So... is Pluto really a Planet?
February 3, 1999
Recent news reports have given much attention to what was believed to be an initiative by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to change the status of Pluto as the ninth planet in the solar system. Unfortunately, some of these reports have been based on incomplete or misleading information regarding the subject of the discussion and the decision making procedures of the Union...
... 'course they can always change their minds, it is not like Congressional elections, you can do "do-overs" in science.
As I said before and in excessive detail here and here, using my amazing predicitive powers, though not, obviously, as amazing as the Mighty iPod
So, here is my definitive authoritative answer: Pluto is a Planet 'cause we said so.
So STFU - you expect The Astronomical Community to Admit Error? In this day and age.
No way. Consistency is overrated anyway.
Damm, makes me almost irate enough to fly to Prague and utilize my seriously underutilized IAU membership... but not quite.
Seriously, it is a label, it does not matter. It is not like naming conventions in astronomy are a leading example of purist consistency.
End the Madness Now.
Leave Pluto Alone.
It even has weather. Do "minor trans-Neptunian icy planetoids have weather? Stay tuned...
PS: having said this, I expect some IAU sub-committee will do something really stupid; if not on Pluto then on the equally explosive exoplanet definition issue...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
There are a lot of things in astronomy that we classified one way, only to find that the original classification isn't quite right. We usually leave it alone. For example, BL Lacertae objects are galaxies, but the name is a variable star name. Omega Centauri is a Bayer designation --- a star name. Pluto clearly doesn't fit with the other planets, but it made it on the list, so it stays there.
But, like you, I expect some IAU sub-committee to do something pretty silly on some topic.