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."

3 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. Why is size an issue? by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I went to an astronomy talk at the University of Toronto a few years ago. The presenter defined a planet as any celestial body that doesn't radiate light. That explicitly includes asteroids and moons. Why is it necessary to make the distinction between planet and asteroid?

    The whole point of the article is to arbitrarily define the distinction which just proves how stupid it is.

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

  2. Absolutely moot... by jtdubs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This superficial naming convention makes absolutely no difference at all. It has no effect on anything.

    It would be like if you changed the biological classification system so that bears were no longer Mammals. What difference does this make to the bears? None. What difference does this make in how we relate to bears? None.

    It is simply an arbitrary naming convention. As are all naming conventions.

    It reminds me of an old Zen saying that I am likely paraphrasing miserably:

    "Before Zen, a mountain is a mountain. While one is practicing Zen, a mountain is no longer a mountain. After Zen, a mountain is once again a mountain."

    Justin Dubs

  3. Location Location Location by infonography · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Just like in Real Estate, it's where it is not how big. The US States of Washington and Alaska have larger Island then Rhode Island. But Pluto is

    Alone in it's orbit, it's moons orbits it

    isn't too far out

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23