How to not fool yourself

[The Barbarian]

To make the list complete Uranus should be reclassified as well.

I was wondering when that was going to be brought up. Incidentally, there is a community in Missouri named Uranus.

 

[sjastro]

I was wondering when that was going to be brought up. Incidentally, there is a community in Missouri named Uranus.

Initially I thought it was an ad for the local proctology clinic.

 

[AV1611VET]

What in the world does it mean, when they say a planet has to "clear its orbit"?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll comment on it afterwards, fair enough?

As promised, here's my comment:

She makes a good point about not calling Pluto a 'dwarf planet.'

Other than that ... no comment.

 

[The Barbarian]

What in the world does it mean, when they say a planet has to "clear its orbit"?

Perhaps you mean "clearing the neighborhood." Pluto, has not cleared other objects from its orbit. But neither have some planets. Pluto, for example, encroaches on Neptune's orbital path. I don't think that's considered a viable planetary distinction now.

 

[sjastro]

As promised, here's my comment:

She makes a good point about not calling Pluto a 'dwarf planet.'

Other than that ... no comment.

A problem with her arguments is that she was looking at Pluto through the lens of 2006 and today, not at the time of its discovery in 1930.
For example astronomers seriously miscalculated the mass of Pluto unaware at the time a large percentage of its mass was taken up by its moon Charon which was discovered in 1977.
If astronomers knew as much of Pluto in 1930 as they do now, Pluto would never have been classified as a planet but as a very large asteroid which is smaller and less massive than our moon.

She clearly has a passionate opinion of the controversy having researched the subject such the opinions of the average person in the street as well as those of scientists, the extensive press coverage at the time and her reference to the IAU as the "International Association of Cowards".
What is conspicuously absent is any reference to vote rigging or ignoring bylaws just as the press had done at the time.
This is because was no nefarious activities behind the voting, you are smearing science by perpetrating this lie.

I don’t put much stock on AI providing useful information on technical subjects but as a search engine answering the simple question “Was the vote rigged when Pluto was reclassified?”, Bing stated the answer was negative.

Explore

The reclassification of Pluto was not rigged, but it was indeed a subject of intense debate. In August 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) wrote a new definition of “planet” that left Pluto out. The new definition required that a body 1) orbit the sun, 2) have enough mass to be spherical (or close), and 3) have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit of other bodies. Objects that meet the first two criteria but not the third, like Pluto, were designated "dwarf planets".
On the final day of the IAU’s 2006 General Assembly in Prague, members voted to adopt this new resolution outlining criteria for naming a planet. Some astronomers and scientists agreed with the decision, stating that it was a triumph of science over emotion. However, others disagreed, believing that the decision was a travesty. Despite the controversy, the decision was based on scientific consensus and not on any form of manipulation or rigging.

 

[The Barbarian]