Pluto IS a planet; debate isn't overlaureleJanuary 22 2010, 00:22:12 UTC
Planet Pluto has not "fallen," and the IAU was never "forced" to define the term planet, an act many members now regret. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet
( ... )
Re: Pluto IS a planet; debate isn't overmshadesJanuary 22 2010, 01:33:36 UTC
You're right - the debate isn't over. When New Horizons gets out there in a few years, the data it collects about Pluto and its environs will no doubt reignite the conversation, and I look forward to it
( ... )
Re: Pluto IS a planet; debate isn't overlaureleJanuary 22 2010, 02:42:02 UTC
First, the argument that it is only sentimentality supporting Pluto remaining a planet is a straw man. Those who seek to keep the number of planets low simply for convenience or memorization can be equally accused of being motivated by sentimental reasons
( ... )
I saw NDT speak at a Secret Science Club meeting in Brooklyn a year or so ago. He talked mainly about this book.
At the risk of seeming flip, he seemed pretty happy with the IAU decision that night. Maybe it was all the drinks people kept buying him. However, it seems like sheer sentimentality to argue that the addition of the letters -oid somehow demeans a hunk of rock millions of miles away. The definition does make it easier to talk about bodies orbiting the sun, and thats the goal of taxonomy.
Comments 4
Reply
Reply
Reply
At the risk of seeming flip, he seemed pretty happy with the IAU decision that night. Maybe it was all the drinks people kept buying him. However, it seems like sheer sentimentality to argue that the addition of the letters -oid somehow demeans a hunk of rock millions of miles away. The definition does make it easier to talk about bodies orbiting the sun, and thats the goal of taxonomy.
Reply
Leave a comment