Slashdot Mirror

Right, because the "scientific-industrial complex" just wants to spend ~$1B in a remote location to fuck up the view. This is on grounds that were set aside long ago for astronomy, which according to you has no value to humanity. Obviously, we don't need things like GPS, or cell phones. In fact, just go read this to find out what astronomy has done for humanity, then come back and apologize for your ignorance. Otherwise, we'll just know it was stupidity, which can't be fixed.

https://www.iau.org/public/the...

"lunar", "solar" etc. are used as adjectives.
But, in professional publications, the bodies are called by their regular English names (although with the initial letter capitalized).

See this from the IAU (International Astronomical Union):
https://www.iau.org/public/the...

The designation of our Moon is, therefore, the Moon, with a capital M and used as a name (a proper noun). The same applies to the designation of our planet — the Earth

e.g. there's a refereed journal specifically called: "Earth, Moon, and Planets".
https://link.springer.com/jour...

The only place I've seen "Sol", "Luna", and "Terra" used is in science fiction!

Although I mainly work on objects beyond the Solar System, I am a professional astronomer.

The IAU isn't an official body with any authority other than what they have taken on themselves. And if they are going to let historical politics cloud scientific thinking, they certainly aren't going to speak for me. I'd like to see some textbook publishers take a stand too.

The thing is, if you don't accept the IAU's authority, then whose authority are you going to accept? Textbook publishers? They're one notch above those scammers who sell you the "right" to name a star. The IAU's membership is over 12,000 professional astronomers, which as best as I can tell is a pretty good percentage of the people with careers in astronomy. The next largest professional group is the American Astronomical Society, with about 7,000 members all in the Americas. Their stance on the issue is decidedly neutral. In the end, the definition of a planet is merely semantics. What's important is that whatever definition you decide to use is functional, allowing generalized statements to be made easily without running afoul of the terminology. In that respect, I don't have a problem with the division between "planet" and "trans-Neptunian object" and dwarf planet. They are different enough and the terms selected for them, although not perfect, are definitive enough to make statements and issue papers about them without tripping over the semantics.

And yet only 424 of them were allowed to vote on the matter, on the last day of a conference.

I can't find the source, but I read somewhere that a previous measure, agreed to by most, would have preserved Pluto as a planet. Thinking the matter settled, most of the delegation went to play golf or drink beer, and a small minority pushed their agenda through.

The IAU isn't an official body with any authority other than what they have taken on themselves. And if they are going to let historical politics cloud scientific thinking, they certainly aren't going to speak for me. I'd like to see some textbook publishers take a stand too.

The thing is, if you don't accept the IAU's authority, then whose authority are you going to accept? Textbook publishers? They're one notch above those scammers who sell you the "right" to name a star.

The IAU's membership is over 12,000 professional astronomers, which as best as I can tell is a pretty good percentage of the people with careers in astronomy. The next largest professional group is the American Astronomical Society, with about 7,000 members all in the Americas. Their stance on the issue is decidedly neutral.

In the end, the definition of a planet is merely semantics. What's important is that whatever definition you decide to use is functional, allowing generalized statements to be made easily without running afoul of the terminology. In that respect, I don't have a problem with the division between "planet" and "trans-Neptunian object" and dwarf planet. They are different enough and the terms selected for them, although not perfect, are definitive enough to make statements and issue papers about them without tripping over the semantics.

The IAU vote was narrow,

Really? Their notes from conference indicate that the resolution "was passed with a great majority.": https://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau0603/

1. Nomenclature: An "adjective-noun" should always be a subset of "noun". A "dwarf planet" should be no less seen as a type of planet than a "dwarf star" is seen as a type of star by the IAU.

No. A dry lake is not a type of lake, for example. "adjective-noun" can mean "something in the category described by adjective but resembling the nouns". You can't make Pluto a planet by playing a cheap word game.

2. Erroneous foundation: Current research agrees that most planets did not clear their own neighborhoods

Nothing from the IAU's resolution indicates a purpose to consider the historical conditions. Your objection is semantic pedantry and can easily be fixed by wording the requirement as "has a cleared neighborhood". Also, yes Mars and Neptune vary in Stern-Levison values by 300x. That doesn't make the value unhelpful. And it doesn't change the fact that there's a gap of 10 orders of magnitude between any of the planets and the high Stern-Levison value of any dwarf planet (Pluto).

3. Comparative inconsistency: Earth is far more like Ceres and Pluto than it is like Jupiter, yet these very dissimilar groups - gas giants and terrestrial planets - are lumped together as "planets" while dwarfs are excluded.

Since was grouping of astronomical objects done by atmospheric similarity? That would be the worst rule yet.

4. Poor choice of dividing line: While defining objects inherently requires drawing lines between groups, the chosen line has been poorly selected. Achieving a rough hydrostatic equilibrium is a very meaningful dividing line - it means differentiation, mineralization processes, alteration of primordial materials, and so forth. It's also often associated with internal heat and, increasingly as we're realizing, a common association with subsurface fluids.

You are describing differentiation for a different purpose than the IAU's planet definition and then jumping to the claim that it is better. Your answer begs the question of what the purpose is for distinguishing a planet.

5. Mutability: Under the IA definition, what an object is declared as can be altered without any of the properties of the object changing simply by its "neighborhood" changing in any of countless ways.

Yes, we live in an evolving and mutating universe. Each of these planets came into existence at one point, so any definition involves some mutability unless you believe in a static, eternal universe.

6. Situational inconsistency: (Related) An exact copy of Earth (what the vast majority of people would consider the prototype for what a planet should be), identical down to all of the life on its surface, would not be considered a planet if orbiting in the habitable zone of a significantly larger star (harder to clear zone), or a young star (insufficient time to clear), a star without a Jupiter equivalent (no assistance in clearing), or so forth.

The definition is aimed at defining planets within our own solar system and not intended to be applied to exoplanets. You abuse this same limitation in another point below.

7. Ambiguous definition: There is still no consensus on what defines having "cleared the neighborhood" - in particular, what the "neighborhood" is.

While it's true that Resolution 5a didn't specify which discriminant to use, that doesn't make it ambiguous. There are multiple discriminants, and a common theme of all of them is that the 8 planets have disc

The point being made is that the definition is silly, nothing has cleared its orbit, not even Jupiter the giant of the solar system. So if the definition is something about clearing its orbit of anything that could possibly eject it, that isn't the definition I have ever heard.

https://www.iau.org/public/the...

Even the IAU definition just says cleared its orbit. My guess is that by that definition, and the part about orbiting the sun, there are no planets. It is a silly distinction, and unless the written definition is better than that web site's definition, we are left with no planets in the solar system, they must all be dwarf planets.

Indeed, it's impossible with current technology to know. And the IAU explicitly rules out extrasolar planets as being planets in their definition of a planet. Which is made all the more humorous by the fact that they have an extrasolar planets working group ;)

Bonus points for inconsistency that "dwarf planets" aren't planets but "dwarf stars" are stars.

The IAU is such a joke.

You seem to have missed this peculiar characteristic of the 2006 definition of a dwarf planet: it is not a category of planets. Have a look here:

The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

This means that the Solar System consists of eight "planets" Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. A new distinct class of objects called "dwarf planets" was also decided. It was agreed that "planets" and "dwarf planets" are two distinct classes of objects. The first members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 (temporary name). More "dwarf planets" are expected to be announced by the IAU in the coming months and years. Currently a dozen candidate "dwarf planets" are listed on IAU's "dwarf planet" watchlist, which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known.

So this definition actually enrages three kinds of people:
- People who think Pluto should be classified as a planet for historical reasons.
- People who think Pluto should be classified as a planet, precisely because as you said, they are many categories of planets which are quite different (terrestrials, gas giants...).
- People who think it is gramatically incorrect for "dwarf planets" not to be "planets".

name them after political figures, big and dense and on their way off the radar.

Better go and read the guidelines. https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/

In particular,

The names of individuals or events principally known for political or military activities are unsuitable until 100 years after the death of the individual or the occurrence of the event.

So you are saying it is a no-go? Damn it, I had a lot of fun last time I was at the assembly in Prague. Since I am solar system specialist, for sure I would have had budget from my employer to go to Honolulu in 2015 but I guess you just ruined everything...

http://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/
http://www.iau.org/science/meetings/future/general_assemblies/1024/
http://astronomy2015.org/

So you are saying it is a no-go? Damn it, I had a lot of fun last time I was at the assembly in Prague. Since I am solar system specialist, for sure I would have had budget from my employer to go to Honolulu in 2015 but I guess you just ruined everything...

http://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/
http://www.iau.org/science/meetings/future/general_assemblies/1024/
http://astronomy2015.org/

The recognized standards body is the International Astronomical Union and their policy is:

Exoplanets In 2009, the Organizing Committee of IAU Commission 53 Extrasolar Planets (WGESP) on exoplanets discussed the possibility of giving popular names to exoplanets in addition to their existing catalogue designation (for instance HD 85512 b). Although no consensus was reached, the majority was not in favour of this possibility at the time.

However, considering the ever increasing interest of the general public in being involved in the discovery and understanding of the Universe, the IAU decided in 2013 to restart the discussion of the naming procedure for exoplanets and assess the need to have popular names as well. In 2013 the members of Commission 53 will be consulted in this respect and the result of this will be made public on this page.

This is just a company click-baiting by holding naming contests, they have no official standing whatsoever. Is this more dice.com crap?

Was this started by the public wish of one of the discoverers of remote ice dwarfs beyond Pluto to have his discovery named Xena?

The IAU hasn't even started the process to create the procedure to name exoplanets.

Oh Oh Oh !
I got one!

First person on the planet gets to name it

The recognized standards body is the International Astronomical Union and their policy is:

Exoplanets
In 2009, the Organizing Committee of IAU Commission 53 Extrasolar Planets (WGESP) on exoplanets discussed the possibility of giving popular names to exoplanets in addition to their existing catalogue designation (for instance HD 85512 b). Although no consensus was reached, the majority was not in favour of this possibility at the time.

However, considering the ever increasing interest of the general public in being involved in the discovery and understanding of the Universe, the IAU decided in 2013 to restart the discussion of the naming procedure for exoplanets and assess the need to have popular names as well. In 2013 the members of Commission 53 will be consulted in this respect and the result of this will be made public on this page.

This is just a company click-baiting by holding naming contests, they have no official standing whatsoever. Is this more dice.com crap?

You get a nice certificate and nothing else. The IAU hasn't even started the process to create the procedure to name exoplanets.

They are right here. They are hardly a regulatory body, they can't enforce anything.

It reminded me of the star naming schemes I read about decades ago. I checked to see what the IAU has to say about that. Whoever wrote that FAQ seems depressed at the sad state of intellect in commercial America.....

I thought that the names had to be approved by the IAU or something.

The IAU gives objects like that designations. They do not name them and have no plans to do so.

The IAU has some work ahead of it.

Having recently defined, what is a planet, which waited multiple millennia a formal definition; we now need additional IAU definitions. For in addition to what is a galaxy, there's also, what is a star?

For example, is a star restricted to a main sequence star or are degenerate objects like white dwarves and neutrons stars, stars? And if they are stars, then are black hole stars?

We wait with baited breath for further IAU amplification.

The IAU has some work ahead of it.

Having recently defined, what is a planet, which waited multiple millennia a formal definition; we now need additional IAU definitions. For in addition to what is a galaxy, there's also, what is a star?

For example, is a star restricted to a main sequence star or are degenerate objects like white dwarves and neutrons stars, stars? And if they are stars, then are black hole stars?

We wait with baited breath for further IAU amplification.

Scientists are trained in a variety of units and converting from one to the other.

Indeed. For example, astronomers waste a lot of time converting between mks and cgs. They do not, however, publish real science using archaic units like rods, hogsheads, inches, or degrees Fahrenheit unless they want to be laughed at by their peers. Or are giving an interview to USA Today. Same thing, really.

A real scientist ought to know this. What excuses your ignorance?

Being one.

That, and you know, occasionally reading a thing or two about my own field. If your field is still stuck in the 18th century, then more power to you, but when you're looking at planets you're usually talking about astronomy and it helps to know the language.

You've been looking at wrong definitions. Try the one here. It only describes planets in the Solar system, and leaves the term undefined for the rest of the Universe. So the OP is right, after all.

As you can see, the word 'planet' is only defined for the Solar system. There are no planets outside of it - those are exoplanets! And we do not currently possess enough data to make conclusions if their generation process and other characteristics has anything to do with our planets'

You should present that argument to the IAU. Really.

http://www.iau.org/administration/secretariat/

You'd think the thing they'd feel guilty about is

A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

http://www.iau.org/public_press/themes/pluto/

Which kinda rules out the entire field of extra-solar planets.

From http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0807/: the object previously known as 2003 EL61 is to be classified as the fifth dwarf planet in the Solar System and named Haumea

From your own Wikipedia link: A plutoid is a trans-Neptunian dwarf planet[ or ...]

...sounds to me like TNOs can be both, and this would make four such.

The International Star Registry would never sue real astronomers for fundraising with an adopt-a-star program. The astronomers know that ISR promises what it cannot deliver, and would expose them as scam artists. For the official word from the astronomers, see this URL.

The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

There's nothing 'NASA' or 'threat' about that number. It is simply the identifier assigned to that particular rock (a.k.a. minor planet) by the International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center. A few other ones are 1 Ceres, 136199 Eris, and 134340 Pluto.

More precisely, the new definition does not attempt to classify extra-solar bodies as either planets or not-planets. It starts out like this (emphasis mine):

The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

The IAU's working group on extra-solar planets does offer a working definition, subject to change. See Wikipedia for more details. See also rogue planets.

Read the definition (PDF warning) more closely. That definition of planets only applied to objects within our Solar System. Bodies in other Solar Systems have no definitions. Not that that isn't a problem in itself, but since they have no definitions we can call them whatever we want. I will hereby refer to these objects as Earth-like starorbliographs.

(1) A "planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

They demote pluto because it hasn't cleared the neighborhood of its orbit because its orbit intersects the orbit of Neptune. But doesn't this necessarily mean that Neptune has not cleared its neighborhood and therefore is also not a planet?

What does clearing the neighborhood mean? To me it suggests the planet should have no moons either?

If you are going to make a big deal and change the definition of something like this you should put a heck of a lot of thought into creating a definition that is objective and not open to interpretation.

"If astronomers can solve the solar neutrino problem then surely they can solve the 'define planet' problem."

Well, we could announce some proclamation from the balcony of the IAU's Mobile Oppression Palace, but since it's such a complete astronomical non-issue (what something's called makes no difference to how you study it) don't you think it's nice to let the people who care enough to debate it decide?

So, over to you!

Pluto is not the last planet in the system.

2003 UB313 (code name: xena [Not a official IAU name]) is the last known planet in the system. The information about the new planet can be found at Wikipedia but a more trusted and respected source, Caltech, has information as well. Caltech also decribes a possible discovery of a moon of 'Xena'. Perhaps if 'Xena' is nearby, New Horizons can swing by the new planet.

Also, many astronomers argue that Pluto is not in fact a planet.

There is many scams like this. International Star Registry is another scam that claims to name a star for you. Unforunately, only the International Astronomical Union names planetary bodies.

We also name particular spots on rocks (or soil) for the same kind of reason. "Patrick," the spot on Spongebob referenced in the article, was a target we explored with the IDD, and we always name those to help ensure that we're putting the IDD where the scientists want it. This is even more crucial when, for instance, we're investigating two or more targets on the same feature and the order is important. Being able to say something like "we want to look at Frodo, then Bilbo, then Gollum" helps us get it right.

A further reason names are important: morale. Coming up with cool and creative namespaces adds to the fun of the mission, both for us and, we hope, for you. (The first thing I got to name was a boundary line between two layers of soil, which we discovered after a trenching operation. I called it "Mason-Dixon.") And we often choose names that are related to what's going on at the time -- for example, Spirit has now climbed to the top of Husband Hill, and the locations there are being named after famous (and dead) mountain climbers.

However, it was drilled into us from the very start that any names we came up with would be nicknames only, and that only the IAU got to choose official names. When talking to the press, we're very careful to use terms such as "nickname" to try to make it clear we're not overstepping our bounds. Personally, I think we should never have violated the restriction on naming things after personal connections such as pets and spouses; that's really poor practice, but at least we've done it on only a couple of occasions. If I recall the story correctly, the guy who named the target after his wife was in the doghouse for having to work on Valentine's Day, so I can at least understand that if not excuse it. :-)

Incidentally, about Spongebob. Project management didn't want us using that name -- I think they were a little embarrassed or something, so they renamed it "Heatshield Rock" (since we found it next to Opportunity's heat shield). But the rover drivers had other ideas -- we kept calling it "Spongebob" (or sometimes "Spongerock") when we weren't talking to the press. I think we won. :-)

Those of you interested in this topic might also be interested in an earlier post, How Endurance Crater Got Its Name, which I think gives some insight into the (nick)naming process. A particularly relevant quote from that post:

... our jobs are easier when the features have names, but it's a hard problem: we don't want to be too exclusive (that is, too America-focused), too generic, too topical, or too serious. ("Too serious" is a problem because we don't want the International Astronomical Union to think we're trying to usurp their job of giving these objects their official names. Lighthearted names not only make the mission more fun, they also signal, accurately, that we're not trying to step on the IAU's toes.)

I was just thinking about that, but soon ran across this, The International Astronomical Union, which "dissociates itself entirely from the commercial practice of "selling" fictitious star names or "real estate" on other planets or moons in the Solar System. Accordingly, the IAU maintains no list of the (several competing) enterprises in this business in individual countries of the world. "

"In response to frequent questions about plans to assign actual names to extra-solar planets, the IAU sees no need and has no plan to assign names to these objects at the present stage of our knowledge. Indeed, if planets are found to occur very frequently in the Universe, a system of individual names for planets might well rapidly be found equally impracticable as it is for stars, as planet discoveries progress."

Of course, that page was modified back in '01. Maybe there's an actual system in place now?

Russia. Planets. Name. You.

No proposal to change the status of Pluto as the ninth planet in the solar system has been made by any Division, Commission or Working Group of the IAU responsible for solar system science. Accordingly, no such initiative has been considered by the Officers or Executive Committee, who set the policy of the IAU itself.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

This will NOT happen. The International Astronomical Union has Press Release in their FAQ section confirming pluto's status as a planet.

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

Actually, "official" means ratified by the International Astronomical Union

I had a friend working with NASA when they were naming geological features on the surface of Venus. Since all features were named after women, I managed him to persuade him to name a crater after my girlfriend, as a birthday present to her. Not bad, Venus being the planet of love and all that -- and certainly better than naming a star (star-naming companies are scammers, their catalogues are not recognised by the IAU).

The only drawback, of course, is she's not my girlfriend anymore. However, every time I see Venus on my evening cycle home from work, I'm reminded of her and the crater. Fond memories indeed!

'The asteroid [named after me] is number four thousand and something, and the International Astronomical Federation, which deals with these sorts of things and numbered it, apologized to me because number 2001 wasn't available, having been given to somebody named "A. Einstein."'

Asteroids are, in fact, named by the International Astronomical Union, not the International Astronomical Federation (whatever that may be). I'm surprised that Clarke made this mistake; maybe he simply misspoke himself, or the Onion reporter screwed up the transcription.

And they tend to stick to mythology names... Last October 11 Jupiter moons discovered 2-3 years earlier were assigned names from the Greco-Roman mythology.

The International Astronomical Union released a statement (a little dated) that they would not consider changing the status of Pluto. It can be found here.

The IAU is the body that would make such an official decision and it seems they don't want to change it.

People keep trying to wage a debate about this, but no matter what technical hand-waving is going on in the press, the International Astronomical Union is committed to the traditional status of all nine planets, and isn't likely to change that opinion.

--brian

According to the IAU, as of 1999, the issue was settled. Pluto is both a planet and a member of the group tentatively called "Trans-Neptunian Objects" -- essentially close Kuiper belt objects.

"No further debate is planned on this issue."

No. The only book that will call the star by that name is the star registry's book.

I used to be an astronomer, and I never met anyone, astronomer or not, who actually used star names for anything but the few brightest stars ("few" varying from person to person, but almost always being less than 100). Astronomers referring to stars use catalog designations, which are usually the name or initials of the catalog and a number.

In fact, the IAU (International Astronomical Union, which does have the legal authority to accept or reject names proposed for celestial objects) has a Web page on this. Here's a quote from it:

Thus, like true love and many other of the best things in human life, the beauty of the night sky is not for sale, but is free for all to enjoy. True, the 'gift' of a star may open someone's eyes to the beauty of the night sky. This is indeed a worthy goal, but it does not justify deceiving people into believing that real star names can be bought like any other commodity. Despite some misleading hype several companies compete in this business, both nationally and internationally. And already in our own Milky Way there may be millions of stars with planets whose inhabitants have equal or better rights than we to name 'their' star, like humans have done with the Sun (which of course itself has different names in different languages).

• Poor weather (especially in the North East) means that you can't observer frequently enough to have good odds of being the first one to see something because you will be clouded out far too often. Truly serious comet hunters move to Arizona to have enought clear skys to have good odds.
• Today most comets are found by professional searches such as linear with bigger scopes. That doesn't leave much left for amateurs
• Equipement maybe affordable for SillyValley stock holders but not for the masses out there. Min. req. these days for comet hunting is about a 20" or 22" obsession scope. That's the trend in recent amateur discovery such as comet Petriew
• to find stuff that faint you need to be several hours out of town to get a dark enough sky becuase you work in a big town to affoard all the equipement. Avoiding light pollution is essential to see stuff that faint so you can't do it often enough

So SOHO is actually a playing field leveler in that sense and makes comet discovery more accessible than before. Sure the is less glory that doing it the old fashion way. It's free, always good weather, timely data. It's also the only legitimate way to get your name in the heavens instead of buying stars which is nothing more than a scam IMHO. So, sure, it's sure a much bigger kick to find one at the eyepiece but a SOHO one still counts in my book.