FORA.tv

Fuel the Enlightenment

FORA.tv Series: Best of FORA.tv 2009

Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Pluto Files

Los Angeles Public Library and W. W. Norton
Rate It
502,516 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Full Program
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Page 1 of 3 1 23
laurele Avatar
laurele
Posts: 2
Posted: 02.13.09, 03:36 PM
I am a writer and amateur astronomer who has spent the last two and a half years
campaigning to get Pluto's demotion overturned. Tyson presents only one side of the Pluto debate, which is still very much ongoing. Over the past year, I have done several public presentations on this topic, including one at the national Great Planet Debate at the
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland this past August.

In my opinion, Tyson is wrong on several key points:

1. Pluto as a planet is not in a category of one. There are several of these smaller
planets that need to be distinguished from asteroids because their makeup is exactly like
that of planets in that they are in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium. This means they
have enough self gravity to pull themselves into a round shape, which makes them
geologically like the larger planets and unlike shapeless asteroids and
comets. Tyson never discusses hydrostatic equilibrium and blurs this crucial distinction
by lumping Pluto and other small Kuiper Belt planets with comets and asteroids.

2. The scientific community has not made a final decision on this matter. This definition
was adopted by only four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists.
No absentee voting was allowed. It was done so in a highly controversial process that
violated the IAU’s own bylaws, and it was immediately opposed by a petition of 300
professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of New Horizons,
saying they will not use the new definition, which they described accurately as “sloppy.”

Also significant is the fact that many planetary scientists are not IAU members and
therefore had no say in this matter at all.

Tyson contradicts himself regarding the IAU decision. On the one hand, he disavows any connection to it and accurately describes it as flawed. On the other, he cites it to vindicate his design of the Rose Center. Which one is it? Is the definition a step forward or a step back? He can't have it both ways.

Many believe we should keep the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous
spheroidal object orbiting a star.

3. Support for Pluto's planethood is not limited to Americans. I have personally received
emails from around the world opposing Pluto's demotion, and there are Internet groups
worldwide committed to seeing Pluto reinstated. Many songs and poems opposing the
demotion were written by people other than Americans.

4. Tyson's claim that people's emotional attachment to Pluto is largely due to the Disney
dog is at best questionable. Most Pluto supporters are astronomy enthusiasts with a
strong interest in the solar system. They view the solar system as a "family,"
and see a round object that looks exactly like a planet and find it bizarre that anyone
would categorize it as something else.

5. Tyson's comparison of Pluto with comets is a red herring. Yes, if brought into Earth's
orbit, Pluto would begin sublimating and appear to grow a tail. However, so would any
planet brought close enough to its parent star. If Earth were placed in Mercury's orbit,
it would appear to grow a tail as well. Pluto is also far larger than any comet, and its
orbit never takes it into the inner solar system. Significantly, a large exoplanet, HD80606b, was just discovered, which is four times the size of Jupiter and orbits its star in only a few days, yet has 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 elliptical orbit? Clearly,
"comet-like" orbits alone do not make objects comets instead of planets.

Please feel free to visit my Pluto blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com for more
information about the other side. I am planning to write my own book on Pluto presenting this viewpoint.
Permalink
patricktobrien Avatar
patricktobrien
Posts: 0
Posted: 02.14.09, 04:00 PM
Actually, Tyson's idea of science is fairly narrow. The Bush Administration cut a great deal of public university funding of scientific research programs that left many near-tenured professors jobless.

One of them (I can't remember his name) was interviewed by NPR who was forced to get a job driving a cab after a lack of university science funding left him jobless. This professors work was actually the underlying findings that led to co-winners of the nobel prize in 2007 that discovered RNAi. This was a direct impact on science if I've ever seen one.. I will try to get the NPR archive link to this story.
Permalink
ihshauri Avatar
ihshauri
Posts: 1
Posted: 02.15.09, 03:08 PM
Laurele:

1) Tyson describes Pluto as a dwarf planet, precisely because it is round. He does not group it with asteroids and comets. He dicsussed the body as a dwarf planet and as the prototypical plutoid.

2) Tyson never characterized the IAU decision as a step backwards. He has said that it was a step forward, but criticized it for not having gone far enough in implementing a more diverse lexicon that greater differentiates between the heavenly bodies.
Permalink
ihshauri Avatar
ihshauri
Posts: 1
Posted: 02.15.09, 03:11 PM
Patrick:

Do you mean fairly broad?
Limiting your analysis of the state of science funding to the effects on some public university programs and professors is fairly narrow.
Permalink
skevimc Avatar
skevimc
Posts: 1
Posted: 02.19.09, 06:44 PM
I would support that his view is pretty narrow. Certainly ill-informed. Example: He falsely claims that the NIH budget tripled during Bush's term. (NIH budget in 2001 23.5 billion budget in 2008 28.6 billion). If you compare the percent NIH budget increase to the rate of inflation, after 2003, increases in the NIH budget have not matched inflation, thus a net loss. And in 2006 the budget was actually decreased. I'm not sure what numbers he is citing when he says "triple".

I'm also not sure what numbers he looking at when he says that science typically does better under republican leadership than democrat. Since 1983 the increased budget for the NIH has matched or beaten the level of inflation. Of course as I mentioned before until 2003. Carter even had two good years even though inflation was over 10%. I'm not taking in to account congressional leadership.

For him to state that the "far left" has only two issues that they cite in proving the republican war on science, 1 Enviornment and 2 Stem Cell, is pretty narrow. And if he's only including non-scientists in his statement, well that seems even more narrow. However, those two issues are HUGE! For him to limit stem cell research because of his personal religious views is questionable at best.

And that brings us to religion, which Tyson tries to dismiss. Not so fast. Bush actually supported teaching intelligent design in the class room. Something with which Tyson disagrees (good for him). But to suggest that the intelligent design debate shouldn't be included in the "war on science" is incredibly narrow. Support of teaching intelligent design in the science class room is a hit against the most fundamental component of science, the scientific method.

Those are just a few thoughts I have.
Permalink
danthemango Avatar
danthemango
Posts: 6
Posted: 03.20.09, 04:40 PM
The decision to demote Pluto was because it had many of the characteristics of the dwarf planets (actually, there's no distinction between the dwarf planets and Pluto). So removing Pluto was reflecting characteristics of Pluto more accurately. The only way back I could see, is considering all dwarf planets planets, which I don't have a problem with, but we can't rely on a planetary model that merely lists the planets, but it must categorize them according to their characteristics (inner planets, gas giants, and dwarf planets)
Permalink
D Bucks Avatar
D Bucks
Posts: 1
Posted: 08.26.09, 07:54 AM
Agreed Skevimc, to dismiss the intelligent design debate so quickly as DeGrasse Tyson did ("no republican wants to die poor") sounds pretty dangerous.
Permalink
Griesmer Avatar
Griesmer
Posts: 1
Posted: 08.26.09, 03:18 PM
Joint Vision 2020:

There’s an arms race that the whole world wants to talk about, but the US refuses to.

***

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=45289

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.

"To build the most effective force for 2020, we must be fully joint: intellectually, operationally, organizationally, doctrinally and technically," the report states.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/g...ision_2020.pdf

For the joint
force of the future, this goal will be achieved
through full spectrum dominance – the ability of
US forces, operating unilaterally or in
combination with multinational and interagency
partners, to defeat any adversary and control
any situation across the full range of military
operations.

The label full spectrum dominance implies
that US forces are able to conduct prompt,
sustained, and synchronized operations with
combinations of forces tailored to specific
situations and with access to and freedom to
operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air,
and information. Additionally, given the global
nature of our interests and obligations, the
United States must maintain its overseas
presence forces and the ability to rapidly
project power worldwide in order to achieve
full spectrum dominance.

http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media...070322-103.pdf

"How can the space medium be further exploited to counter terrorism?" (cover page)

“Our safety as a nation may depend upon our achieving ‘space superiority.’ Several
decades from now the important battles may not be sea battles or air battles, but space
battles …” ~ General Bernard A. Schriever (p.30)

http://www.army.mil/thewayahead/afvision.pdf

http://www.northcom.mil/News/2007/Vi...2007-10-01.pdf


***

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...icle605583.ece

But America has rejected the desire by 160 other countries to have United Nations talks about banning an arms race in space, an extravagantly unilateral approach whose appeal you might have thought would have been tarnished by its experience in Iraq.

***

Joe Biden on space war:
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/01/22...out-space-war/

Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1281401.html
Permalink
Bas Avatar
Bas
Posts: 2
Posted: 08.28.09, 10:08 AM
A myth, in the later half of the 7th century that says "One particular general who was alson astronomy enthusiat, saw 11 planets in our solar system". :-)
Permalink
mcse109 Avatar
mcse109
Posts: 1
Posted: 10.07.09, 08:28 PM
I like all what I heard, and to answer Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson question regarding WHO ORDER THIS EXPAND OF EARTH
I believe that the answer for expanding the universe is avilable in holly Koran in “SURAH ADH-DHARIYAT ” ALSO SPELLED AS “ SURAH AL ZARYAT “ in verse # 47 which been translated to the following:

“AND THE HEAVEN WE CONSTRUCTED WITH STRENGTH AND INDEED WE ARE EXPANER”

for easy access to holly Koran seek a public library or any mosque and the surah is number 51 in holly koran

"smile this is the truth if you looking for it"
Permalink
Page 1 of 3 1 23
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Advertisement

Related Programs

Ian Morison: God and the Universe Ian Morison: God and the Universe
00:53:32 min | 50,306 Views
Ian Morison: The Search for Other Worlds Ian Morison: The Search for Other Worlds
00:58:25 min | 13,021 Views
The Dance of the Fertile Universe: Are We Alone? The Dance of the Fertile Universe: Are We Alone?
01:06:19 min | 82,535 Views
Alan Boss: The Crowded Universe Alan Boss: The Crowded Universe
01:04:23 min | 99,211 Views
Ian Morison: It’s About Time Ian Morison: It’s About Time
01:00:41 min | 23,098 Views

Browse Programs by Tag

Arts Books Climate Change Computing Conflict Credit Crunch Defense Democratization Economic Policy Education Election 2008 Emerging Markets Energy Entertainment Entrepreneurship Environment Film Food Globalization Health & Wellness Healthcare History Internet Investing Law Medicine Music Muslim World Natural Sciences New Media Personal Technology Philanthropy Religion Social Issues Social Sciences Sustainability Terrorism The Bailout U.S. Foreign Policy White House 2009

Advertisement