Sad Little Pluto

Powerful words, and very true in this case.

Thanks for finding that poem and sharing it.

Deirdre Kelleghan
Irish Astronomical Society
www.irishastrosoc.org

My understanding is that Pluto is not actually being demoted from being a planet - all that's happening is that two categories of "planet" are being created - regular planet and "dwarf" planet, and Pluto is being placed in the second category (as it's prototype member, no less).

AFAICS, the choices that the IAU had were -

1. Eight planets in a self-consistent definition of "planet".
2. Nine planets in a totally non-self-consistent definition of "planet" - a definition more ruled by sentimental brooding than by science.
3. Twelve known planets (with possibly hundreds more to be discovered) in a self-consistent definition of "planet".

I think they made the right choice.

What I don't understand is why there isn't this sentimental brooding over Ceres - it was considered to be the solar system's ninth planet after it was discovered, but was fairly quickly demoted after it was discovered that it was just the largest of a large number of bodies in the asteroid belt. The similarities are striking - Ceres is the prototype of what we now call "minor" planets, and Pluto is the prototype of what we now call "dwarf" planets. Did astronomy make the wrong decision when the category "minor planet" was created?

Ceres is the prototype of what we now call "minor" planets

Of course, that was correct last month - Ceres is now a dwarf planet! Poor thing - it must be close to schizophrenia!

However, the analogy holds. Pluto is simply the most prominent member of what looks like becoming a large category indeed, just as Ceres was.

Point taken, I have no problem using "minor planet" or even a "dwarf planet", its the apparent haphazard way they are definied I dont like. A bunch of us in the pub would have come up with a better set of defining rules. :lol:

I take it then that minor planet is no longer used??

I take it then that minor planet is no longer used??

Apparently we're back to asteroids again; which was the term used by most people anyway. I think the IAU kept the term asteroid belt just changed asteroid way back when :roll:

A bunch of us in the pub would have come up with a better set of defining rules.

Big roundish thing (that hydothingamighy line). In space. Goes round the Sun. Not a satellite.

Oh dear we seem to have defined ourselves 12 or so planets now; ah well better have a drink for each of them!

Ceres is the prototype of what we now call "minor" planets

No no no no no

It's a 'dwarf planet'. They now need another IAU meeting to decide whether it should also be as asteroid; since thats what we're calling minor planets now. Clearly calling a 'dwarf planet' a prototype for asteroids would be silly

I'm actually getting bored with all this now

They could have named the new discoveries the "new planets" and saved a lot of bother,and just left the old solar system alone.

(We still use NGC for the "New General Catalogue" objects though that catalogue is now very old indeed.).

There is nothing at all "scientific" about the new names, in case nobody has noticed.

(Even the meter is not scientific--it is based on the size of the earth..a random size caused by collisions in the early solar system.It is even based on an INACCURATE size of the Earth.)

The whole shebang was pointless in my opinion.