IAU Rules Pluto Still a Planet

scottyscout writes "NPR reports that Pluto has dodged a bullet. An international panel has unanimously recommended that Pluto retain its title as a planet, and it may be joined by other undersized objects that revolve around the sun. Some astronomers had lobbied for reclassifying Pluto as its so tiny. And at least one major museum has excluded Pluto from its planetary display. But sources tell NPR that under the proposal, to be presented at a big meeting of astronomers in Prague next week for a vote, Pluto would become part of a new class of small planets and several more objects could be granted membership."

Comments

I "relate to its inadequacy"

[ExE122]

According to wikipedia:

-Earth's Diameter: 12,756.274 km
-Pluto's Diameter: 2306±20 km
-Jupiter's Diameter: 142,984 km
-Proportion of Earth to Pluter: 12756.274 / 2306 = 5.531
-Proportion of Jupiter to Earth: 142984 / 12756.274 = 11.209

Hmm... Jupiter has over twice the proportional difference with Earth as Earth has with Pluto. So I guess Jupiter wouldn't really consider Earth a real planet.

Personally, I think we should leave the little guy alone. Throw UB313 in there as well. Just give it a cool name that fits in with that whole "my very educated mother..." thing.

Like the well learned and professional scientist said: "We'll call them dwarf planets or something".

--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong

Re:I "relate to its inadequacy"

[thePig]

If it is only the size tht was an issue, then yes, your point makes excellent sense.
But, shouldnt we also consider the fact that there is a high probability that pluto was not created from the accretion disk around the sun, from which other planets were formed ?
Especially the plane in which pluto revolves, which is very very different from other planetary planes, should also be taken into consideration, I guess.

A planet should not be just an object which revolves around a star. Rather it is something which should have formed when the star was formed. This we can very easily judge (provided we know) from the heavy metal content and the ratio, I guess.

But, I guess these should have been easily the first points in IAUs discussions. Otherwise, I am completely wrong in my assumptions :-)

Re:I don't get it

[StupendousMan]

Astronomers were debating Pluto's status back in the early 90's.

No, the overwhelming majority of astronomers were not. We don't care. Really. The issue "what is a planet?" has for most of us the same urgency and relevance that "what is a continent?" has for geologists.

No, the scientific community is in a constant state of polarization, between the old guard, wary of new things and ideas, and the new breed, mainly young researchers thinking outside the box.

There certainly _are_ topics on which there is vigorous debate in the astronomical community -- for example, the nature of gamma-ray bursts, or the accuracy and precision of the cosmological distance scale, or the physics of supernova explosions. But this isn't one of them. The issue exists solely because a very few people who (for some reason) are seeking publicity go to the media periodically with a "new twist" on this question.

Adding the question "is Pluto a planet" to the list of serious astronomical questions of the day does a disservice to those other questions.