[Grovenet] Pluto demoted

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Heh! So that's what they did. Thanks Geri! 

The alternative was to have at least 10 and probably more than a dozen
planets, since there are several other hunks o' rock bigger than Pluto
orbiting out there in the Kuiper Belt. One of them, Xena, is a fair bit
larger than Pluto.

According to an interview with an US Astronomer* I heard recently, this
argument has been going on for over 20 years among astronomers who kept
finding more and more "planets". 

One candidate was Pluto's "moon" Charon. Charon doesn't orbit Pluto. They
orbit each other like two skaters holding hands and swinging around in a
circle. The center of their motion, their "center of gravity" is in space
between Pluto and Charon, so they are really a "double planet" each orbiting
the other. 

But there was another aspect of the discussion I found especially
interesting: Cultural truth vs. Scientific truth. 

The astronomer argued that in society cultural "knowledge" was important.
Generations have been raised with the concept of 9 planets in our solar
system that include Pluto. Demoting Pluto involves an important change
culturally and for that reason he argued that perhaps it was best for
scientists to "leave well enough alone" and get on with science. It won't
make on bit of difference to scientists whether we continue to call Pluto a
planet. 

Besides, he quipped, it's going to give Astrologers a nightmare, losing one
planetary influence. 

On the other hand, he observed that astronomers are human and this argument
has been going on for many years. He suggested that most of them in the
International Astronomical Union will simply vote for the easiest way to end
the debate and get on with other things.

At first I could readily buy his argument about "Cultural Knowledge", but
then I had a change of heart. "Cultural Knowledge" that runs counter to
scientific knowledge has caused mankind endless grief over the years. Much
of our cultural knowledge is based on religion, offering explanations for
what we sense and feel within that can't be tested using the scientific
method and for which the scientific method has no clear explanation. For
example, why do we think a particular sunrise or sunset or a flower is
"beautiful"? Observing it and appreciating it changes our body chemistry and
undeniably how we feel, just as ugly or repulsive things do, but exactly why
that happens is not always clear. Some things might be based on inherited
information - instinct - such as yellow and black markings signifying
universal danger. Others may be based on training. But that doesn't begin to
cover them all. 

Trouble happens when cultural knowledge conflicts with scientific knowledge.
Darwin's theory of evolution is a good example, but only one of many.
Millions of people have died because their cultural knowledge clashed with
their neighbors, whether or not either of them or none of them were valid
using the scientific method. 

So I guess I'm glad we no longer have Pluto. 

Sigh...so long ol' buddy... It's been good knowing you, but it's for the
best you become just another Kuiper Belt object. Perhaps they'll let you
keep the name.  

Ron D'Eau Claire

*The astronomer was probably Michael Brown, head of Caltech's Planetary
Astronomy Group, but I don't remember for certain.  



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Geri
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:36 AM
To: GroveNet
Subject: [Grovenet] Pluto demoted


"Leading astronomers approved historic new planet guidelines Thursday -
downsizing Earth's neighborhood from nine principal heavenly bodies to eight
by demoting distant Pluto."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060824/ap_on_sc/planet_mutiny_7 

   (or Tiny URL version:
    http://tinyurl.com/s6obe )
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet