First, we have "The nine planets of the solar system are about to be transformed into 12."
Then, "The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is planning to add three new members to the exclusive club of large celestial objects orbiting our Sun."
Followed by: "Astronomers are about to vote on an official proposal to extend the definition of a planet to include at least three more objects that are known to be big enough to warrant planetary status."
The first two snippets seem to indicate that the decision is a 'fait accompli,' but the third indicates that the vote is still to come.
Is this vote a mere formality? Or am I missing something obvious?
The International Astronomical Union, which has been the arbiter of planetary nomenclature since 1919, has received a new definition of a planet from a special committee of seven experts set up two years ago to adjudicate on the issue....
The seven-member definition committee convened in Paris in late June and early July, and its recommendations will now go to the IAU's general assembly which will vote on the resolution as its meeting in Prague this week.
Professor Owen Gingrich, the committee chairman, said the deliberations were long and hard, but in the end a consensus was reached.
"In July we had vigorous discussions of both the scientific and the cultural-historical issues and on the second morning several members admitted that they had not slept well, worrying that we would not be able to reach a consensus," Professor Gingrich said.
"But by the end of a long day, the miracle had happened - we had reached a unanimous agreement."The issue came to a head after it was discovered that UB313 was bigger than Pluto, which was discovered in 1930 and was only called a planet because it was originally thought to be as big as Earth.
The committee had to formulate the question to be voted on by the whole body. The possibility exists that the proposal will be voted down, but that's not too likely (hooray!). Most members will just be glad to get this issue settled once and for all.
The reason this is good news for some geeks (uh, like me for example) is that the proposal could have been, "shall the number of planets be reduced to eight, and Pluto and other bodies reclassified as KBOs" -- or something.
There wasn't any logical way to do that, since this was about defining "planet". There could be a body orbiting the Sun that is larger than Mercury, but very far out, or very dark, or in retrograde orbit.
Some say that the residuals in Neptune's motion can be eliminated by dropping the anomalous observations (which it seems to me are something like 100 years old), with one astronomer even claiming that the issue of any remaining planet X is a psychological one.
Some take the view that orbits like that of Sedna indicate a large body kickin' stuff out of the Oort Cloud, or the Kuiper Belt. My wild guess is, the residuals are real, but that Tombaugh's exhaustive search for it didn't find it because it is in retrograde orbit. :')