Pluto is out from planet dictionary

wrote in message
...
Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have
been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the
financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish
those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.

I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national
lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and
lots
of different accents.

And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
petition?


I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names, but I didn't get the
impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a
fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd
say that, whichever way the vote went.

The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a
factor.

The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
more than a third of the total.


This discussion is going way off topic. Somehow I don't think the make up
of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.

I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
of different accents.

And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
petition?

I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,

On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.

but I didn't get the
impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a
fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd
say that, whichever way the vote went.

Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one
particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there,
such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the
U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
process without them, right?

The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.

The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
more than a third of the total.

This discussion is going way off topic.

Not at all.

Somehow I don't think the make up
of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.

On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.

wrote in message
...
Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would
have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the
financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to
distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that
possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.

I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national
lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and
lots
of different accents.

And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
petition?

I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,

On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.


But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it
lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting.
Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition
supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A? If not, then your
petition is inherently biased.

but I didn't get the
impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we
had a
fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were.
I'd
say that, whichever way the vote went.

Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one
particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there,
such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the
U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
process without them, right?


Irrelevant. The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution. I
consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system. It
would be far fairer to do away with that. All Americans who go to the polls
and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in
the "Old South" do not take place) can do so. Absentee ballots are only a
small proportion of the total vote. And the ballots they receive are
identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths.

Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that
resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in
exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the
final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions
Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote. Under
such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold. I suspect that
many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original
wording, not the final wording.

The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a
factor.

The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of
course,
ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places
that
didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of
a
30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was
easily
more than a third of the total.

This discussion is going way off topic.

Not at all.

Somehow I don't think the make up
of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.

On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.


It was a fair sampling, certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures
only from opponents of the resolution. End of argument.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.

I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
of different accents.

And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
petition?

I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,

On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.

But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it
lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
had taken names.

Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition
supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A?

Be my guest.

If not, then your petition is inherently biased.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I
only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for,
and had taken names.

but I didn't get the
impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a
fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd
say that, whichever way the vote went.

Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one
particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there,
such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the
U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
process without them, right?

Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution.

The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the
General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict
voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient
opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored
the vote on scientific matters to the individual members.

I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system.

And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you.

It would be far fairer to do away with that.

That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives
inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man,
one vote"?

All Americans who go to the polls
and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in
the "Old South" do not take place) can do so.

Quite different from the IAU.

Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote.

Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote
is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat.

And the ballots they receive are
identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths.

Also irrelevant.

Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that
resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in
exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the
final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions
Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote.

And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun
(a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider
all of the consequences of an action.

Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold.

Then change the circumstances.

I suspect that
many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original
wording, not the final wording.

Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed?

The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.

The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
more than a third of the total.

This discussion is going way off topic.

Not at all.

Somehow I don't think the make up
of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.

On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.

It was a fair sampling,

How do you know?

certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures
only from opponents of the resolution.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
that it had taken names.

End of argument.

According to whom?

Mark Earnest wrote:
"Mike Williams" wrote in message
...
Wasn't it Mark Earnest who wrote:
If Pluto is a dwarf planet then it is A PLANET.
Continue calling it A PLANET, O.K.?
I didn't hear you complaining about us not considering all the "minor
planets" to be "planets". "Minor planets" were not planets then. "Dwarf
planets" are not planets now.

Get used to it. 2500 astronomers are not going to change their minds.

Forget them. They have no right to control what we think.
We grew up on Pluto being the fascinating 9th planet of the Solar System,

If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really make a
different - it's still just as fascinating.

--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspi
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.

wrote in message
...
Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would
have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the
financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to
distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a
fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more
than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that
possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.

I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along
national lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides,
and lots
of different accents.

And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
petition?

I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,

On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.

But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll;
it
lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and
voting.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
had taken names.

Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a
petition
supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A?

Be my guest.

If not, then your petition is inherently biased.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I
only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for,
and had taken names.

but I didn't get the
impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we
had a
fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were.
I'd
say that, whichever way the vote went.

Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on
one
particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be
there,
such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe
the
U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
process without them, right?

Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution.

The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the
General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict
voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient
opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored
the vote on scientific matters to the individual members.

I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system.

And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you.

It would be far fairer to do away with that.

That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives
inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man,
one vote"?

All Americans who go to the polls
and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as
in
the "Old South" do not take place) can do so.

Quite different from the IAU.

Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote.

Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote
is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat.

And the ballots they receive are
identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths.

Also irrelevant.

Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that
resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended
in
exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before
the
final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the
Resolutions
Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote.

And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun
(a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider
all of the consequences of an action.

Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold.

Then change the circumstances.

I suspect that
many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original
wording, not the final wording.

Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed?

The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a
factor.

The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of
course,
ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places
that
didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost
of a
30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was
easily
more than a third of the total.

This discussion is going way off topic.

Not at all.

Somehow I don't think the make up
of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.

On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.

It was a fair sampling,

How do you know?

certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures
only from opponents of the resolution.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
that it had taken names.

End of argument.

According to whom?


Me. I don't really feel like going around and around and around with this
any more. I've stated my position several times and if you don't like it,
carry on with your petition or whatever and good luck to you. Argue with
someone else. I've got work to do.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

Mike Dworetsky writes:

I have no reason to think that, if
all 10,000 members of the IAU had been present, the result would have been
any different. Other than the desire to attend and having the financial
wherewithal to get to Prague, there was nothing obvious to distinguish those
present from those absent, on this issue. I would say it was a fair
sampling of the overall views of members.

Certainly less travel expense for Europeans to attend, and more than
one person has suggested to me that it's an "American" versus
"non-American" issue, with the former group sticking up for one of
their own (Tombaugh). If there's a shred of truth to that possibility,
then I wouldn't call it a fair sampling.

I didn't get the impression that voting was in any way along national lines
on the issue. There was some pretty heated debate on both sides, and lots
of different accents.

And what is your impression of the demographics of the protest
petition?

I didn't take a poll by nationality, no one took names,

On the contrary, the protest petition did take names, and you can
download the PDF file. Over 300 people have protested the IAU
definition. The IAU didn't count votes for Resolution 5A, deeming it
to be a clear majority. They did count for Resolution 6A, with only
237 in favor. The protest petition could well have more votes against
the IAU resolutions than the IAU had in favor of them.

But a protest petition supporting one side is an inherently unfair poll; it
lists only those taking the "no" position who were not present and voting.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
had taken names.

Has anyone taken the trouble to organise with identical fervour a petition
supporting the passing of resolutions 5A and 6A?

Be my guest.

If not, then your petition is inherently biased.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "unbiased". I
only noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for,
and had taken names.

but I didn't get the
impression of any national voting blocks, nor did anyone suggest that
somehow the IAU would be disrespecting Tombaugh's memory. I think we had a
fair vote based on the discussions and the merits, whatever they were. I'd
say that, whichever way the vote went.

Would you consider it fair if the U.S. Congressional elections required
voters to be present in one particular room at one particular time on one
particular day, with sufficiently little incentive to otherwise be there,
such that only five percent of the membership actually voted? Maybe the
U.S. should do away with absentee ballots; it's just as fair as the IAU
process without them, right?

Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

The IAU has the voting procedure in its constitution.

The voting procedure can be changed, and in fact was changed during the
General Assembly. In Sydney three years ago, they voted to restrict
voting to the national representatives. There was apparently sufficient
opposition to that idea that they reversed their decision and restored
the vote on scientific matters to the individual members.

I consider the American Electoral College a bizarre undemocratic system.

And you can work to change it. Just get enough people to agree with you.

It would be far fairer to do away with that.

That depends on your concept of "fairer". Is the House of Representatives
inherently "fairer" than the Senate, because it comes closer to "one man,
one vote"?

All Americans who go to the polls
and vote (as long as they are registered and civil rights violations as in
the "Old South" do not take place) can do so.

Quite different from the IAU.

Absentee ballots are only a small proportion of the total vote.

Irrelevant; what is relevant is the fact that the opportunity to vote
is available to those who can't do so on the designated dat.

And the ballots they receive are
identical to those seen by voters in the polling booths.

Also irrelevant.

Part of the problem in asking for "absentee ballots" for the IAU is that
resolutions can be amended just before a vote. In fact 5A was amended in
exactly this way due to the protests of members at meetings held before the
final vote, and amendments from the floor were accepted by the Resolutions
Committee at the final meeting only a few minutes before the vote.

And the IAU suffered from this problem, effectively demoting the Sun
(a dwarf star is not a star) because of insufficient time to consider
all of the consequences of an action.

Under such circumstances an absentee ballot is impossible to hold.

Then change the circumstances.

I suspect that
many of the signers thought they were protesting against the original
wording, not the final wording.

Doesn't that suggest that the circumstances be changed?

The main costs were for hotels, meals, and registration fee. Even a
trans-Atlantic air fare would be only a fraction of that bill (as I
discovered sadly, early on). Whatever. I don't think this was a factor.

The registration fee was higher than any I can recall. Hotels, of course,
ran the gamut. Meals also ran the gamut. If you avoided the places that
didn't cater to tourists, you could get an entire meal for the cost of a
30 cl bottle of water at the fancy hotel restaurants. Airfare was easily
more than a third of the total.

This discussion is going way off topic.

Not at all.

Somehow I don't think the make up
of the IAU members present is in any way relevant.

On the contrary, the make up of the members present is highly relevant
to the question of whether it's a fair sampling.

It was a fair sampling,

How do you know?

certainly far less unfair than soliciting signatures
only from opponents of the resolution.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't call the protest petition "fair". I only
noted that it had garnered more votes against than the IAU had for, and
that it had taken names.

End of argument.

According to whom?

Me.

Who assigned you the arbitor of when an argument is over?

I don't really feel like going around and around and around with this
any more.

Just because you don't feel like continuing doesn't mean the argument is
over.

I've stated my position several times and if you don't like it,
carry on with your petition or whatever and good luck to you.

You're erroneously presupposing that it's my petition.

Argue with someone else.

Been there, done that.

I've got work to do.

As if I don't. It is the Labor Day weekend, however. Don't you have
a holiday?

In sci.astro Lora Crighton wrote:

If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really make a
different - it's still just as fascinating.

Hello, Lora, and this important point lends a bit of perspective, along with a
realization that the "Is a dwarf planet best viewed as a subtype of planet?"
question is partly one of taste or style. People can agree on the facts regarding
the outdated nature of the "nine major planets" model, but differ on which usage
consistent with a updated model is most apt or felicitous.

Before explaining my own position, I would like to support Mike Dworetsky's
point that people can differ in our preferred usages while respecting the IAU
and those favoring the adopted Resolution 5A as the best solution. The IAU has
made many contributions to promoting international peace and understanding,
and I hope that efforts to improve or expand planetary taxonomy will go
forward in this spirit of mutual respect and civility.

Personally I like the approach that defines "planet" in the broad sense to mean
either a "major planet" which does establish dynamical dominance by "clearing
the neighborhood of its orbit"; or a "dwarf planet" or "belt planet" (latter term
borrowed from Gibor Basri) which likewise is massive enough to constrain itself
by self-gravity to a nearly spherical shape -- but is merely one main attraction
among a large population of bodies sharing its orbital neighborhood and not under
its gravitational dominance.

This view, at least as much as the currently adopted IAU view of treating
"planet" as meaning only orbit-clearing or major planets, involves updating
our perspective on the Solar System.

It says, basically, that Giuseppe Piazzi in 1801 and Clyde Tombaugh in 1930
both discovered bodies (Ceres in the asteroid belt and Pluto in the Kuiper
Belt) which were correctly considered new planets -- but not yet recognized
as indeed representing a new kind of planet, a "dwarf" or "belt" planet --
with likely a score or more of such planets still to be found!

By the way, while "dwarf planet" (by analogy with dwarf star) is fine, the
term "belt planet" has the advantage of focusing specifically on orbital
"ecology" rather than size. If, say, a dwarf or belt planet were found in
the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud which happened to be more massive than our
smallest orbit-clearing or major planet Mercury, the special aptness of
the latter term would be clearer.

Given that informed and reasonable people can and do differ in their
preferences as to whether "planet" should be taken to include both
"major planet" and "dwarf planet" or "belt planet," the best way to
achieve some consensus may be for the IAU at its next General Assembly
in 2009 to grant official recognition to both usages.

Taking a leaf from the biological sciences, as I've written in another
thread, astronomy should recognize the definition of a planet either
"strictly speaking" (_sensu stricto_) to mean a major planet only, or
"broadly speaking" (_sensu lato_) to mean either a major planet or
dwarf planet.

Especially in matters of usage or taste, sometimes "agreeing to differ"
can be the wisest policy. Both usages are logical and consistent with
the new scientific perspective on our Solar System -- and recognizing
both might make for a richer and more diverse planet Earth.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter

"MD" == Mike Dworetsky writes:

MD I was there, voting. There was only a record of the count, not of
MD the names of the voters. Do you think I could get something for
MD my historic yellow voting card, signed and dated, if I put it on
MD e-Bay? Could I get double the amount if I record on it which way
MD I voted?

I talked to another IAU Member who had the foresight to get his yellow
voting card signed by Jocelyn Bell-Burnell (the chair of the
session). After he told me that, I was kicking myself for not doing
it, too.

OTOH, maybe it would make more sense to have Virginia Trimble (the
person in charge of the voting) sign the card.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"Margo Schulter" wrote in message
...
In sci.astro Lora Crighton wrote:

If you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or something else doesn't really
make a
different - it's still just as fascinating.

I think Lora's view is by far the most sensible. We
aren't going to tell New Horizons to come back!

Hello, Lora, and this important point lends a bit of perspective, along
with a
realization that the "Is a dwarf planet best viewed as a subtype of
planet?"
question is partly one of taste or style.

Actually it is a question of language and I think this
is precisely what the pro-planet lobby were trying to
achieve is proposal 5B, to reinstate Pluto by the back
door by creating a subtype by the addition of the word
"classical" to the definition of "planet". We should
note that this was specifically rejected by the vote so,
as you correctly note below, the current IAU definition
does not includes sub-types of "planet" but provides two
mutually exclusive groups called "planets" and "dwarf
planets".

People can agree on the facts regarding
the outdated nature of the "nine major planets" model, but differ on which
usage
consistent with a updated model is most apt or felicitous.

Before explaining my own position, I would like to support Mike
Dworetsky's
point that people can differ in our preferred usages while respecting the
IAU
and those favoring the adopted Resolution 5A as the best solution. ..

Certainly people will continue to describe Pluto in
the way they want, and to a high degree the definition
of language springs from common usage. In that sense
the definition decreed by the IAU may in the end turn
out to be academic. It will be interesting to see how
quickly any major dictionaries revise their entries.

Personally I like the approach that defines "planet" in the broad sense to
mean
either a "major planet" which does establish dynamical dominance by
"clearing
the neighborhood of its orbit"; or a "dwarf planet" or "belt planet"
(latter term
borrowed from Gibor Basri) which likewise is massive enough to constrain
itself
by self-gravity to a nearly spherical shape -- but is merely one main
attraction
among a large population of bodies sharing its orbital neighborhood and
not under
its gravitational dominance.

That is the option presented in Resolution 5B with your
choice of "major" replacing the proposed "classical".
That proposal was not carried hence as you make clear
next, the IAU definition now recognises on those you
describe as "orbit-clearing" as true planets.

I suspect this question may crop up regularly in the
future so I have written a brief page to avoid having
to repeat my views. It is a bit rough at the moment and
not checked so may have some errors. Comments welcome.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/planet.html

George