Yippee for common sense in science!

About 2,500 experts were in Prague for the International Astronomical Union’s (IAU) general assembly.

The scientists rejected a proposal that would have retained Pluto as a planet and brought three other objects into the cosmic club.

Pluto has been considered a planet since its discovery in 1930 by the American Clyde Tombaugh.

The ninth planet will now effectively be airbrushed out of school and university textbooks.

“The eight planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune,” said the IAU resolution, which was passed following a week of stormy debate.

Am I happy?  Of course!  Am I satisfied?  Absolutely not!

Despite this apparent moment of mental clarity shared by the IAU, the resolution stemming from this debate is as good as it is bad.

GOOD: Resolution 6A states: “Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.”  Good enough.  Pluto is no longer a planet and will be removed from representations of our solar system.  Now, like the innumerable objects that share its orbit, size, and classification, the once-upon-a-time planet will be known as a “dwarf planet” instead.  These wannabe planets, like all the other Kuiper Belt objects, asteroid belt objects, and Oort Cloud objects, will no longer be considered members of the planetary club.

BAD: Resolution 5A states: “(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.”  That’s ignorant!  It clearly says that a planet the size of Jupiter that is wandering about the galaxy instead of being in orbit around a star will no longer be called a planet.  Huh?  Just because it doesn’t orbit a stellar object somehow negates its planethood?  Again, huh?

BAD: Resolution 5A states: “(2) A dwarf planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.”  From both entries, what defines “round” (a hydrostatic equilibrium shape)?

BAD: While certainly not to be an issue in our lifetime, we already know Earth and our own moon will fail to meet the requirements of planethood in a few billion years as Luna moves away from us and our center of gravity shifts outside of Earth’s physical mass.  What then?  Why wasn’t the resolution forward thinking?

BAD: From both resolution entries, what defines “neighbourhood”?  Pluto has not cleared its neighborhood why?  Because it crosses the orbit of Neptune?  Or because it has Charon as a satellite when in fact it appears to be of the same caliber as Pluto?  Then what of moons?  Or is Charon to be promoted to planethood?  Is this too confusing?

BAD: From both resolutions and the entry directly above, Neptune technically has not cleared its neighborhood since Pluto crosses that orbit.  (I know the gravitational considerations keep them from ever being close to each other, but that’s not the point.)  Should we not demote Neptune now as it fails to meet the requirements for official planethood?

BAD: Where can we find the definition of “satellite”?  That missing bit of information has ramifications for all of the eight official planets as well as Pluto and several other objects floating about our “neighborhood”.

BAD: All Earth-centric language and ideology should be removed from the definition so we have something that applies outside of our solar system.  References to “the Sun” must be removed lest we teach children and all future scientists that planets only exist in our solar system and all other like bodies must be called something else.  Aliens are gonna be pissed.

While the outcome is correct at present, the ends do not justify the means.  In this case, the means are poorly written and reasoned findings that exclude the future and all planets not in orbit around Sol (our sun).  That’s just brainless hogwash.

On the other hand, this certainly has done a great job of placing astronomy in the public spotlight, has it not?  That’s a good thing despite the failings.