Slashdot Mirror
Defining "Planet"
beardoc writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is running a story today about a controversial proposal to define what size a planet might be - depending on what the final definition of how big a planet is, we could end up losing Pluto (at 2300 kilometres) to the status of "asteroid" or gaining three more planets - Quaoar, Varuna and Ceres."
Eros is the same deity as Cupid...one is Greek, the other Roman. Eros is actually the Greek name, whereas Cupid is the Roman. However, since at the time the moon Eros was named Cupid was already defined in our culture as a fat little fairy with wings, they went with Eros.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Because the traditional designation of what made up a planet was anything that we could find that orbits the sun. We didn't include comets because they looked different from planets and we didn't include asteroids because we couldn't resolve them. Now that we continue to find many large objects that are really little different from Pluto it has suddenly become important to have a real definition of which are planets and which are just big asteroids.
Also, as we find bodies orbiting other stars, the traditional designations for planets is obviously useless.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Because the traditional designations are spotty at best, and certainly not definitive enough.
Currently, a planet is defined to be a body larger than an asteroid and orbiting a star. There's no distinction between planet and asteroid, except "oh that looks big enough.. i guess it's a planet."
The question is, what if it's eventually determined that Charon (presently considered Pluto's satellite) is as large or larger than Pluto? Can we have a binary planet?
And there are a few moons larger than Pluto... would they become planets, even though they orbit a planet? (Or, converseley, does a planet have to orbit a star? Can it orbit other things?)
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky
Because some moons are larger than Pluto... would they be considered planets?
t s/nineplanets.html )
Diameters:
Pluto: 2274km
Charon: 1172km
Ganymede (orbits Jupiter): 5262km
Callisto (same): 4800km
Titan (orbits Saturn): 5150km
Triton (orbits Neptune): 2700km
Earth: 12756km
Moon: 3476km (Yes, our Moon is larger than Pluto)
Mars: 6794km
Deimos (orbits Mars): 12.6km
Phobos (same): 22km
(all figures courtesy http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplane
In other words, simple definitions based on size are inadequate. Also, since they're debating whether or not Pluto is a planet, the criteria that it orbits the sun may also be inadequate.
A planet is something which: orbits a star AND is round AND is larger than an arbitrary size AND.. what? The above criteria still allows for a lot of things to be planets that aren't.
We know so little about massive, non-solar bodies outside our solar system. Let's do a little more research on them before we start redefining things.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky
Indian astrology studies planets as those heavenly bodies that affect life-forms on the Earth in a 'major' way. Thus the Sun and the Moon are also planets as per the Indian definition. Two planets (Raagu & Kethu) are also defined - these do not denote physical planets, rather, the clock-wise and the anti-clockwise 'spin' of the Earth.
The system also defines 27 stars (the nearest ones from the Earth) and a 60-year cycle.
Under this system:
It is possible to accurately determine 'events' such as eclipses, birth & death, progeny, well-being, etc.
There is no need for 'leap-year' correction, since a year can be 'born' at mid-day, mid-night or anytime in between.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
This is sort of handled(here):
Since the COM is inside the Earth, I think it's fair to say that the Moon orbits the Earth (and not vice versa).
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The distinction between a planet-moon and binary planet system is usually the common centre of mutual orbit. If it resides in one body, that body is the planet, and the other a moon, however if it lies between them, in space, then it is a binary planet system.
Seems to me that the only problem with the whole sphere thing is that objects of higher densities could be spherical at a much lower diameter, neutron stars for example.
I have taken several classes on the universe and our solar system, and everything I've heard makes me believe that Pluto should not even be considered a planet, due to its extremely small size and different composition that the rest of the outer planets.
I think you mean: Should have 5% of the size of the parent star, not 5% bigger...
But on another note, Pluto is not an asteroid nor a planet, it is a comet. Its got a tail, albeit a small one, but then again Pluto is friggin 14th magnitude.
Bill
-Bill
But doesn't it [Ceres] have a satellite? -- and -- What would we qualifty that as, because a satellite must orbit a planet.
It doesn't appear that Ceres has any satellites. But, there are 31 asteroids that do! That doesn't make them planets though...they're just small asteroids with really small moons.
Can anyone remind me what that sequence of numbers is called that vaguely predicts the distances of planets from the Sun?
Yep, its the Titius-Bode Law. Ceres does fit into this. But the reason we don't have a planet in between Mars and Jupiter is because "many astronomers think the asteroid belt is where a planet tried to form, but was pulled apart before it could solidify, caught between the strong opposing tugs of Jupiter and the sun's gravity." Quote taken from here.
Why does a planet _have_ to be a shpere...How perfect a sphere?
Well.... Ceres's shape is too distorted. Its shape is not spherical enough to be like regular planets. And, to get really technical, no planet is really a sphere. Due to rotation, all planets have a slightly distorted shape.
Let's rephrase that: there *might* be hundreds/thousands of Pluto-sized objects. But we certainly haven't found any yet!
- Pluto - 2300 km
- Quaoar - 1300km
- Varuna - 900km
- Ceres - 479km
- Chiron - ~175km
Note that Quaoar, the largest of the bunch, is half Pluto's size and barely larger than Pluto's moon, Charon.As long as Pluto is substantially larger than any other known transneptunian object, it doesn't seem like we would need to worry about planetary definitions.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier
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.
Gaia is greek (well, latinized Greek) clever boy. Terra is the latin.
Jupiter would probably need about 10x the mass it currently has to start fusing. It would probably be a red dwarf if this was the case -- relatively cool compared to Sol, but super-long lived.
Bodies like Jupiter and Saturn are sometimes referred to as 'Brown Dwarves'.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The most common Latin word for "Earth" is Terra, the name of the goddess of the Earth. That's right, Terra. She is I believe almost exactly analogous to Gaia.
Gaia is Greek; another Greek form of the name is "Ge." She is a major early goddess (early meaning pre-Olympian).
"Tellus" is Latin for "land" or "earth," including the concept of Earth as a planet. The name is used for a goddess; that -us ending is not the same one you know from "alumnus," but is feminine 3d declension, and forms its plural as "Tellures." I don't know how it relates to "Terra" or "Gaia" (most educated Romans knew Greek as a second language).
Quaoar, Ceres, and Varuna are all the names of gods or goddesses. Varuna is a Hindu god, of rain, I believe, and so a type of creator god; Quaoar, a native American creator god (IIRC); Ceres is the goddess of agriculture in Roman mythology (she is called Demeter in Greek; the long Homeric poem Hymn to Demeter is the centerpiece of her myth; her daughter Persephone might be familiar to SF fans).
Ceres is also the patron goddess of Sicily, and her discoverer was G. Piazzi, a Sicilian scientist. It was given such an important name (Ceres was a major goddess) because it was assumed, from the application of Bode's "Law," that there must be a planet between Jupiter and Mars, and when Ceres was found, it was at first trumpeted as a planet. However, when the asteroids named after Juno (=Hera, the queen of the Gods), Pallas (=Athena, the goddess of wisdom, warfare, etc.), and Vesta (~Hestia, the goddess of the hearth and home, more important to the Romans than to the Greeks - you've probably heard of the Vestal Virgins, the priestesses of Vesta who kept the eternal flame going in her temple and took an oath of chastity they were executed for violating) were all found in roughly similar orbits, they were reclassified as not "planets" but "asteroids."
I may be wrong, but gas giants (like jupiter, saturn, neptune, etc) become brown dwarves at 10-13x Jupiter's mass, and the point at which they become full stars (well, red dwarves) is some unknown mass above that. Really- last I checked, the exact mass wasn't known.
So, to recap. Stars are objects massive enough to maintain nuclear fusion in their cores and are hot enough on their surface to radiate visible light. Brown dwarves are objects not as massive as stars, but massive enough to maintain fusion in their cores but aren't hot enough to radiate visible light. Planets are objects not as massive as brown dwarves, but are.... uhhhh.... hmm....