Gotta luv this...
""Secondly, the actual definition is even worse, because it's inconsistent.
One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it out of the way with a gravitational swipe.
Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with that of Neptune.
But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path.
These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago.
"If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.
Stern said like-minded astronomers had begun a petition to get Pluto reinstated. Car bumper stickers compelling motorists to "Honk if Pluto is still a planet" have gone on sale over the internet and e-mails circulating about the decision have been describing the IAU as the "Irrelevant Astronomical Union".
This pedantic, BS action by the IAU has caused ordinary folks across America and I suppose the world to view astronomers as capricious and pedantic as opposed to being rationaly scientific. A self-inflicted wound. Not good.
The whole debacle has been a constant topic of ridicule in the press. Just what supporters of the sciientific method need. NOT.
Space/Science » in reply to Lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission calls this "embarrassing".
re: Lead scientist on Nasa's robotic mission calls this "embarrassing".
The whole thread (15 posts)
- Web Astronomers' Blog Reaction to IAU Planet Definition
