Dear Professor Montmerle & Other Members of the Executive Committee:
I am an American artist/writer/attorney of partial French ancestry. My French ancestors were Huguenots. It is not lost on me that the de-planetification of Pluto occurred on August 24th, 2006, 434 years later on the same date as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. A day of infamy, twice over, as a friend noted sagely.
As a child growing up in the once-French city of Detroit, I used to fantasize about being the King of Pluto--once I learned about all the planets in the Solar System. I was probably in kindergarden, or the first grade at the latest.
My mother, as a little girl, had the assignment of writing an essay about one of the planets, and picked Pluto. Serendipity?
Pluto has captured the imagination of Mankind, and its summary dismissal from the family of planets is a great galactic injustice.
Do not tell me it is still a planet in the eyes of the IAU, either. Your organization violated its own protocols in Prague and voted to diss it on the last day of the 2006 General Assembly with only 424 members voting, creating a rift within the IAU itself--a rift that you have a duty to address in an appropriate and just manner.
In Rio, in 2009, with Alan Stern of NASA's New Horizons mission conspicuously absent, you ignored the pleas of millions and did not reopen the issue. That such a well-respected member of the IAU would boycott the Rio General Assembly is a testament to your dire need to reopen the question of Pluto. Other members are also upset at the way in which you acted without regard to proper process.
It is highly egregious that after the death of Clyde Tombaugh, but with his widow still alive, you took away such a great accomplishment with one fell bureaucratic stroke.
Such an action will discourage future generations from a career in astronomy, seeing how easily one's discoveries can be disrespected and erased from History.
Voting should be allowed to all members, whether present or not. Also, anything that is voted on must be properly vetted, not furtively rushed through on the last day of a General Assembly, when most members have left, thinking nothing more of consequence will occur. Neither happened in the matter of Pluto. Shameful, backward behavior unbecoming of the scientific community.
I have seen Pluto from a large telescope in Cadillac, Michigan, have you ever seen it?
I personally petitioned President George W. Bush in July 2002 to support New Horizons when he could have cancelled the mission, like President Clinton did to the Pluto Express mission. I have done more for Pluto than the current Executive Committee of the IAU.
I was invited to a pre-launch party in Cocoa Beach by Alan Stern and saw Mrs. Tombaugh there, and saw the launch itself a few days later on a packed dock jutting into the Atlantic Ocean in Port Canaveral, Florida, taking a few photographs of the great and beautiful feat.
The American astronomer Mike Brown glibly calls himself the assassin of Pluto. I give him credit for co-discovering Eris, a dwarf planet he named after a teevy show called Xena in 2005. At first, he said Eris was a planet, and then he changed his mind. Now he has a book in which he brags about killing Pluto. I hope you do not endorse such immature behavior, and I am glad he is not a member of your esteemed organization. Should he ever apply, I hope you will deny his request. He is the Pete Rose of his profession, one might say.
Such disrespect for Clyde Tombaugh by the IAU and Mike Brown has no place in the world of planetary science. The IAU needs to review the matter of Pluto, and put it on the docket for the 2012 and/or the 2015 General Assemblies.
To allow this egregious vote to stand is an insult to true science. I hope you will heed my words. See you in Honolulu.
Truly,
Mike Wrathell, Esq. & Artist
Sterling Heights, MI
USA
PS: I have a lot of space-themed art on my art website, and was the subject of an award-winning documentary entitled "the king of pluto." I have already made art with images sent back to Earth from the New Horizons probe. I am listed on Wikipedia, as well. The chief curator of The Whitney Museum of American Art called my art "compelling."
PPS: I am sending a Cc to all Executive Committee members of the IAU, and you are all put on notice as to my thoughts and are invited to email me back with any comments you may wish to share with me.
http://ultra-renaissance.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From Professor Montmerle of France:
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Wrathell,
One should not confuse scientific and emotional issues.
Even though a "vote" is required to validate IAU resolutions, there was a
strong scientific case in Prague in favor of changing the category of
Pluto as a celestial body. There is today a *complete scientific
consensus* among the astronomical community that Pluto should now be
considered as the first of a new class of distant objects orbiting the
Sun, the so-called "Trans Neptunian Objects", or "TNOs". Over 1,000 such
objects have now been discovered, and nearly 200 are known well enough to
deserve a name.
Please have a look at the IAU story: http://www.iau.org/public/pluto/,
and at the book "The Solar System Beyond Neptune", Univ of Arizona Press,
Tucson, 2008 (Eds
Barucci M.A., Boehnhardt H., Cruikshank D.P., Morbidelli A.).
And also, if you can, at the IAU Transactions, vol XXVIB (Cambridge
University Press), on the original resolution.
To conclude, there is definitely no scientific reason to consider
reversing this resolution and the current situation of Pluto, and the
question will not be raised again, either at the next General Assembly,
nor on any other occasion.
Best regards,
Thierry Montmerle
Mike Wrathell replies:
ReplyDeleteDear Professor Montmerle:
Thank you for getting back to me and stating so categorically your wishes for the direction of the IAU for eternity. I appreciate a man who is direct and confident, even if a bit rigid.
I completely agree with you, though, that, “One should not confuse scientific and emotional issues.” Though it may appear I do not, given my litany of emotion-based facts in my first letter, like my childhood fantasy of being the King of Pluto, I gave that information as a background, and not as my main line of argument. You must admit, it is a pretty interesting background, and all completely true. In fact, when I asked President Bush to support New Horizons, he quipped, “I’m gonna send YOU to Pluto!” as he smilingly pointed at me. I met him at a private fundraiser in Portland, Oregon.
I was looking for a good quote about The French Revolution--you know, about “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality” in order to discuss the rather dismissive way you spoke of the “vote” to kick Pluto out of the family of classic planets when you said, “Even though a "vote" is required to validate IAU resolutions, there was a strong scientific case in Prague in favor of changing the category of Pluto as a celestial body.” But, I ended up finding a good quote on a slightly different subject by Disraeli.
“It was not reason that besieged Troy; it was not reason that sent forth the Saracen from the desert to conquer the world; that inspired the crusades; that instituted the monastic orders; it was not reason that produced the Jesuits; above all, it was not reason that created the French Revolution. Man is only great when he acts from the passions; never irresistible but when he appeals to the imagination.”
Perhaps the limited nature of reason is why Mike Brown enjoys mocking the new status of Pluto, referring to himself as “plutokiller” on his Twitter account, and writing a book claiming to be the killer of Pluto. The IAU story you referred me to references Mr. Brown in a sober way, but if you take into account Mr. Brown’s entire body of work on Pluto, including his Twitter nickname, you could easily accuse him of being too emotional about the new status of Pluto, besides accusing me obliquely, isn’t that so? Mike Brown also wrongly said that Pluto was named after a cartoon, if you read the Eris article on Wikipedia. The cartoon dog by the great Walt Disney was inspired by the discovery of Pluto, not vice versa, though both were named in 1930. There is nothing scientific in speaking without knowing if what you are saying has any basis in truth. If he is your idea of a true scientist, then your organization may go the way of the dodo bird. His behavior is nothing short of shameful and twitty.
Back to the French Revolution for a moment: “Liberty, Fraternity, Equality” is a concept that shows great respect for democracy, and the essence of democracy: the right to vote. As we are all equal, and metaphysical brothers and sisters, with liberty and existential freedom, all votes weigh the same. Even the IAU, though a scientific organization, ostensibly respects this concept perhaps best elucidated by the motto of the French Revolution. Without the passion that brought the world democracy, the IAU might not even exist. Look what happened to Galileo before there was democracy. And, of course, it took revolution to bring the right to vote for all people. For you to put the word “vote” in quotation marks is a bit condescending and contemptuous, and, dare I say, royalist.
(part 1 of reply)
(part 2 of reply)(broken up due to 4,000 word limit per comment)(i went to 8,880 or so, including spaces)(sorry)(LOL)
ReplyDeleteI also take issue with another way in which the IAU disrespected Pluto, by the way, before we get to the scientific heart of the matter, if you will allow me. And, in this, you might be happy to know, I disagree with NASA. Pluto’s wife was Proserpine, not Nix, who was Charon’s wife, or, more correctly, Nyx. Pluto’s three-headed dog was Cerberus, not some nine-headed serpent named Hydra. Persephone is more beautiful to the tongue than Proserpine or Proserpina, and I prefer it, but am okay with Proserpine or Proserpina to be consistently Latin. If I had my way, though, I would go with Persephone. Cerberus is both the Greek and the Latin name for Pluto’s dog. A Greek or Latin god would much rather have his dog near him than a serpent, I would think, and why should Charon have his wife near him, when Pluto is larger and discovered long before? Hopefully, New Horizons will find at least one more moon, and the IAU will name it Persephone. Cerberus should be second on the new moon list of names.
The “killer” of Pluto, who you gave props to in your letter to me, got his discovered planet to have a mythologically-consistent name for its moon, Dysnomia. Why the IAU allowed such a vain and petty wish to honor the New Horizons probe to trump the ancient mythology surrounding Pluto shows that your organization is not as sober and perfect in reason as you make yourselves out to be. The IAU was swayed by emotion.
Now then, regarding the sham vote of August 24, 2006 in which a mere 424 of 10,000 IAU members approved the dwarfing of Pluto, you say that, “There is today a complete scientific consensus among the astronomical community that Pluto should now be
considered as the first of a new class of distant objects orbiting the
Sun, the so-called "Trans Neptunian Objects", or "TNOs". Over 1,000 such
objects have now been discovered, and nearly 200 are known well enough to
deserve a name.” What does being “well-known” have anything to do with it? Should Elvis Presley be deemed a dwarf planet? To compare Pluto to a chunk of dirt is ludicrous, and not at all scientific. Of course, not all TNOs deserves the status that Pluto deserves by virtue of its properties.
First of all, over 300 of your members signed a petition to vacate the dwarfing of Pluto and reopen the debate. If there was a “complete scientific consensus” as you say, then why is there not an absolute consensus? Do “complete” and “absolute” mean different things in French? Since you are mistaken regarding the consensus claim, that in itself should give a reasonable person pause before saying “…there is definitely no scientific reason to consider reversing this resolution and the current situation of Pluto, and the question will not be raised again, either at the next General Assembly,
nor on any other occasion.”
I understand that it must be annoying to you, as a member of the Executive Committee, to have so many Pluto lovers clamoring for the case to be reopened, and if it was just an emotional appeal, you would be right to keep the case closed. But, the case for Pluto is not merely emotional. Are you saying that Alan Stern and the 300 other scientists are being blindly led by their emotions? Are you saying that the flawed process by which the “vote” was taken in Prague is irrelevant? If the “strong scientific case in Prague” was so strong, then why do 300 of your own members insist it is weak? Should we just go with your idea of “strong?” Is that scientific? It sounds rather subjective. Why do you seemingly dismiss them as non-entities with your “complete scientific consensus” claim? Is it a power thing? Again, more emotion.
(one more part to follow....)
(Part III of III)
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing scientific about refusing to reopen the case for Pluto. Given the highly questionable way in which the “vote” in Prague was cast on the last day of the General Assembly, any claim to a true consensus is absurd. Moreover, if you are truly a fan of knowing what the consensus is, then reopen the debate, and this time let all members vote, whether they are in attendance or not. Then, and only then, will anyone know what the consensus truly is. The various sides could be presented fully, and then voted on either in person, online, or by mail. The result might not be known until after the General Assembly is over, but that would be the best (and probably only) way to find out what the consensus really is.
Also, much new science on Pluto may very well exist by the time of the Honolulu General Assembly, given New Horizons arrival at Pluto on Bastille Day 2015; thus, to categorically state that nothing whatsoever could possibly make the IAU reopen the matter of Pluto is distinctly not at all scientific, more like Nostradamic. For example, we might actually see how clear the field around Pluto is, but for its three moons, and, potentially, a newly discovered moon or two, to boot.
It might get boring in Hawaii without a bit of open debate. It will be very hot in August of 2015, most likely, and who knows, you might wish to reopen the question yourself. After all, how many Mai Tais can one man drink? Sure, one can watch the surfers on the north shore of Oahu, and sample the native charms, but I am thinking the question of Pluto may very well be the ripest fruit of all.
Truly,
Mike Wrathell, Esq. & Artist/Writer
Oooops, should that one sentence should read this way.
ReplyDelete"Of course, not all TNOs deserve the status that Pluto deserves by virtue of its properties."
--Mike.