As a follow up to a previous regarding the Northeast Astronomy Forum and my request that they present fair and balanced coverage of the Pluto debate by hosting a pro-Pluto-as-a-planet speaker alongside Mike Brown, I would like to share a friendly, respectful response from NEAF organizers regarding my request.
I am very happy to share that Lecture Series Coordinator Keith Murdock emphasized that NEAF supports open debate and does not take a stand on the Pluto controversy. In fact, organizers had reached out to Alan Stern to present the other side; unfortunately, logistics precluded Stern from doing so this year. NEAF organizers are already planning next year's event and hope to enlist Stern or another planetary scientist to present a geophysical perspective.
This is great news because forums like NEAF exist to promote open debate and discussion rather than to endorse any one perspective. I want to publicly thank and commend NEAF organizers for being so responsive, generous, and fair in addressing this issue.
As for this year's NEAF, now in progress, Dr. Ken Kremer, who is giving a talk on the Curiosity Mars rover, plans on making sure to add a plug for the planet status of Pluto and all dwarf planets.
Below is the text of the letter I received:
"Dear Laurel,
Thank you for your comments. We realize that Pluto's status is still a controversial topic, and would like to state that having Mike Brown as a speaker is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of his opinions on the subject. We are a forum, and have no objections to presenting valid arguments on the definition of a planet from the geophysical, rather than the dynamical point of view. We had in fact reached out to Alan Stern on the subject, but were unable to come to a speaking agreement with him.
We are already considering our speaking slate for next year and will strongly consider a planetary scientist with a geophysical perspective for next year's schedule.
Your opinion is important to us and we appreciate your recommendations on this issue.
Sincerely,
Keith
Keith Murdock
RAC Board of Directors
& Lecture Series Coordinator
RocklandAstronomy.com "
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Uwingu Responds to the IAU, Extends People's Choice Alpha Centauri Planet Naming Contest | PRLog
Uwingu Responds to the IAU, Extends People's Choice Alpha Centauri Planet Naming Contest | PRLog
The deadline for nominating and voting on names for the exoplanet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri B has been extended one week, to Monday, April 22 at midnight, Eastern Daylight Time.
Make your voice heard, and participate by nominating a name and/or voting for any of the names already proposed.
To make a statement supporting Pluto's planet status, please vote for "PlanetPluto." The name will not be used for the exoplanet since we already have a planet Pluto in our solar system. But voting for this name will send a strong message to the IAU and the world that members of the public join hundreds of professional astronomers in continuing to reject the controversial 2006 IAU planet definition and its resulting demotion of Pluto.
One more thing to note: According to the IAU planet definition, none of the nearly 900 confirmed exoplanets qualify as planets. Why? Because the IAU definition requires a planet to orbit the Sun rather than simply "a star." Even a requirement to orbit a star would preclude rogue planets, which are planetary bodies floating in interstellar space and not orbiting any star.
Vote and make nominations here: http://www.uwingu.com/vote-on-planet-nam
The deadline for nominating and voting on names for the exoplanet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri B has been extended one week, to Monday, April 22 at midnight, Eastern Daylight Time.
Make your voice heard, and participate by nominating a name and/or voting for any of the names already proposed.
To make a statement supporting Pluto's planet status, please vote for "PlanetPluto." The name will not be used for the exoplanet since we already have a planet Pluto in our solar system. But voting for this name will send a strong message to the IAU and the world that members of the public join hundreds of professional astronomers in continuing to reject the controversial 2006 IAU planet definition and its resulting demotion of Pluto.
One more thing to note: According to the IAU planet definition, none of the nearly 900 confirmed exoplanets qualify as planets. Why? Because the IAU definition requires a planet to orbit the Sun rather than simply "a star." Even a requirement to orbit a star would preclude rogue planets, which are planetary bodies floating in interstellar space and not orbiting any star.
Vote and make nominations here: http://www.uwingu.com/vote-on-planet-nam
Sunday, April 14, 2013
April 15 Deadline, and It's Not Taxes: Vote "PlanetPluto" in Uwingu's Exoplanet Naming Project
Uwingu is a company presenting a new way to fund astronomy research and space exploration. It makes use of crowd-funding online to motivate people discouraged by federal cuts to NASA's planetary program and cuts to space research by other Western governments to donate small amounts that will hopefully add up to enough money to fund large grants to scientists and research institutions.
The IAU wrongly condemns Uwingu as a "scam" and unfairly compares it to real scams such as the International Star Registry or projects that "sell" people land on the Moon.
Uwingu is nothing like this. Donors know they are not buying a certificate or an exoplanet; they are voluntarily funding scientific research that too many governments are unwilling to fund.
The IAU should be applauding this effort to get more funding for astronomy and get more people actively involved in the field, but instead, they are condemning an effort that actively promotes the science of astronomy and enables all of us to do so as well.
Is the IAU response really about Uwingu or exoplanets at all? Or is it a thinly-veiled attempt to "get back at" the leading astronomer in the world who has opposed and continues to oppose their flawed planet definition and demotion of Pluto? Decide for yourselves.
The IAU claims it is the only legitimate organization with the power to name and classify celestial bodies. Why? Because they say so? The truth is, the only authority they hold is by consensus, and if that consensus erodes, so does their authority.
As a way of sending a message to the IAU, I have been asking Pluto supporters to vote for "PlanetPluto," which has been nominated as one of the exoplanet names on Uwingu's site. You can vote as many times as you want, and a vote costs only 99 cents, which will go toward astronomy research.
As of this moment, PlanetPluto interestingly has 14 votes, which, if one counts Pluto-Charon as a binary system, equals the current number of planets in our solar system according to the geophysical planet definition, which includes terrestrials, jovians, and dwarf planets.
Science cannot be dictated by fiat. Ultimately, we are the "deciders"; we have the power to accept or reject names and definitions, to provide our own input, and to be part of astronomy research--not just by donating money but also by taking part in the many online astronomy research projects now open to all who are interested.
There is a deadline to nominate and vote on planet names, and that is Monday, April 15. While there is no guarantee any name will be used, Uwingu will create a "baby book of names" with the top 1,000 vote getters, which will be distributed to astronomers for possible use in naming any of the almost 900 exoplanets that have been discovered so far.
So take a break from doing taxes and vote here: http://www.uwingu.com/ . If you want to send a statement to the world affirming that Pluto is a planet and that the debate on planet definition is not over, cast one or more votes for "PlanetPluto," which you can find here:
http://www.uwingu.com/vote-on-planet-names/#.UWorZKKG1ac .
The IAU wrongly condemns Uwingu as a "scam" and unfairly compares it to real scams such as the International Star Registry or projects that "sell" people land on the Moon.
Uwingu is nothing like this. Donors know they are not buying a certificate or an exoplanet; they are voluntarily funding scientific research that too many governments are unwilling to fund.
The IAU should be applauding this effort to get more funding for astronomy and get more people actively involved in the field, but instead, they are condemning an effort that actively promotes the science of astronomy and enables all of us to do so as well.
Is the IAU response really about Uwingu or exoplanets at all? Or is it a thinly-veiled attempt to "get back at" the leading astronomer in the world who has opposed and continues to oppose their flawed planet definition and demotion of Pluto? Decide for yourselves.
The IAU claims it is the only legitimate organization with the power to name and classify celestial bodies. Why? Because they say so? The truth is, the only authority they hold is by consensus, and if that consensus erodes, so does their authority.
As a way of sending a message to the IAU, I have been asking Pluto supporters to vote for "PlanetPluto," which has been nominated as one of the exoplanet names on Uwingu's site. You can vote as many times as you want, and a vote costs only 99 cents, which will go toward astronomy research.
As of this moment, PlanetPluto interestingly has 14 votes, which, if one counts Pluto-Charon as a binary system, equals the current number of planets in our solar system according to the geophysical planet definition, which includes terrestrials, jovians, and dwarf planets.
Science cannot be dictated by fiat. Ultimately, we are the "deciders"; we have the power to accept or reject names and definitions, to provide our own input, and to be part of astronomy research--not just by donating money but also by taking part in the many online astronomy research projects now open to all who are interested.
There is a deadline to nominate and vote on planet names, and that is Monday, April 15. While there is no guarantee any name will be used, Uwingu will create a "baby book of names" with the top 1,000 vote getters, which will be distributed to astronomers for possible use in naming any of the almost 900 exoplanets that have been discovered so far.
So take a break from doing taxes and vote here: http://www.uwingu.com/ . If you want to send a statement to the world affirming that Pluto is a planet and that the debate on planet definition is not over, cast one or more votes for "PlanetPluto," which you can find here:
http://www.uwingu.com/vote-on-planet-names/#.UWorZKKG1ac .
Friday, April 12, 2013
IAU Issues Response To Uwingu’s Exoplanet Naming Campaign
“I think it is diminishing that the IAU is holding onto their claim that they own the Universe...
This is like some 15th century European academic club claiming that since Columbus discovered America, they own all the naming rights. That’s BS.”~Dr. Alan Stern
IAU Issues Response To Uwingu’s Exoplanet Naming Campaign
This is like some 15th century European academic club claiming that since Columbus discovered America, they own all the naming rights. That’s BS.”~Dr. Alan Stern
IAU Issues Response To Uwingu’s Exoplanet Naming Campaign
Thursday, March 28, 2013
An Open Letter to Organizers of the 2013 Northeast Astronomy Forum (NEAF)
Dear Ed Siemenn, Keith Murdock, and Mies Hora,
As a writer and amateur astronomer, I am contacting you to urge you to add a speaker to the NEAF 2013 program who represents the opposing view to that of Mike Brown, specifically, the position that Pluto and all dwarf planets are a subclass of planets that never have been "killed" along with the broader case for a geophysical planet definition.
I find it disappointing that NEAF would invite Brown specifically referring to him as the "plutokiller." This is a very unprofessional designation he has bestowed upon himself, and it really has nothing to do with science. It is about selling books and seeking money and fame. Significantly, even Neil de Grasse Tyson has moved away from referring to himself as a "plutokiller" and from the notion that Pluto is not a planet, toward a more neutral position in which he admits the debate over what a planet is remains very much ongoing.
Brown, on the other hand, regularly misinforms his audiences by stating that the debate is over and that no astronomers except a few "fringe" types still view Pluto and dwarf planets as planets. This is blatantly untrue, and it is misleading and unprofessional for him to state it as fact! Brown also engages in ridiculous practices such as beheading stuffed Disney Pluto dogs before his talks. Is this the way an astronomer should present himself to the public, including children?
Brown has also engaged in other unprofessional behavior, such as belittling the accomplishment of Clyde Tombaugh in discovering Pluto by saying "Tombaugh just got lucky," and by wrongly guiding astronomers interested in finding undiscovered large Kuiper Belt Objects in telling them that no such objects are left to be discovered when this is not the case.
Because of my active opposition to his position, he has also made personal attacks against me online and maligned me to other astronomers, referring to me as a "nutter" and a "stalker." I have never stalked anyone. All I have ever done is tried to get fair and balanced coverage of Pluto and the planet debate.
Why not present Brown as "Eris discoverer" instead of as "plutokiller?" Too few people are aware of Eris' existence because Brown has so focused the issue on "killing" Pluto rather than on the discovery of additional planets like Eris in our solar system.
Since you are inviting Brown to speak at NEAF, I respectfully request you add a speaker representing the other, pro-Pluto as a planet side. There are plenty of fantastic speakers and accomplished astronomers who can do a great job of this on short notice. One is Dr. Kenneth Kremer, who has given presentations at prior NEAF events. More than 300 professional astronomers, led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern, signed a formal petition rejecting the IAU definition, adopted by four percent of its members. You can find their names here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/ . Please consider inviting one of them to present the other side of this issue, the case for a geophysical planet definition. Other good speaker choices are Alan Boyle, author of the book The Case for Pluto, Dr. Ken Croswell, author of Ten Worlds, Dr. David Aguilar, author of Thirteen Planets, and New Jersey's own Alan Witzgall, an outstanding speaker and knowledgeable astronomer who has been doing presentations locally in the tri-state area for more than 25 years and is a leading member of the Cranford, NJ-based Amateur Astronomers, Inc. (AAI) club.
I would be happy to get you in touch with any of the above potential speakers and/or any of the astronomers who signed the petition rejecting Pluto's demotion. I would also be happy to do such a presentation myself, as I have done for AAI and for various astronomy groups on quite a number of occasions.
I invite you to visit my Pluto Blog, advocating a geophysical planet definition and the planet status of Pluto and all dwarf planets, at http://laurelsplutoblog.blogspot.com .
NEAF is a terrific program, and its attendees deserve a fair and balanced discussion that presents them with both sides of this issue so they can draw their own conclusions after hearing all legitimate viewpoints on this subject, which continues to fascinate so many people. I therefore, in the strongest possible terms, urge you to add a speaker to this year's event who can and will present the view that our solar system has created many more planets than eight or nine, and that Pluto is one of them.
Sincerely,
Laurel Kornfeld, Highland Park, NJ, aka @plutosavior on Twitter and Facebook
As a writer and amateur astronomer, I am contacting you to urge you to add a speaker to the NEAF 2013 program who represents the opposing view to that of Mike Brown, specifically, the position that Pluto and all dwarf planets are a subclass of planets that never have been "killed" along with the broader case for a geophysical planet definition.
I find it disappointing that NEAF would invite Brown specifically referring to him as the "plutokiller." This is a very unprofessional designation he has bestowed upon himself, and it really has nothing to do with science. It is about selling books and seeking money and fame. Significantly, even Neil de Grasse Tyson has moved away from referring to himself as a "plutokiller" and from the notion that Pluto is not a planet, toward a more neutral position in which he admits the debate over what a planet is remains very much ongoing.
Brown, on the other hand, regularly misinforms his audiences by stating that the debate is over and that no astronomers except a few "fringe" types still view Pluto and dwarf planets as planets. This is blatantly untrue, and it is misleading and unprofessional for him to state it as fact! Brown also engages in ridiculous practices such as beheading stuffed Disney Pluto dogs before his talks. Is this the way an astronomer should present himself to the public, including children?
Brown has also engaged in other unprofessional behavior, such as belittling the accomplishment of Clyde Tombaugh in discovering Pluto by saying "Tombaugh just got lucky," and by wrongly guiding astronomers interested in finding undiscovered large Kuiper Belt Objects in telling them that no such objects are left to be discovered when this is not the case.
Because of my active opposition to his position, he has also made personal attacks against me online and maligned me to other astronomers, referring to me as a "nutter" and a "stalker." I have never stalked anyone. All I have ever done is tried to get fair and balanced coverage of Pluto and the planet debate.
Why not present Brown as "Eris discoverer" instead of as "plutokiller?" Too few people are aware of Eris' existence because Brown has so focused the issue on "killing" Pluto rather than on the discovery of additional planets like Eris in our solar system.
Since you are inviting Brown to speak at NEAF, I respectfully request you add a speaker representing the other, pro-Pluto as a planet side. There are plenty of fantastic speakers and accomplished astronomers who can do a great job of this on short notice. One is Dr. Kenneth Kremer, who has given presentations at prior NEAF events. More than 300 professional astronomers, led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern, signed a formal petition rejecting the IAU definition, adopted by four percent of its members. You can find their names here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/planetprotest/ . Please consider inviting one of them to present the other side of this issue, the case for a geophysical planet definition. Other good speaker choices are Alan Boyle, author of the book The Case for Pluto, Dr. Ken Croswell, author of Ten Worlds, Dr. David Aguilar, author of Thirteen Planets, and New Jersey's own Alan Witzgall, an outstanding speaker and knowledgeable astronomer who has been doing presentations locally in the tri-state area for more than 25 years and is a leading member of the Cranford, NJ-based Amateur Astronomers, Inc. (AAI) club.
I would be happy to get you in touch with any of the above potential speakers and/or any of the astronomers who signed the petition rejecting Pluto's demotion. I would also be happy to do such a presentation myself, as I have done for AAI and for various astronomy groups on quite a number of occasions.
I invite you to visit my Pluto Blog, advocating a geophysical planet definition and the planet status of Pluto and all dwarf planets, at http://laurelsplutoblog.blogspot.com .
NEAF is a terrific program, and its attendees deserve a fair and balanced discussion that presents them with both sides of this issue so they can draw their own conclusions after hearing all legitimate viewpoints on this subject, which continues to fascinate so many people. I therefore, in the strongest possible terms, urge you to add a speaker to this year's event who can and will present the view that our solar system has created many more planets than eight or nine, and that Pluto is one of them.
Sincerely,
Laurel Kornfeld, Highland Park, NJ, aka @plutosavior on Twitter and Facebook
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Could Pluto Have 15 Moons?
Today is the 83rd anniversary of the announcement of Pluto's discovery by the Lowell Observatory. The date was chosen because it is the birthday of Percival Lowell, who first started the search for a Trans-Neptunian planet and founded the Lowell Observatory, and because it is the anniversary of the discovery of the planet Uranus by William Herschel in 1781. Significantly, Herschel first thought his discovery was a comet because no one could conceive of the idea of planets beyond Saturn.
This anniversary is an especially appropriate time for the latest research on Pluto, which shows that the small planet may have up to 10 more moons, which could bring its total number of moons to 15! More information can be found here: http://www.space.com/20181-pluto-moons-new-horizons.html
The paper discussing this can be found at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0280.pdf
This anniversary is an especially appropriate time for the latest research on Pluto, which shows that the small planet may have up to 10 more moons, which could bring its total number of moons to 15! More information can be found here: http://www.space.com/20181-pluto-moons-new-horizons.html
The paper discussing this can be found at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0280.pdf
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Discovery of the New Moons of Pluto - Mark Showalter (SETI Talks)
In a Google+ Hangout, Dr. Mark Showalter discusses the process by which P4 and P5, Pluto's fourth and fifth moons, were discovered, and worldwide participation in the contest to name them. This is very informative and definitely worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
