Sad Little Pluto

If it's discoverer and first visitor Clive Tombaugh called it a planet then I'll call it a planet.

Tombaugh recognised his a discovery as a Trans-Neptunian Object - not a planet. The title "planet " came later.

Presumably you will now call Pluto a Trans-Neptunian Object?

Dave L - you're right about Trojans etc. I understand the definition of 'cleared its orbit' to mean that there are no longer any other significant objects that share that particular orbit. I think the IAU eggheads have a definition of what they mean by 'cleared its orbit', but I'm nopt sure what that definition is. I'm sure however that we'll see it soon enough.

Dave

"Around me here in the Peruvian Andes there are 'small hills' each and every one of which is far larger then Ben Nevis the largest mountain in Britain.
Truly the word "mountain" is a flexible word which has no need of a rigid Geological definition."
From the "Ring of Fire" program on UK TV two weeks ago.

Perhaps those airheads in the IAU should learn that language is nuanced and not a mathematical process.This argument is ,after all, about language...it has nothing at all to do with Planetary Science.

Perhaps those airheads in the IAU should learn that language is nuanced and not a mathematical process.This argument is ,after all, about language...it has nothing at all to do with Planetary Science.

Peter - I'm sure the IAU airheads include some who are excellent linguistics and mathematicians and certainly better at it than me - possibly you too. They certainly took account of linguistic nuances when drafting the text of the resolutions and they took account of the science implications too.

Then everyone voted and we have what we have.

I actually don't see any major arguments about language. I see a lot of personal opinions being expressed about how terrible it is that Pluto is no longer a planet.

The key issue that the resolutions addressed arose on the discovery of an object larger than Pluto. This necessitated the formal definition of a planet - or we could have ended up with hundreds of 'planets'.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I fear that your opinion (or mine) will change nothing anytime soon. Maybe you should try some positive action - join the IAU so you get a vote - heck, run for President of the IAU and try and overturn this ugly mess.

Until then, your opinion is precisely that - an opinion and that of itself will change nothing. But you are welcome to express it anytime you like!

Cheers

Dave

Whats wrong with "hundreds of planets" ?
(There are trillions of stars like the Sun.That does not devalue the Sun.)

We always knew they had to be there,if only we had the technology to image them .

The Oort Cloud is half way, and more, to the nearest star.
It is part of the Solar System.
We would never know it existed if other stars didn't kick its comets Sunwards.

Absurd to think that the space between Neptune and the Oort is empty.
Its probably full of debris of all sorts and sizes..call them what you like.

"There are more things between us and the Oort Cloud, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your Philosophy"
(poet = pmgisme.....the Bard of the Lee.)

Whats wrong with "hundreds of planets" ?
(There are trillions of stars like the Sun.That does not devalue the Sun.)

True - but there is only one Sun in the Solar System. The existance of lots of other stars in the universe doesn't 'devalue' the Sun but the existance of a couple of stars or more in the Solar System is a different scenario.

I'm sure there are many trillions of planets in the universe but there are only eight in the Solar System. To have 100's of planets in the Solar System would be confusing. Of course, there are lots of objects in the Solar System - dwarf planets and small solar system objects are the other two categories. The name of the category within Dwarf Planets that Pluto belongs is to be decided further - but it is clearly a different 'type' of Dwarf Planet to Ceres. Hence the recognition that Pluto is the prototype object of the category 'Trans-Neptunian Objects'.

All the objects in the Solar System will mostly still be there long after you and I are gone. It is irrelevent to the nature of the Soalr System what we call them - but for scientific purposes, clear definitions were required. Look at the categories of stars we have decided upon - we have just started down the road of creating the equivalent of an H-R diagram for objects, other than the Sun, in the Solar System.

You may call Pluto and any other object in the Solar System whatever you like.

According to the IAU, for now, there are eight Planets, three Dwarf Planets and lots of Small Solar System Bodies.

You are of course entitled to your differing categorisation for as long as you like. I don't think the IAU will lose any sleep over it. Nor will you. Or me.

Cheers

Dave

You are right Dave,the debate doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

I would have been satified with either of the following definitions:

Pluto or smaller = minor planet.
or
Pluto or larger = major planet.

After all:
"The great engineer makes things simple.
The bad engineer makes things complicated."

To quote Alan Stern, leader of the New Horizons mission to Pluto:
"To me it's an unnecessarily complicated mess".

I'll leave it at that....a good debate,but it won't go down in history as one of Astronomy's great debates.

(Not on the momentous scale of the "Great Debate" between Harlow Shapely and Herber D. Curtis in 1920.
That DID amount to more than a hill of beans...it calibrated the scale of the universe.)

Peter.