in this subject. Luciuk and I referred to a 2000 article by Stern and Hal Levison titled "Regarding the Criteria for Planethood and the Proposed Classification Scheme," which proposes two categories of planets, those gravitationally dominant--the "uber planets" and those not gravitationally dominant--the "unter planets." The authors here recognize two classes of objects but never claim that the smaller class, or "unter planets" are not planets at all.

Anyone interested can read articles by Mike Luciuk and me in the October issue of "The Asterism," the monthly newsletter of Amateur Astronomers, Inc., here: http://www.asterism.org/newsletter/2008-10.pdf

I would also like to address the argument that this debate has gone on too long. The passage of time alone does not determine whether or not a principle is correct. Anyone who has taken part in or even observed the proceedings of local government knows that when land use applications come before Planning or Zoning Boards, no one proposes to vote just because it is 11 PM and time for the meeting to end.

If more information needs to be presented, hearings are continued from one month to the next. Sometimes, with a big project, the hearings go on for over a year. This is as it should be. Choosing an arbitrary cut off time to summarily end debate without considering additional data, which is what the IAU did in Prague, would never even be considered for a local building application.

There is a lot of data on Pluto and the Kuiper Belt that we do not yet have. We know we will have it with New Horizons' findings in 2015. Why rush to judgment when we know that most of the facts are not yet in?

We're only two weeks from the first day of 2009, the International Year of Astronomy (IYA), and also the year of the next IAU General Assembly. The International Year of Astronomy is a tremendous, very worthwhile initiative to engage the public in astronomy worldwide, especially to reach out to disadvantaged populations and countries. It is being organized to commemorate the most significant watershed moment in astronomy's history, the first telescopic observations of the sky and celestial objects by Galileo 400 years ago. More information on IYA and how to get involved can be found at http://www.astronomy2009.org/ . The US node for IYA can be found at http://astronomy2009.us/

I am working on promoting IYA events here in New Jersey, where we do not yet have a group coordinating the project. As such, I would love to hear from any individuals or groups interested in organizing IYA events in New Jersey.

The theme of IYA is "The Universe: Yours to Discover." Initiated by the IAU, this global effort is in many ways the polar opposite of the events that took place at the Prague General Assembly in 2006. Why? Because the IAU is inviting citizens of the world to actively take part in discovering the universe instead of dictating by fiat what the "reality" of the universe is.

As for Pluto, the people have spoken--not unanimously, but clearly. The same people whom the IAU seeks to enchant with its 2009 yearlong activities have "discovered" the facts for themselves and have determined that Pluto and dwarf planets are in fact a subclass of planets. The IAU cannot fail to acknowledge this without being rightfully accused of being out of touch with public sentiment.

For me, what was a marginal interest in astronomy has become so much more, and it started with the Pluto debate. Sometimes, what we in the newspaper business call a "hook" is all that is needed to engage people. In the space of two years, I have observed planets, stars, nebulae, open clusters, and galaxies; I've completed the Swinburne Astronomy Online short course "From Planets to the Universe," which I highly recommend, and have discovered the magnificence of the universe for myself.

The weekly newspaper for which I write has committed to a yearlong focus on the International Year of Astonomy by covering astronomy related programs and events here in central New Jersey, a commitment for which I am extremely proud.

Experiences like the ones I have had is what IYA strives to bring to people of all ages all over the world. To successfully accomplish this,
the IAU must acknowledge, recognize, and respect public sentiment on astronomical issues. The Pluto case is a classic one, as it involves not just sentiment but sound science as well.

In this holiday season, regardless of what--if anything--one celebrates, my personal message to the world is, "yes, Earth residents, including IAU members, there is a planet Pluto." It's time to acknowledge this and reverse the decision of August 2006. It's the right thing to do, and it just might motivate who knows how many people to discover not just one planet, but an entire universe.

Happy New Year!