"For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them." - Nicolas Copernicus
It was announced this morning that The International Astronomical Union has voted to change the definition of "planet". The new definition, which received applause when announced, declares that a planet is "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."
This new definition removes Pluto from the official list of planets that orbit our Sun. I am solidly impressed that the IAU did not give in to the non-science idea of grandfathering Pluto into the union of planets. Bravo.
4 Comments:
Poor, poor Pluto. Once, a proud celestial body orbiting the sun, and now he has to go back to life as just Mickey Mouse's crappy pet dog.
Gawsh! That's just Goofy!
EWL, ROFL!
Thimbelle, this isn't about roundness (as no scientist debates Pluto's shape), it's about neighborhood, or orbit. Pluto's orbit is different from the other major planets in two distinct ways.
To explain: There are 8 planets that orbit the Sun on the plane of the ecliptic. In other words, for the most part, they orbit in the same way, on a similar plane. Pluto has an orbit that is inclined almost 17 degrees above every other planetary orbit.
Also, all the other planets have a nearly circular orbit. Pluto's orbit is very eccentric, taking it closer to the Sun than Neptune during part of its voyage.
This is why the IAU decided to go the way it did, because Pluto doesn't clear its own neighborhood.
I appreciate that this poses a change in early education, but science is science. Hundreds of years ago, students were taught that the Earth was flat. Did we resist the change in education when we learned that the Earth was indeed a sphere? Better to respect children's ability to adjust than to shelter them from reality.
Am I sad for Pluto? Of course I am. Just like I will be sad when science concretely proves that The Loch Ness Monster does not exist. But science must rule the day.
Thim, I hear you. We don't need science. And based upon that, I would firmly support Pluto remaining a planet, and keeping our planet count at nine.
I have a Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. As such, I have a strong love for all the residents of the night sky. So I hear you.
I wonder what is going on with Comments. My last comment only shows up on the Add Comments page, not the main page or the individual post page. I wonder how this comment will appear.
Maybe it's just lag.
Post a Comment