[meteorite-list] EVEN THE N. Y. TIMES HAS AN OPINION ON PLANETS

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Aug 19 16:39:21 2006
Message-ID: <002601c6c3cf$8894fd70$947f4b44_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi,


    The New York published an editorial on the
planet question. Does that settle it?
    Hardly. But it does demonstrate that the
driving force of the Eight Planet Gang is largely
emotional and prejudicial.

Sterling K. Webb
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/opinion/17thur4.html

Text:

Dissing Pluto and the Other Plutons
Published: August 17, 2006

    A panel appointed by the International Astronomical
Union thinks it has come up with a dandy compromise
to the years-long struggle over whether we should continue
to count Pluto as a planet. The trouble is, the new definition
of a planet will include an awful m?lange of icy rocks found
on the outer fringes of the solar system. It would be far
better to expel Pluto from the planetary ranks altogether,
leaving us to bask in the comfortable presence of the eight
classical planets that were discovered before 1900 and have
excited wonder ever since.

    Pluto, discovered in 1930, never deserved to be called a planet.
It is far smaller than first thought, smaller in fact than our own
moon. Its orbit is more elliptical and tilted in a different plane
than those of the other planets, and its icy, rocky body is more
like a comet's core. If Pluto were discovered today, it seems
highly unlikely that anyone would consider it a planet. But Pluto
has emotional partisans who resent anyone picking on the
puniest planet, so efforts to demote it invariably meet resistance.

    Now a panel of astronomers and historians has come up
with a new definition of the word "planet" that will keep
Pluto in the club. Under the new definition, a planet would
be any celestial body that orbits around a star and is large
enough for its own gravity to pull it into a spherical shape.
That definition would produce an ugly porridge of 12 old
and new planets, with dozens more on the way.

Ceres, heretofore considered the largest of the asteroids,
would qualify. The panel suggests that people might
want to call it a "dwarf planet," raising the question of
why bother to call it a planet at all.

    Pluto would still count as a planet but would be shunted
into a new category called "Plutons," which would include
any object that meets the definition and has an orbit beyond
Neptune's. Two other bodies already qualify as plutons,
namely Charon, which had been considered a moon of
Pluto, and a recently discovered ice ball somewhat bigger
than Pluto. Many dozens of distant ice balls may ultimately
qualify for planethood.

All this just to keep Pluto as a planet. Whatever merit the
new definition may have scientifically, it is an abomination
culturally. When the astronomical union votes on the matter
next week, it ought to reject the new definition and summon
the courage to scratch Pluto from the list of planets.
Received on Sat 19 Aug 2006 04:39:13 PM PDT