On last Tuesday, the International Astronomical Union has adopted their definition of a planet. The adopted definition had as a consequence to “demote” Pluto into the newly created category of dwarf planets.
BBC News currently has a nice article showing both sides of the medal.
Dr Alan Stern, who leads the US space agency’s New Horizons mission to Pluto and did not vote in Prague, told BBC News: “It’s an awful definition; it’s sloppy science and it would never pass peer review – for two reasons.
“Firstly, it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between dwarf planets and planets. It’s as if we declared people not people for some arbitrary reason, like ‘they tend to live in groups’.
“Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it’s inconsistent.”
Out of the ~2700 astronomers that were present at the Prague Conference, only 424 attended the last day of debates and voted on the proposed definition.
But other astronomers were happy to see Pluto cast from the official roster of planets. Professor Iwan Williams, the IAU’s president of planetary systems science, commented: “Pluto has lots and lots of friends; we’re not so keen to have Pluto and all his friends in the club because it gets crowded.
“By the end of the decade, we would have had 100 planets, and I think people would have said ‘my goodness, what a mess they made back in 2006′.”
August 28th, 2006 | General Science, Space
I think you’re partly right. It accounts for part of the protests against the demotion of Pluto.
But criticisms against the definition of planet (especially the “cleared the neighborhood” part) are much more profound than just US scientists wanting to protect the legacy. The definition is not ideal, but it rules out for now a catastrophic rise in the number of planets in the solar system.
I think that it’s better to lose Pluto than having to memorize a whole novel if you want to remember the names and order of the planets.
Comment by Julien — August 29, 2006 @ 11:26 am