An attempt at a more rational justification for calling Pluto a planet...
The IAU's definition of a planet being distinct from a dwarf planet makes no sense linguistically. Call them instead "giant" or "major" planets and dwarf planets. Then "planet" just refers to any large round object that doesn't shine by nuclear fusion. Within that broad category you can have many more sub-categories of what may be very different objects. Just as "gas giant planets" are now understood to be totally different from "terrestrial planets", so "icy planets" like Pluto could be recognized as distinctly different objects.
Yes, Ceres and other objects would also become planets, but they'd still be dwarf planets. The Solar System would still only have eight major planets. Everybody wins !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...
-
Why Philosophy Matters for Science : A Worked Example "Fox News host Chris Wallace pushed Republican presidential candidate to expand...
-
In the last batch of simulations, we dropped a long gas stream into the gravitational potential of a cluster to see if it would get torn...
+1 for he was ranting with a pointless, surprisingly humourless fiery passion about why Pluto isn't a planet. I instantly failed to take him seriously.
ReplyDeletePluto planeta est.
Or indeed delenda est Pluto if you're off the opposite opinion. Perhaps the next probe should carry a rather larger nuclear payload. Well, that's one way to settle the debate...
ReplyDeleteI bet pluto will be back to planet status soon, especially since NASA people seem to be wanting that. Once they call it a planet, international body or not it will be planet. 🔴
ReplyDelete