Hi Bill

Honestly, Pluto is still a planet, a dwarf planet. But in fact it was
never treated like a major planet and up to now the best image
we have is a blurry one of a few pixel in diameter. So I really
cann't understand how so many people could build up a "love"
relationship to it and why they get so emotinal although nearly
all of them have never seen the thing they fight for by themselves
(for sure more than 99% of them have never tried to find and
see Pluto in the night sky (looking at HST and other big scope
images doesn't count here)).

Some time ago there was a post on the LX90 group:
"New Mexico has just passed legislation to now designate
officially PLUTO as a planet once again."
The post got comments like:
"Thanks to ... New Mexico for putting some sense back into
astronomy and some integrity back into discoveries made
of USA soil."
and
"Hurray for "Pluto Planet Day"!!!"
and
"At least someone has their head bolted down straight, Pluto
will always be a planet to me and I don't care what anyone
else says."
This would be really funny if it wouldn't be so sad for science.
How far will we come when politicians make scientific decisions
in future ? Then we can save all the money that is spent for the
unnecessary sciences and leave it all to money and power
driven politicians ?

Obviously its for too many people not a matter of science but a
matter of heart why Pluto MUST be a planet. Especially for the
US folks. It looks like as its really important for their self-percep-
tion to keep the one and only "planet" that was discovered in the
US by an US american.
Some others (especially the planetary science folks) support the
"Pluto is a planet and the definition of a major planets must be
in a way that there will be soon some more" just out of own
interest to get more and easier funding and good PR when new
"planets" are discovered.

When the first astroids were discovered, they were also clas-
sified as planets. But as soon as more and more of them were
discovered, they lost the state again and were then called minor
planets. Now its the very same with Pluto and the Plutinos. The
orbits of Pluto and the Plutinos are dominated by Neptune in 2:3
resonance. Alone this fact should be enough to disqualify Pluto
as major planet.

The other main reason for Pluto as major planet is simply:
I've learned it this way in school.
Why don't these people complain about the fact that Ceres (and
maybe a few others; with the original IAU draft even some more)
are now planets although they didn't learn them in school ?

Are these two totally unscientific reasons so important and the
best justification on earth that the whole world must do it wrong
for the rest of the existence of the human race ?

Do we really want and need to get a new small "major" planet
every few years?
Then the astonomy books have to be changed and reprinted
on and on. And the kids have really better things to do than
having to learn the names of an increasing number of these
small outer solar system rocks.
Where is the limit before it gets insane ? 20 ? 50 ? 100 ?

The IAU workgroup draft on the resolution was pretty unlucky.
So it was no surprise for me that it didn't come through (I saw
it all on the live video stream). The best suggestion and the
least scientifically attackable was probably to delete the entire
draft and just leave the footnote that named the 8 major planets
from Mercury to Neptune explicitly. The passed resolution is
IMO still not fully fermented (e.g. Jupiter too doesn't clear its orbit,
but the orbits Trojans are for sure "ruled" by Jupiter). But its at least flexible enough that
a new planet can be added when a real big one is discovered.


I don't care much if anything is changed in the Pluto software
on this issue. But skipping Pluto from the planet selection will
for sure cause more complaints than leaving it as it is.
If something has to be changed then it will probably be driven
by how the elements of Pluto and the dwarf planets are handeled
by the MPC in future and if they are still available in the same
form as they were in the past.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

--
Wolfgang Renz, Karlsruhe, Germany
Rz.BAV = WRe.vsnet = RWG.AAVSO

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill J Gray" <pluto@...>
To: <guide-user@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: [guide-user] Pluto's status


> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> Odd you should mention this... at the time of the "what's
> a planet" controversy, I got a lot of questions from those
> who know what I do about my opinion in the matter. I replied
> that at first, I was totally uninterested. It seemed to me
> to be a question similar to "what's the difference between a
> rock and a boulder."
>
> Eventually, it occurred to me that revising the definition
> of a planet could lead to a Y2K-like problem for me, resulting
> in all sorts of revision in assorted places in the code. That
> caused me to suddenly champion the "cultural" definition of a
> planet: there are nine planets, we all grew up knowing this,
> so it's silly for the IAU to impose some equally arbitrary
> definition. Of course, the "cultural" definition would make
> things easy for programmers: the list of planets would remain
> the same, and we wouldn't have to change anything in our
> software. Unfortunately, the IAU didn't see things that way.
>
> For the moment, at least, I'm sticking to the "cultural"
> definition. I don't think having Pluto appear in the list of
> planets in "more info", or having its display controlled as
> if it were a planet, will confuse anyone very much.
>
> If anyone can present reasons for changing Guide's definition
> of a "planet", I'm willing to listen. But at present, I don't
> have a good reason to change it... I've been working on other
> problems, instead. (Including this satellite pass problem.
> Thanks to all for the comments on what you're seeing. I am,
> at present, baffled. I will reply further once I do a bit
> more investigating.)
>
> -- Bill