Andrew_W: I never said I was unbiased. The reason I like having contrarians like you, who get pleasure out of playing devil’s advocate, is that it keeps me on my toes, and makes me aware that I could be wrong. Unfortunately, you are not that useful in this regard, because you so rarely argue from the entire set of facts. You like to pick and choose.

As for the definition of planet, the public and the community of planetary scientists has repeatedly and continuously rejected the IAU’s definition, since the day it was approved. And note also that this definition was approved of by a very tiny percentage of the IAU membership and was changed from a different recommended definition written by the very committee the IAU put together to address this question.

These facts bother you I know, but there they are. It wasn’t “the wider international astronomy community” that approved the IAU planetary definition, but the small number of remaining attendees that stood around until the last few hours of an IAU conference. This small group then voted on an definition that had been quickly rewritten by god knows who, changed to make sure Pluto would not qualify as a planet.

The IAU was especially criticized for this maneuver, which is why this most recent proposed change was presented to the entire membership. That it passed, based as it does on faulty logic, bad history, and the fact that such things were never ever intended to be decided by the IAU, suggests that the IAU membership had other motives for the change. (One positive motive could have been to give Lemaître more credit. This however could have been done in many other ways, without diminishing Hubble. That they went out of their way to diminish Hubble once again suggests other motives.)

Considering the amount of hate I see repeatedly these days in the modern global international community for the United States, it seems quite reasonable to consider this as a factor. Is it the whole story? Probably not, but in cases of the IAU and of what I know about it, I cannot dismiss it as a minor component.

Finally, to repeat a most important point, the IAU was never ever supposed to do this. Its mandate from the beginning was simply to organize and systemize the naming of astronomical objects. Like all bureaucratic institutions, however, they have pushed for mission creep, attempting to expand its power into places it has no business being. And some of that creep apparently has political overtones that are especially odious.

None of these factors should be ignored, if one desires to be intellectually honest.

It’s human nature to be biased in anything political, especially if it’s something important to us. In the definition-of- a-planet debate it evidently has become important to some American astronomers that Pluto remain a planet, because 1. It’s the only “planet” in our solar system discovered by an American, and 2. There’re a lot of US astronomers whose work in centered on Pluto (especially with the data from New Horizons being evaluated) the decline in Pluto’s status endangers the financing for that study, so there are both patriotic and financial reasons for American astronomers to oppose Pluto’s reclassification.

On the other hand the wider international astronomy community, in your evaluation, is in favor of the reclassification, not for the obvious reason that there are TNO’s and KBO’s of similar size to Pluto with many more likely to be discovered (all tiny objects compared to Mercury) but because the rest of the world hates Americans. You actually offer that as a serious explanation for the wider astronomy communities position. Like I said, paranoia.

Andrew_W: As usual, you dismiss any evidence you don’t like. I have spent the last few decades as a science journalist, talking to a lot of scientists. I report what they tell me. You don’t like it, or don’t want to consider it as possible, so therefore it must be because I am biased.

As Cromwell said, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you are mistaken.”

Andrew_W: No, my statement is based on many interviews with many planetary scientists, who participate with the IAU and were quite frank about the anti-American factions within it.

If you wish to ignore reality, go ahead.

However, the astronomical society which votes stuff in are as bad as this topic points out. Best to leave it as it is: Hubble’s Law. There is always some argument to change but they get lost in politics as this is!

As I interpret it, the law is about the empirical relationship in cosmic expansion, so I think we should call it the Hubble-Lemaître Law.

So Pluto’s status as a planet was removed not because it’s one of many relatively small objects of similar size in the Kuiper Belt but because it was discovered by an American? If it had been discovered by an Italian or a Norwegian it’s status would have remained as a planet?
Paranoid much?

There is little wonder that Obama went to Europe before he was elected president. He shared their sentiments!

Personal opinion is that the third class of planets should be Plutanoids, after the terrestrials and gas giants.