Laura (tavella) wrote,

Silliest of the new standards for defining a planet comes from Brian Marsden of the Minor Planet Center:

he says people should accept that "we have eight planets and only an object bigger than Mars could be considered to be a planet in the future".

Now, I could see a case for "there's tons of minor planets out there, and we made a mistake in including Pluto because we thought it was much larger. To be a planet any body will have to be at least as big as the smallest of the classical planets, Mercury." It's still pretty arbitrary but it has a certain historical resonance.

I could see a case for arbitrarily declaring anything beyond the gas giants as always just a KBO or Oort no matter their size.

But 'a planet is anything as large as Mars... except, um, Mercury' just seems completely illogical.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.