jump to navigation

Why are 8 planets bad science August 12, 2009

Posted by Jorge Candeias in Definition of planet, Plutophiles.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, there was a small rebellion of “plutophiles” on twitter. A hashtag, #bringbackpluto, made it to number one in the trending topics list, and the messages that came along with it were, in general, as silly as you might expect. People just don’t get it.

The people who took part in that particular hashparty vastly misunderstand the reasons why the whole business of Pluto’s “demotion” came about. And their revolt does nothing to further their case and actually “bring back Pluto” (as if Pluto went anywhere; as if it isn’t right where it has always been, going round the Sun beyond Neptune). Quite the contrary. By showing so eloquently that they don’t get it, they simply won’t sway any of the people who actually have some knowledge about this stuff. The only way to sway them is to play their game, which means learning the science and discuss it scientifically. And learning some history of astronomy as well. And remember my mantra: “this ain’t about Pluto!”

Hop aboard. I’m taking you in a small historical trip. A trip you may get from plenty of other sources, but in this there’s no such thing as too many sources of information. And besides, nobody tells it quite like I do. In the end of this necessarily long text, I’ll tell you the main reason why I think that to speak about 8 planets is bad science. You can jump immediately to that point, if you think you already know all the historical stuff, but you’ll be missing my emphasis, on which I base my conclusions. It’s up to you.

Ready? Allright then. Fasten your seatbelts and let’s go visit the ancient Greeks.

Not that those were the guys who discovered the first planets. Ever since the first records of celestial movements were made, probably by the very first astrologers, people knew that there were some lights in the sky that stayed put, wereas other lights walked about. The Greeks were simply the guys who came up with the word “planet”. It means, aptly enough for the level of their understanding, wanderer.

Back then there were two different kinds of wandering celestial objects: those with an obvious disc, and those that looked like point sources of light, like moving stars. The first kind encompassed the Sun and the Moon, and there were all kinds of legends about them; the second kind was composed by 5 objects: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These five were always thought of as planets, the Moon and the Sun kept coming and going from that category. The Earth, of course, at first was not thought of as a planet like the others, being as it was the center of it all (and flat). But whatever the actual numbers and groupings were, one thing remained constant: planets were special. Worthy of being used as characters for all sorts of myths and stories. How could they not be special? They were a handful of wandering lights in an otherwise static sky! They had to be pretty important and unique indeed! Right?

Then happened the first revolution in our understanding of these things, when the geocentric models of the Universe gave way to Copernicus’ vision of a universe centered in the Sun, a heliocentric vision. Planets, once rotating around the Earth, were now circling the Sun.

And the Earth with them.

This meant that planets were not point sources of light after all, but (probably) solid, round worlds like our own, maybe even with their own inhabitants. It also meant that the Moon was not a planet, but a satellite, for it circles not the Sun, but the Earth. The Sun? Ah, not a planet either. The Sun now became the center of everything. Not a star, as yet, but so unique it had no category to belong to. It was just the Sun.

This was a complete turnaround in our understanding of what a planet is. But, despite that, the now 6 planets remained very special places indeed. Think about it: thousands and thousands of stars, and only six worlds like our own? They’re special, no question about it!

And more: there was an order to them, an order that was often used as an evidence of divinity, for only an allmighty God could create such perfectly harmonious structures. When Galileo peeked through his telescope and saw for the first time that the other planets were, indeed, discs, that seemed to confirm this notion, although shortly after two discoveries shook things a bit: the discovery of the four galilean moons of Jupiter (which were also called “planets” for a while, as were, later, the first moons of Saturn to be discovered), and a pair of strange “ears” protruding from the sides of Saturn, which even changed shape over time. It was only in mid XVII century that these ears were recognized as rings, and that the first moons of Saturn (starting with Titan, of course) became known. There was something else that also tainted these notions of divine astronomical perfection: the discovery, by Kepler, that the planets did not follow perfectly circular paths, as previously thought, but moved along ellipses.

In the next century two relevant things happened. First, some astronomers noticed that the planetary distances to the sun followed closely a mathematical relation which came to be known as Titus-Bode Law. There was a gap between Mars and Jupiter, though. And the law said nothing about ending the fun at Saturn. So everyone began looking for new planets in the gap and beyond Saturn, and Uranus was found right where the law said something should be. You can imagine by yourselves how that bolstered up its credibility and the notion that, despite some annoying facts, God really did have a finger in making an orderly and predictable universe, in which the planets had their very special parts to play.

When Ceres was found in 1801, again right where Titus-Bode predicted it, it all seemed to be proved beyond a doubt. And Ceres quietly became the 8th planet of the Solar System. But then, shortly after, 3 more planets were discovered in the same general area, and heads began to be scratched.

And then stranger things began to happen. Uranus wasn’t behaving: instead of peacefully following its path, it wobbled back and forth, as if something unseen was pulling it. So the astronomers crunched the numbers, determined the position where the perturbing object should be, pointed their telescopes to that position, and there was Neptune, yet another planet, just waiting to be discovered. This happened in 1846. Great news, right? Wrong. Neptune’s position deviated significantly from what was predicted by the old Titus-Bode Law.

Oops! Could it be that such a venerable law of nature was wrong?

To make things worse, the year before a 5th body had been found between Mars and Jupiter, and from 1847 on new discoveries around the same zone happened at a steady pace. By 1900 they were already 450. Things were a lot more chaotic than they had seemed to be. The neatly ordered plan of God was taking a beating from reality.

These were the signs of a revolution to come.

That’s when astronomers noticed two things: firstly all the chaos was restricted to the zone between Mars and Jupiter, where Titus-Bode predicted there should be a planet. Maybe it exploded, and what was being discovered were mere fragments? All the other planets seemed to behave, kinda. The divergence between Neptune’s position and Titus-Bode could perhaps be a fluke? A statistical outlyer? Astronomers also noticed that all of the well-behaved planets showed typical planetary discs. But the annoying rebels beyond Mars didn’t. Like the planets in the old days, they looked just like moving stars.

And so they were christened “asteroids”, a word that means “similar to stars”, and the number of planets was reduced to 8. And the order was preserved. And the planets continued to be special objects in the sky.

Ah! What a relief! Sometimes you need a revolution to keep things as they were.

Pluto came about in 1930 (although it had been detected much earlier), and deviated so much from Titus-Bode that effectively killed it for good. At first its size was greatly overestimated, but there was little question that it had to be called a planet, even though no disc could be seen and even though its orbit was weird. It was alone out there, very far from the area where asteroids dwell, and much bigger than asteroids were. But that weird orbit… many people found it really hard to swallow. It seemed too odd, too distant from the orderly display the other 8 showed. But, hey, 9 planets in such a large Universe are still pretty special, aren’t they? So they went with it anyway.

But then came the 1990’s. Astronomers began an amazing series of discoveries in the outer Solar System. Small and not so small icy bodies in orbits similar to Pluto’s became commonplace, a chaos of intersecting, eccentric, inclined orbits that seemed to mirror closely what happens in the Main Asteroid Belt. Those that were uncomfortable with Pluto’s oddity became increasingly more uncomfortable. And when finally an object larger than Pluto, Eris, was found, something just had to change again. It was inevitable. We just had to fundamentally rethink what makes a planet for the third time in our history.

It could be simple. Just make with Pluto the same that was made with Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta in the XIX century, reduce once more the number of planets to 8, and get on with it. Keep the order. Keep the specialness of planetary status. That’s what the IAU astronomers did, and that’s the source of the current definition of planet.

But it really is everything but simple. At the same time trans-neptunian objects were being found everywhere, exoplanets were also being found by the hundreds. Around “normal”, sun-like stars, around stars smaller and larger, around red dwarfs, around pulsars, even free-floating, roaming alone the empty spaces between the stars. Other planetary systems were found that didn’t look anything like our own. Systems with planets larger than Jupiter in orbits much more eccentric than those of any Solar System dwarf planet. Systems with 2, 3 or more giant planets packed inside what in the Solar System would be the orbit of Mercury. Systems with resonant giant planets. A wide variety of outcomes of a process that is apparently universal: planetary formation.

And all of a sudden there’s no order, only different outcomes of a process that is inherently chaotic. And all of a sudden planets are no longer special: we already know where are hundreds of them, and it’s now clear that we’ll end up finding many billions in our galaxy alone. Planets are literally everywhere.

And this is why 8 planets are bad science.

By insisting on a small number of planets, the astronomers are trying to perpetuate a notion that science itself has already defeated: that planets are rare and special bodies, that they are well-behaved and orderly, that it’s still possible to find in them the music of the spheres. When none of this is true.

This time, no revolution can leave things as they were. This time, we simply cannot avoid a true, paradigm-shifting revolution.

As Mark Sykes puts it, “we are in the midst of a conceptual revolution […], shaking off the last vestiges of the mythological view of planets as special objects in the sky – and the idea that there has to be a small number of them because they’re special.” That’s exactly it. And that’s why the most amazing part of all this is, to me, that the IAU definition was already obsolete when it was created and approved.

Which is to say, bad science.

This is also why I’m absolutely certain that it will end up being defeated. This definition will not stand. Not because thousands of “plutophiles” go do some agitprop to twitter, but because it just doesn’t fit reality. Not because people are annoyed by the “demotion” of Pluto, but due to the wide diversity of planets that exist out there. In the end, the only possible outcome of all this is a broad definition of what planets are, as broad and inclusive as planets are varied in this vast universe we live in, and a classification scheme that sets up categories within that definition. They are already emerging, even. The literature is crawling with “jupiters”, “neptunes”, “super-earths”, “hot neptunes”, “gas giants”, “ice giants”, “terrestrial planets”.

And, yes, “dwarf planets”, why not?



1. Francisco Norega - August 12, 2009

Olá Jorge.

Gostei de ler 🙂
Acho que tens a tua razão. Eu, no entanto, e gostando imenso de astronomia, já me preocupei mais com essas coisas. Para mim, Plutão é… plutão, and nothing more than that. Assim como Júpiter é Júpiter e a Terra é a Terra. São todos únicos.
Chamem-lhes planetas, planetas anões, whatever. São apenas conceitos, designações.

2. Jorge Candeias - August 13, 2009

Sim, isso é verdade, e essa é a atitude que prevalece entre os astrónomos. Mas os conceitos e as designações também têm o seu lugar na ciência, e mais ainda onde a ciência se cruza com o resto da sociedade. Precisamos deles para comunicar. Num exemplo muito básico, dizes “os planetas” quando te referes a algo comum a todos; caso contrário terias de fazer a lista completa.

De resto, este post dirige-se mais aos que andam muito irritados com a “despromoção” de Plutão: na sua maior parte é gente que não entende que é da natureza da ciência que à medida que nova informação chega os conceitos e as designações evoluem. Foi por isso mesmo que dei aquele salto à história da coisa.


For the English-speakers, Francisco tells me that he doesn’t care much about what label each body gets since all of them are unique, and I answer that it’s true, but concepts and designations also have their place in science and in society because they are what allows us to communicate, especially in general. I also tell him that the post was aimed mostly at those that are very annoyed by Pluto’s “demotion” just because it changes things, not understanding that the nature of science is that as new information comes in, concepts and designations have to adapt. That’s the reason for the historical digression.

3. Laurel Kornfeld - August 14, 2009

Not all of us opposed to Pluto’s demotion have no understanding of the science involved. Some of us have spent years learning it in order to make valid, strong, logical arguments as to why this particular change (the 2006 IAU decision) is wrong. Your discussion is very useful and reflects a similar narrative in Dr. David Weintraub’s excellent book “Is Pluto A Planet?”

Twitter is not an appropriate venue for a discussion of this type, which requires reasoning that cannot be done in 140 words. At least some who took part in this twitter “rebellion” know that. Using the “hashtag” was nothing more than a protest of the IAU’s complete refusal to address this issue at this year’s General Assembly and tweets by Mike “Plutokiller” Brown that were clearly intended to provoke responses.

I have run a blog advocating the overturning of the IAU decision for three years and have done several public presentations on this issue, including one at the Great Planet Debate held exactly one year ago at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, MD. That conference, with audio transcripts still available online, can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ Sykes was one of the presenters, and he even debated Neil deGrasse Tyson.

You are right on about the amazing diversity in the universe and the way the IAU definition artificially narrows the field of planets to only eight “special objects.” Because the IAU wants the general public to view it as “the authority” on celestial matters and because so much of the media has blindly accepted this, many who dissent with the IAU decision feel disenfranchised, that their voices are not being heard. The IAU’s continued ignoring of widespread sentiment against its 2006 decision naturally results in these people resorting to online sites as twitter to make their voices heard.

4. Jorge Candeias - August 14, 2009

Yeah, well, I should have written that most people don’t understand the issues, then. To be frank, all the tweets I saw bearing the hashtag were clearly in the silly camp (weather they wanted to “bring Pluto back” or not), but it’s true that I didn’t stay all day watching the party. I simply took a sample, during perhaps half an hour, and it wasn’t nice to look at. I fully agree that twitter is inadecuate to discuss this kind of thing, but people can avoid looking silly while using it. I had a small conversation with Mike Brown following the hashparty, in twitter, and I don’t think any of us fell pray of silliness while it lasted.

Also, the very focus was, and has been all along, wrong. This is not about Pluto. It’s about a lot of things, and Pluto is only one small part of these things. So, if you use a hashtag saying “bringbackpluto” you’re doing it wrong, even if you manage to avoid looking silly. I definitely didn’t like what I saw. This is precisely the kind of thing that radicalizes people like Mike Brown, leading him to do silly things like choosing “plutokiller” as a twitter alias, and making the whole discussion much more difficult than it could be otherwise.

And don’t fret about the IAU refusing to discuss the issue this year. To tell the truth, I don’t think they should discuss it before we get results from Dawn and New Horizons. Let time do its work.

5. Chris - November 13, 2009

I told Dr. Brown (discoverer) of Eris that the IAU’s definition of planet was arbitrary and meant to keep the number of planets low, in nice pretty orbits that look good in planetarium models. He politely disagreed.

The fact of the matter is, this definition, however flawed, will stand until someone finds a Mercury or Mars sized object out there. There is a good chance with in the next 20 years this will happen.

When this happens, we’ll revisit this again in force. So an object the size of Mars is not a planet because of where it orbits? That’s what they are saying of Pluto now and they are happy with that but it will only last so long.

6. Kevin Heider - November 14, 2009

Pluto was not detected before 1930. Neptune appeared out of place because some of the position measurements were incorrect, not because of an unknown Planet X (assumed to be Pluto). Pluto’s status as a planet was questioned by some astronomers when it was discovered because it did not display a planetary disc. Pluto was just “assumed” to be far larger than the Earth because astronomers of the time incorrectly “assumed” Pluto had been noticeably perturbing Neptune. Pluto status as a planet was being questioned a decade or two before Eris was discovered. Eris just forced the astronomical community to try and resolve the Pluto issue so that Eris (and similar future bodies) could be named and classified accordingly.

The only way the IAU definition should be changed is if society is ready and willing to define ALL planets by “what-they-are” REGARDLESS of “where-they-are”. Welcome to the DOUBLE PLANET EARTH! Is society willing to go that far with a new definition? Why does a planet need to orbit the Sun or any star for that matter? The IAU has just currently decided to work with a “where-it-is” definition.

— Kevin Heider

7. Laurel Kornfeld - November 24, 2009

The IAU made a poor decision, and if they are not willing to correct it, others will. The fact is, Pluto does display a planetary disk, as does Ceres. A good definition takes into account both where and what an object is. In the past, spherical moons have been called “secondary planets,” reflecting the fact that their primary orbits are around other planets while their secondary orbits are around the sun. Earth’s Moon would be a secondary planet, as the barycenter, or center of gravity the Earth and Moon orbit is within the Earth. This is not the case for Pluto and Charon, whose barycenter lies between the two objects, making them a double primary planet system.

Eris did not force the astronomical community to “resolve the Pluto issue.” Eris simply showed there are more Pluto-like planets in the outer solar system, effectively constituting a third class of planets, the dwarf planets.

As for society, a large number of both lay people as well as amateur and professional astronomers have voiced their dissatisfaction with the IAU definition, which nonsensically states dwarf planets are not planets at all. We do not have to wait for the IAU to come up with a better definition. The New Horizons and Dawn missions will likely illustrate the absurdity of the IAU definition and open a more informed debate in which this issue will be reconsidered.

8. Jorge Candeias - November 24, 2009

Kevin, sorry for the long lag between comment and comment approval. For some reason, the customary mail warning me that something was pending moderation never arrived.

Regarding what you say, I don’t quite agree. Firstly, I don’t think it’s the society who should determine what a planet is or isn’t. It’s science and the knowledge it gathers. Secondly, you don’t need to go very far with a new definition to change an old one which is obviously impractical. I certainly have no problem about including everything round under the broad planetary umbrella (see the page on what’s a planet in this blog), but you don’t need to go immediately all that radical to send the current definition to the trash can it belongs in. You can, for instance, include the caveat that the term planet only applies to the heaviest object in a gravitationally bound set, being the rest satellites. It’s perfectly doable, even if I would prefer to call them all planets for one simple reason: satellites do break free from their main planets’ domain, from time to time, becoming full-fledged planets, or, on the contrary, planets get captured becoming satellites. But since these situations are rare, I can live with the alternative.

9. Jorge Candeias - November 25, 2009

Oh, one more thing, Kevin: Pluto was indeed detected much earlier than 1930, although “detected” is perhaps too strong a word. When Lowell performed his search for the 9th planet, he took photos of locations where he thought it could have been found. In two of those plates, Pluto is faintly present. So faintly that he didn’t recognize it as a new object. The plates were made in 1915.

10. Laurel Kornfeld - November 25, 2009

This is true in the cases of Uranus and Neptune as well. After their discoveries, astronomers who went back and searched data pre-dating the discoveries in several cases found the planet in earlier astronomers’ recordings of their observations. It just had not been recognized as a planet but thought to be a background star because outer planets move so slowly. In fact, Galileo is believed to have observed Neptune and mistaken it for a background star as well.

11. Jorge Candeias - November 25, 2009

Exactly. That kind of situation happens often. And I can only imagine how the astronomers who failed to aknowledge that they were seing a new object must feel…

12. Kevin Heider - November 25, 2009

Charon: I have somewhat of a problem with Charon being a considered a primary planet since it is basically submissive to (weaker than) Pluto. Anyone saying that Charon should be a primary planet just because Pluto has a dynamically weak barycenter is using a where-it-is definition. If Charon was orbiting at a different distance from Pluto then the barycenter could be inside of Pluto. Charon being a primary planet requires yet another “where-it-is” rule. Laurel you should be against where it is rules. I don’t see how your where-it-is definition is any better than the IAU’s. Pluto did not show a disc when it was discovered and hailed as the 9th planet.

Detection: Something is not really detected until someone “knows” it is there. Lowell did not recognize Pluto because he “assumed” he was looking for a real Planet X “that would be massive enough to noticeably perturb Neptune.” Lowell was not looking for a faint star. It is more proper to call those precovery sightings.

13. Jorge Candeias - November 25, 2009

Charon: I fully agree. I don’t like the barycenter approach at all. It actually gets worse than the simple fact about it being a where-it-is approach: if we find, somewhere, a situation where two objects are gravitationally bound to each other, are of somewhat similar masses (like Pluto and Charon) and move in eccentric orbits, we may be surprised to see the barycenter going in and out of the heavier object within each orbit.

To say that something is a planet for part of an orbit and isn’t for another part of the same orbit is to stretch the thing so much that it just breaks.

On detection, meh, we’re getting a bit too much into semantics there, wouldn’t you think? Regardless of words, the point is that Pluto was detected, spotted, sighted, whatever you want to call it, 15 years before it was actually discovered.

14. Kevin Heider - November 25, 2009

Here is a good article describing why the barycenter rule can be troublesome as well.

Earth’s moon could become a planet:

Being a planet might be all about semantics giving the long history of the word and how society has used it. And most objects were sighted before they were discovered. Both Orcus and Quaoar have precovery images from the 1950’s. See Orcus (first obs. used): http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=Orcus

15. Laurel Kornfeld - November 25, 2009

The question is, should a definition have some provision for a binary system? We acknowledge binary star systems in which two stars are gravitationally bound together. In many cases, one of those stars is much more massive than the other. Are a gravitationally-bound star and brown dwarf a binary system? We may end up finding binary systems of exoplanets in which both objects are of very similar mass with a barycenter between them. How do these get classified?

The truth is, I’m certain that Charon, being in hydrostatic equilibrium, should be classified as a planet but still somewhat undecided as to what type–whether a secondary planet or a primary in a double planet system. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, in this case, the barycenter does not move in and out of Pluto. I’m not opposed to incorporating where an object is into a definition. What I am opposed to is only using where it is while completely ignoring what it is. Therefore, I would say that either designation for Charon–as a secondary planet or as one of a double primary system–is a better definition than the IAU’s which completely ignores the issue of what these objects are. We may need to wait for the up close data from New Horizons to give us more information about the “where” issue regarding Charon.

16. Kevin Heider - November 26, 2009

Your hope in Charon is part of the reason I push the concept of the Earth’s moon so hard. In solving the planet problem, we also need a proper definition for a double planet that is not unfairly biased or complicated.

As I recall, the barycenter of the Pluto-Charon system is always outside of Pluto. But with exo-planets many of the masses are only roughly estimated, and we would not know the true barycenter.

17. Bob Shepard - November 29, 2009

Perhaps, in defining “double planet”, we could ignore the barycenter and instead focus on the mass. If, say, the smaller body has a mass at least 10% that of the larger, then they could be considered to be members of a binary system.

According to Wikipedia, it appears that Charon has 11.6% of the mass of Pluto, so, just barely, Pluto/Charon would qualify as a “double primary planet”.

In contrast, it appears that the Moon has less than 2% of Earth’s mass, so the Moon would be properly termed a “secondary planet”.

18. Kevin Heider - November 29, 2009

Hi Bob;

Your idea is logical enough. But sadly it is just another arbitrary cut off point that has no scientific reason for existing. And some day when an Earth-mass body is found orbiting a gas giant planet, what to do?

I don’t think “planet”, “double planet”, or “moon” for that matter will ever have a perfect definition that makes every object fall neatly into proper place.

I still think the IAU’s current definition is the best that we have had to date. Pluto’s demotion can be thought of as an increase in our understanding of how dominant bodies (IAU planets) evolve in a star system. If Pluto was removed from our solar system, gravitationally the other planets (and most other bodies) would not even notice. Mercury being so close to the Sun perturbs far more comets than Pluto every will.

So does a planet need to orbit a star? Does it need to dominate its orbit? All of it is somewhat arbitrary.

— Kevin Heider

19. Laurel Kornfeld - November 29, 2009

I strongly disagree that the IAU’s current definition is “the best we have so far.” Even many dynamicists believe it is highly problematic. In a New York debate last March, three dynamicists, three planetary scientists, and moderator Neil de Grasse Tyson all expressed their dislike of the IAU definition. The “clearing its orbit” requirement is vague and could be used to preclude any objects in a binary system from being classed as planets. Neither does it make sense to say dwarf planets are not planets.

No object will fall neatly into a “proper place” because the reality is all objects in the planetary category fall within a spectrum ranging from the tiniest dwarf planets such as Ceres to sub-brown dwarfs of several Jupiter masses, just below the threshold for deuterium fusion. This is why we should keep the term planet broad and create a definition spectrum similar to the Hertzsprung Russell diagram used for stars. A good definition has to encompass both. Setting dwarf planets as a subclass of planets not large enough to dominate their orbits does this while detracting nothing from our understanding of how dominant bodies evolve in a star system.

Given the very strange exoplanets we are finding, it seems premature in the field of planetary science to create such narrow, exclusionary categories. The majority of planets out there may end up being of no type we currently know today.

Pluto’s demotion does not represent any increase in understanding; it is confusing, not accepted by many astronomers, and takes into account only where an object is, completely ignoring what that object is.

20. So you want to talk about double planets? No sweat. « Thousands of Planets - November 30, 2009

[…] Jupiter, multiple planets, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus trackback The post where I explain why 8 planets are bad science has been generating both good traffic and a rather interesting discussion in the comment boxes. […]

21. makayla - January 30, 2010

You all know Pluto poof its not a planet .. now that’s a bad thing ! 12345678 now wheres 9 ? ……………………..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: