![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Pluto Demoted (According to Some)
Alas, it was too good to be true. Despite the draft resolution of last week, Pluto has been demoted from planet to "dwarf planet," the result of a final resolution that basically says plaents like Pluto, having not cleared their orbits completely of things like other planets, cannot be called planets. And to add insult to injury, the idea of calling all bodies like Pluto "Plutonian objects" was voted down as well. As was the notion of distinguishing between "classical" planets like the other eight.
I don't like it. I don't get it. I don't buy it. If a larger body is found out there but is in an orbit as eccentric as Pluto and Charon's, it won't be a planet? What if there is something the size of Earth in another solar system that acts the same way? Given that we keep finding seemingly impossible tihngs out there, I would say this is not out of the question.
I can see that Pluto, as small and strange is it, defies defintion. That maybe it doesn't quite fit with the other planets. But I would much rather have seen the defintion broadened. As with other things i life, I prefer inclusiveness.
And let's say this one last time. The word planet had a simple, if non-scientific definition, for a long time. This complicates things. I honestly think that to the average person (assuming he or she cares), the scientific communnity looks silly, pendantic, and self-involved.
And for what it's worth, I don't think this is the end of it. The debate will go on, even if the astronomers voted.
Thus for now, I am not ready to concede. Pluto is a planet, and I don't care what the vote was. Alas, my opinion doesn't matter much. But I am sticking with it.
And therefore I welcome Ceres, Charon and "Xena" to my own list of planets. And look forward to adding more.
(Yes, I am being churlish and stubborn. Is that a problem?)
I don't like it. I don't get it. I don't buy it. If a larger body is found out there but is in an orbit as eccentric as Pluto and Charon's, it won't be a planet? What if there is something the size of Earth in another solar system that acts the same way? Given that we keep finding seemingly impossible tihngs out there, I would say this is not out of the question.
I can see that Pluto, as small and strange is it, defies defintion. That maybe it doesn't quite fit with the other planets. But I would much rather have seen the defintion broadened. As with other things i life, I prefer inclusiveness.
And let's say this one last time. The word planet had a simple, if non-scientific definition, for a long time. This complicates things. I honestly think that to the average person (assuming he or she cares), the scientific communnity looks silly, pendantic, and self-involved.
And for what it's worth, I don't think this is the end of it. The debate will go on, even if the astronomers voted.
Thus for now, I am not ready to concede. Pluto is a planet, and I don't care what the vote was. Alas, my opinion doesn't matter much. But I am sticking with it.
And therefore I welcome Ceres, Charon and "Xena" to my own list of planets. And look forward to adding more.
(Yes, I am being churlish and stubborn. Is that a problem?)
no subject
The truth is that the first definition the the IAU commitee came up with is how I will always think of the definition of a planet which include Pluto and the other bodies as plutons (a name that I have fallen in love with). So congradulations we know have a 12 planet system in our eyes if no one elses.
no subject
no subject
So why wasn't Ceres on your list years ago? After all, nothing new has been learned about it recently. It was demoted from planethood when it was realised that it was only one of a whole collection of asteroids, and nobody wanted to give them all planet status. The same consideration applies to Pluto, now that we know it is only one of a whole collection of Kuiper objects. I booted Pluto out of my list at least 10 years ago.