Replies

I agree that with the discovery of 2003 UB313 something had to be done. But I also agree that there could be some "historical preferential leeway" (I just made that up) allowed for the sake of Pluto. And it looks like the book isn't closed with the announcement of things like this...

300 Astronomers Will Not Use New Planet Definition

There's definitely a split in the ranks. Personally, I'm feeling rather malleable and (at the moment) could go either way without much angst, because there are very valid arguments for both sides. On the one side, if Pluto is a planet then it can be argued that 2003 UB313 must also be a planet, along with potentially untold scores/hundreds/thousands/millions/billions? of like bodies that will be discovered in orbit around the Sun beyond Pluto. So along those lines, we MUST demote Pluto. But then again, I think that there's historical precedent that could be used whereby a discovery cutoff date can be added to the definition of what makes a planet, which would allow Pluto to keep its planetary moniker. Of course, then one could still argue that Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta should be called planets because they were discovered in the 1800's.

Science rarely makes room for sentiment, and as a rule it shouldn't, and so calling Pluto a minor planet is consistent and logical, and there's really nothing wrong with that. And perhaps society needs to be reminded of the dynamic nature of science. There were nine planets... now there's eight! Deal with it. Change every science textbook written in the last hundred years. Too bad!

But on the other hand, well, I "like" there being nine planets. Doesn't that account for anything? :(