Maurizio – Omnologos

Where no subject is left unturned

What Trouble with Pluto?

with 2 comments

There is one thing I can’t understand in the ongoing “what’s a planet” saga (now set to demote Pluto, Ceres and anything else apart from the 8 pre-1930 classical planets)

Say, if the previous proposal had been accepted and we were presented with 12 planets: what was wrong with that?

The New York Times went as far as to define it an “abomination

Let me rephrase that: in-between bombings, volcanic eruptions and Dick Cheney’s declarations about anti-Iraq-war campaigners being al-Qaeda complicits, the NYT editors have found the space&time to say that to expand the definition of “planet” is an “abomination culturally

Edwin Hubble discovered in 1923-24 that unfathomable numbers of Galaxies populate the Universe. Did he ever have to think that having more than a handful of Galaxies would have been any kind of “abomination“?

————–

On the other hand there is something we are going to miss if there are only 8 planets in our System. Simply, there will be fewer targets to reach.

————–

As for the current proposal, it is way too elaborate and so it defeats itself.

For example if a planet is “by far the largest body in its local population“, and “the local population is the collection of the objects that cross or close approach the orbit of the body in consideration“, I can imagine plenty of objects beyond Neptune whose orbit does not cross or close approach much of anything else (what is in fact the meaning of “close“?)

Also, what is wrong with Ceres, that is way larger than any other asteroid, and moves in an orbit with little inclination and eccentricity?

————–

Finally, that proposal depends on the current theories on the formation of the Solar System. Do we really have to change the definition of “planet” every time we improve our science?

Written by omnologos

2006/Aug/22 at 01:24:32

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I think that the astronomers and the scientists must figure out whether Pluto fall under the definition of a planet. It says that in order for a celestial body to be considered as a planet it must be bigger than the sorrounding bodies around it. From the looks of it, this has to be done with highly-specialized equipment.

    carlo*98

    2006/Aug/23 at 10:19:16

  2. Why haven’t they made those findings before? Would this mean that scientists before are not comptent enough compared to the scientists now? They should have excluded pluto from the very start.

    tin60

    2006/Sep/04 at 04:02:23


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: