Sad Little Pluto

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.

Like what?

Seriously, I can't see a better set of rules than those that are there at the moment. If you want Pluto as a planet, then be prepared to have 100 or more planets in the solar system (which would devalue what it means to be a planet). If you don't want 100 or more planets in the solar system, then I don't see how you can define a planet in such a way that Pluto ends up being included.

Part of the definition is that the planet has to have cleared out its orbit, what about the asteroids that cross the Earths path and the Trojans that are on the orbit of Jupiter. ?!?
www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites/trojan.html
The biggest planet in the solar system breaks the definition.
My problem is that its not bullet proof, the fact that something is arbitary is not a problem, as long as it is consistant, a meter is a meter whether you are in Australia, the north pole, Mars or Pluto.

There is a long tradition in Astronomy of making simple things complex.

Think about the "Stellar Magnitude System"....its stupid.

Think about "Light Year" versus "Parsec" .....silly.

Look what they call the centre of out Galaxy : "Sgr A*"

Nobody can pronounce "Sgr A*", yet that is the "poetic" name they give the Galactic Centre.

Look what they call the centre of out Galaxy : "Sgr A*"

Nobody can pronounce "Sgr A*", yet that is the "poetic" name they give the Galactic Centre.

Saggitarius A, is a radio source, believed to be caused by the radioactive jets expelled from a supermassive black hole at the galactic core. The galactice core is seen from Earth in the direction VIA the Saggitarius constellation. Since we cannot actively see what the centre of our galaxy looks like, the next best thing is to listen to what it actively sounds like, and give it a name. It just so happens that it is the most active region of the constellation of Saggitarius as seen from Earth.

What would you call it Peter?

Part of the definition is that the planet has to have cleared out its orbit, what about the asteroids that cross the Earths path and the Trojans that are on the orbit of Jupiter. ?!?
www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard/satellites/trojan.html
The biggest planet in the solar system breaks the definition.

Either that, or "cleared out its orbit" has a different meaning to what it might seem to mean.

If I'm not mistaken, the Trojans are there because of Jupiter - i.e. they are a testament to the gravitational influence of Jupiter. If I'm not mistaken, Pluto could not possibly have Trojan-like asteroids in its orbit. And, again, I suspect that all the eight planets (with the possible exceptions of Mercury and Venus) are capable of holding asteroids in such positions.

It still sounds like a good definition of a planet to me.

I'd call the galactic center ANYTHING but that,Seanie.

Let's see.... ok ...I'd call it the "Central Galactic Maelstrom" or some such evocative name.

It must be pretty scarey in there in the "Maws of Hell".

"Maws of Hades" perhaps might be a good name, to give it a classical touch.

Charles H. Townes invented the Laser.
He was one of the physicists of the twentieth century.
He received the Noble Prize in Physics in 1964.
He also proposed that the meter be normalised to the distance light travels in 1/300,000,000 th of a second.

www.bell-labs.com/history/laser/invention/townes-bio.html

Great minds think alike.
Mediocre minds parrot what they were told.