Sad Little Pluto

One more point.
This debate about the planets is a LOT older than we think.

When a Spanish king was presented with a model of the Solar System as envisioned by Ptolemy he was so appalled and dismayed by all the complicated Epicycles etc. of the Ptolemaic system that he famously said:

"Had I been present at the Creation,I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the Universe."
Alfonso "the Wise", 1221-1284.
King of Castille and Leon.

Some things never change.

Peter - I somehow think that your definition would lead to untold problems - how do you know, to a degree of accuracy, if an object 100 AU away is larger or smaller than Pluto? Try do that with an extra-solar planet...

By making things simple, you can complicate matters...

As for Alan Stern's comment, he's probably cheesed off that New Horizons is now not going to the 'last planet to be visited by humankind', but is intead going to a Dwarf Planet. Doesn't have the same sensational ring, does it? His comments were pretty stern...

"I'm embarrassed for astronomy. Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute.

"This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told Space.com. He expects the astronomy community to overturn the decision. Other astronomers criticized the definition as ambiguous."

I think the resolutions were worded to try and be acceptable to as many folks as possible - but recognising that there would still be some people unhappy at the result. Mr. Stern for one. On the other side of the fence to Stern was Michael Brown - the discoverer of UB313 - he was delighted with the decision even though he is now not the discoverer of the tenth planet...

Others, whilst disappointed, have not been as sensationalist as Stern and simply accepted the definition. And moved on...

I think Alfonso the Wise hit the nail....

Cheers

Dave

On the other hand the meaning of the word planet (from either latin or greek) is descriptive of what people originally observed. The "wanderers" were the stars that moved - that is - could be observed with the naked eye.
Herschel added Uranus in 1781 and whilst he used a telescope to nail it (as it were) there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that it had been observed numerous times before his "discovery". So arguably there is a case for calling it a planet in the classical sense (visually a moving star Mag. 5.7 - 5.9). Neptune presents somewhat more of a problem as it is too faint to be seen naked eye (Mag. 7.9) but because it is intimately tied up with the discovery of Uranus then I will apply a two-for-one rule (which I just made up!) and allow it to be a planet. Pluto on the other hand was "discovered" by a loon who found it in a place predicted but which afterwards turned out not to have been possible as the assumptions and/or the calculations were "flawed". Pluto in fact was a lucky shot. Therefore its inclusion in the pantheon of planets is flawed from the start. So - Out vile Pluto! Where is thy luster now? (to paraphrase someone else.)

Incidentally Astronomy Now has an interesting article about the controversy surrounding the "discovery" of Uranus which concludes that the conventional story regarding the Adams contribution may also be a crock - but perhaps more scholarly put.

Disjointedly yours.

JMP

Good article in Astronomy Now re Neptune. Damned lying Brits

I think the inclusion of Pluto in the 'planetary club' has always sat uncomfortably with some astronomers. But that wasn't the reason the resolutions were proposed. Besides, one could argue that no precedent has been set - Ceres was originally designated a planet but then booted out...

I'd like a more detailed discussion of your two-for-one rule. Sounds like it could be a runner at the next IAU conference.

Interesting that Hershel nailed Uranus with a telescope.

Dave

If there is uncertainty as to whether it is a "Major" or "Minor"planet just call it a "Planet" and have done with it.

This is all about words, not science.

The words we already have actually describe something:

"Terrestrial Planets" - Mercury,Venus,Earth Mars.
"Gas Giant Planets" - Jupiter, Saturn.
"Ice Giant Planets" - Uranus, Neptune
"Minor Planets or Asteroids" - none of the above and not Comets,and maybe Pluto.

We could have called the new discoveries the "New Planets" and subdivided them as above. Dead simple...old Alfonso would have agreed.

uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Iran_defies...at_Pluto_is_a_planet