Kicked out of the club. Welcome to the club.

[vakkotaur]

Of the two recent definitions of (major) planet, I find I don't really mind either one. The first one, which would have made Pluto and Charon a double planet system, returned planet status to Ceres, and made planets of a few objects not yet formally named was reasonable. That it would make planets of a good many things bothered some, but it was a fairly simple definition.

The second definition, that required not only that an object have enough mass for gravity to make them spheroid, but also that they the space near their orbits of the majority of other bodies (or capture them as satellites or trojans) is also a sensible definition. This changes Pluto from a (major) planet to a "dwarf planet" and I'm not sure what "minor planet" means, if anything, with this definition.

While either definition is pretty reasonable, the means of the second one being adopted makes it suspect. There was a conference with well over a thousand in attendance, but the second definition was held on the last day when many had already left and only 424 voted. That bothers not only me, but others whose opinion probably actually matters in this.

It's been pointed out that Ceres was also called a (major) planet for a while, until more objects were discovered that were similar and the term asteroid invented for the group. There are objects similar to Pluto and Pluto is an oddball compared to the major planets. Its orbit is quite inclined relative to the plane of the ecliptic and its orbit is quite eccentric. While many texts will need re-writing and much fiction will seem dated, that is hardly a new circumstance. I like what someone suggested for how to consider Pluto. Rather than get too upset by Pluto losing major planet status, consider that it joins an even more exclusive group, that of the planets emeritus.

Comments

Astronomical Impact

[irpooh.livejournal.com]

Sooooo... how are all the Astrologists going to handle this? I read my horrorscope on occassion for ammusment, and find an occasional comment about there being 11 planets and 12 signs... NOW What are they gonna do!!! the planets supposedly have a HUGE impact on our personalities and events in our lives

pries tongue from cheek... ducks and runs for cover!

Re: Astronomical Impact

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I doubt that astrologers will be very concerned about it one way or the other. The underlying basis of astrology has very little to do with astronomy, and has never concerned itself much with minor objects like Ceres or Charon. Pluto is not considered either by some astrologers, and given only minor consideration by most. (For one thing, it moves so slowly that its positions affect whole generations of individuals together, if it affects anyone.)

The important heavenly bodies in astrology have always been the ones that can be seen by the unaided human eye. None of those have been called into question in this flap at all.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

NOW What are they gonna do?

Spout a lot of hooey, just like always.

They simply ignore Ophiuchus, using just the tradition constellations of the zodiac. That doesn't seem out of a line for an ancient "art" to do, except there is some accounting for Uranus and Neptune as I recall and I recall seeing at least one popular astrological newspaper listing in the 1980s use the label 'Moon Children' rather than have a section entitled Cancer.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Poo. There are several issues with this supposed "decision" and I expect it to be revisited soon. The lack of quorum of course is significant as well.

As dakhun points out, the new definition is so vague and poorly worded that we could insist that Neptune is a "dwarf planet" as well. That's patently absurd, but he appears to be right. Since Neptune has failed to capture Pluto as a moon, it hasn't cleared its orbit. Never mind that the mass of Neptune is huge compared to that of the inner planets, because mass isn't even a factor in this new set of requirements.

The fact that the whole question of what a "planet" really is should have absorbed so much energy and created so much furor is proof that it's a political issue rather than a scientific one. Technically, we could just as well say that only planetary bodies that are visible to the naked eye count as planets, since that was the original Greek sense of the word. That would kick out Pluto, Neptune, probably Uranus, and certainly the rest of the controversial orbiters, such as Xena and Charon and Ceres. Now we have to figure out how to keep from calling comets planets, eh?

I really think that the basis of the fuss was over who should be credited with discovering a planet. And if certain people can be kept from receiving that acclaim by redefining the word planet, then that's the way it would be done. That's political, and unfortunately typical of this sort of thing.