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 don't get it

[susano_otter]

Why all the controversy anyway?

Why not fix the "official" number of planets at nine, including the largest, nearest, and most well-known of the Kuyper Belt Objects, and leave it at that?

Pluto's nature won't change either way, and our understanding of it won't change either way. This kind of legalistic controversy just for the sake of legalistic controversy is getting pretty annoying.

Traditionally, Pluto has been a planet. Now, I'm not saying tradition trumps everything, but I see no reason why it shouldn't trump meaningless debate.

Let me know if I've got it all wrong, and there is actually meaningful debate on this topic.

Re:I don't get it

[Billosaur]

Why not fix the "official" number of planets at nine, including the largest, nearest, and most well-known of the Kuyper Belt Objects, and leave it at that?

Because there's nothing the scientific community loves more than controversy, and this is beginning to rival the great Newton vs. Einstein debate, where some purists were not convinced that Einstein's theories were realistic. Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto back in 1930 after a systematic search for planets beyond Neptune. He had to pore through photographic plates, trying to find the tiniest relative shift of an object in the starfield that would lead him to a body that was orbiting the Sun. That he found Pluto was remarkable for the time, and I think all this debate over Pluto's status is a disservice to him. Let sleeping dogs lie, let Pluto remain one of the original nine planets, and let's move on.

Re:I don't get it

[schwanerhill]

Very large paychecks for whom? Astronomers? Hah! I'm an astronomer, so please let me know where those can be found.

(If you're in astronomy for the money, you're crazy.)

Re:I don't get it

[StupendousMan]

Why not fix the "official" number of planets at nine, including the largest, nearest, and most well-known of the Kuyper Belt Objects, and leave it at that?

Because there's nothing the scientific community loves more than controversy

No, actually, I (and most of the astronomers in my peer group) do NOT enjoy the ongoing saga. We would like the whole matter to go away.

The real answer is

Because there's nothing the media loves more than controversy

Editors know that "telling people that stuff they learned in elementary school is wrong" can pull emotional strings and get a rise out of some people ... and that leads to profit.

Sigh.

End of Science and the Modern Age

[transami]

Yep, I called it. Many moons ago I said if they rule it's a planet it means science is dead. Real science doesn't label something based on feel good social acceptance, but strives for as much exactness as possible.

As of now, the modern age is officially over and dystopic post-modern has begun.

Held together by gravity=yes. Chemisty = no.

[mc6809e]

It's been suggested that the best way to decide what is or is not a planet is to determine if the mass is held together the force of gravity or electrostatic forces (like metal bonds).

If by gravity then it should be considered a planet. If by chemisty then it's just a hunk of rock.

This makes the most sense to me.