Slashdot Mirror
Strange Mini Solar System Found
starexplorer writes "In 1990, Penn State's Alex Wolszczan found the first exoplanets. But he never got much credit from mainstream researchers, because his planets (3
of them, roughly Earth-sized) orbit pulsars and hold no chance for harboring life. Now he's found a 4th object on the outskirts of the system, SPACE.com is reporting. Call it a planet, call it an asteroid, Wolszczan says, but call the setup a dark, eerie twin of the inner half of our solar system. Also in the same story, news of a brown dwarf just 15 times the mass of Jupiter that has a planet-making disk of stuff around it. Together, more problems for astronomers, who still don't have a basic
definition for the word planet or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars."
Mini Solar System? My God! Does this mean mini-me is really an ALIEN?
I thought he looked a little different. I did not even know he had a green card.
I think They Might be Giants defined what it was to be a star fairly well.
"The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
a giagantic nuclear furnace..."
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
"Call it a planet, call it an asteroid or call it Wolszczan says, but call the setup a dark, eerie twin of the inner half of our solar system." It's Bizarro world, our solar system's dark, eerie twin.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or over generalizing, but planet vs stars: stars have fusion, planets dont. Hence, a gas giant like jupiter is a planet but a brown dwarf is a star (there is SOME fusion going on, or there was in the past).
Planet vs planetoid is another matter altogether... I'd love to know if theres been a 'real' standard proposed - regardless of whether pluto/charon are planets/moon or not.
How can this professor not be considered mainstream?
He's on the faculty at Penn State! Sounds like he must have ticked off the wrong people at some point in his career. Maybe he needs to hire a PR person.
I would say that finding a planet orbiting any star would be significant news, regardless of whether said planet might harbor life.
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
semantics seperates planets from stars from asteroids... Our language, not reality...
Astronomers don't have a planet definition? Here's one! Planets are round, asteroids aren't! How's that ? :)
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
Space. Quite a bit of it, I hope.
Oh, you meant what criteria separates planets from stars?
Well, I definitely would much rather live on one than the other. Is that a good definition?
Together, more problems for astronomers, who still don't have a basic definition for the word planet or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars.
Rather than search for a scientific or mathematical definition, why not just go by marketing: If it looks pretty on a poster or mobile, it is a planet. If it gives a comfy warmth brightness, then it is a star.
Table-ized A.I.
Would a star not be any object that makes light on its own(ie, not reflects it)? IANAA(Astronomer)
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
At the 1990 Astronmy Conference.. And.. we would like to give credit to Mr. Wolz.. uhh.. Mr. Wolzz.. Mr. Wolzczka.. Aww. screw it.
I'm no scientist, but it doesn't seem that hard to me. Why not an object with an atmosphere = planet? If somthing orbits that planet and also has an atmosphere, lets call it a sub-{planet}. No atmosphere? if it orbits a 'planet' then call it a 'moon'. if it orbits nothing call it target practice.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
because his planets (3 of them, roughly Earth-sized) orbit pulsars and hold no chance for harboring life.
I wish people wouldn't say things like this. Humans barely have a grasp on what life really is and what conditions it can exist under, especially off our own planet. So how could we make a judgement that life couldn't exist around a pulsar, despite its homo-sapien threatening conditions.
I would say that finding a planet orbiting any star would be significant news, regardless of whether said planet might harbor life.
I would think this discovery to be significant news IF our 9 planets were the only ones we knew about, but there are tons of planets orbiting stars, the ONLY way one would be newsworthy is if it resembled our own or could harbor life.
WoW: Scheod 70 orc warlock on Shadowmoon
What kind of life could exist in the conditions offered by a pulsar. If anything I suspect it would have to live underground.
From the article:
In one of the discoveries, an object just one-fifth the size of Pluto was called the smallest planet ever found outside our solar system
If it's one-fifth the size of Pluto, wouldn't that make it the smallest planet ever found anywhere?
Jupiter emits many times more infrared radiation than it absorbs. So, by your definition, Jupiter would be a star - and it clearly isn't, 2010 aside...
Please, "African American little person with a weight problem" is a little more appropriate and a lot less offensive, don't you think? Sheesh.
Go figure.
Logic, macros, and more
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=planet At the very least, we could be using: "A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves." Then you have the matter of size. A moon would be a natural planet satellite.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
At least according to Wikipedia
Scientifically, stars are defined as self-gravitating spheres of plasma in hydrostatic equilibrium, which generate their own energy through the process of nuclear fusion.
Using this simple definition, it seems to apply to most stars out there? Correct me if I'm wrong or if the definition provided isn't accurate enough.
The scientific definition, however, is a completely differe matter. I think it would be useful to classify objects methodically (I am sure this already being done). This lends itself to clear nomenclature for communication between scientists, as well as a way to incorporate new classes of objects as they may be hypothesized or observed. For instance, a clear distinction could be made between planetary (from the ancient Greek for "wandering") objects that are luminous and those that are not. It might be necessary to distinguish those that are luminous due to thermonuclear processes and those that are not. This would mean classifying stars as planets, but should there really be a distinction? Are they not all objects floating out there in space?
Any suggestions for a classification scheme, or does anyone out there know of a standard currently in use? The responses should be interesting!
A small gathering of Mini Coopers around a campfire in europe... Or something...
-ubuntu others as you would have others ubuntu you.
It's all a matter of size. Stars have enough mass to begin fusion. Planets have enough mass to become 'round' and orbit a star. Asteroids orbit stars but aren't 'round'. Moons orbit planets and are 'round'. Blah blah blah. So on and so forth. It's bloody easy. Man.. I should be an astrophysicist!
What is your penile percentile?
I thought stars were big nuclear furnaces, and planets weren't.
Okay, so it's not phrased in the form of a question, but you get what I'm asking.
A planet:
-is a non-fusor
-has sufficient mass to be roughly spherical due to gravity
-orbits a fusor
-isn't already referred to as any other type of object by convention
-isn't associated through orbital composition or other general characteristics with another general group of non-planet objects (i.e. Vesta, though spherical, is associated with other objects known as asteroids, which are not massive enough to be spherical, and are therefore not planets. Vesta also is not a planet, because of the previous rule. It is by convention known as an asteroid, therefore it's not a planet.)
My source for this definition is myself, and I deem it sufficient for sparking a major discussion, and possibly for other things as well.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
What separates planets and stars? Just plain ol' incompatibility hopefully.
I'm holding out for the "iSolar System Shuffle."
We started out with a limited number of names for things. Planets, stars, the sun. They we found some more things like comets and asteroids.
Now we've found lots of things that come in between, requiring a different form of classification. The only problem is that people are trying to squeeze the definition of things we know about into a limited naming set.
To name something doesn't mean we understand it and being unable to name something doesn't mean we don't understand it.
People should stop worrying and be happy that we can describe these objects to a higher level of detail than can be described using the existing names we had for things floating in space.
Evil people are out to get you.
"who still don't have a basic definition for the word planet or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars."
One is on fire and one isn't.
Now hand over my research grant.
------
insert sig here,here, and here
Well, I am glad to know that our astromomers are idiots. Makes me feel better.
The term "mini solar system" is wrong. Solar -the word- is derived from Sol, the name of that thing we call "the sun" (cue CD7 joke about Sun, long a source of amusement) aka that great big yellow ball thing.
It is Sol. If you didn't know it had a name, blame your teachers.
Our happy family of planets is the Solar System. Because we all belong to Sol. There is one Sol and one Solar System in the entire universe.
This newly discoved system of planets is orbiting ANOTHER STAR which is not named Sol and has nothing to do with Sol. I guess calling it "strange star system" would have invoked too many B-grade actors or something.
Sig for hire.
but what impact does this have on anyone except the 7 people on this planet that are paid to explore the galaxy? It's not like some new planet found is going to change what beer I'll buy tomorrow night. I'm still going to the same watered down operating systems for CS kids, life will go on and this is "news" isn't going to change anything, this does not matter.
When intelligent life is found, then I'll listen. When we make contact, then I'll pay attention.
We don't need to know what the difference is between a planet or asteroid. It's like debating over the boundary between what is classified as 'life'. It's all continuous, not discrete.
Isn't this just 1 more reason to keep/replace Hubble? What is wrong with NASA anyways?
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
Definition by example is a good start in most fields of study: The Earth is a planet; the Sun is a star. Just because there are ambiguous boundary cases doesn't mean that these distinctions are only in language, "not reality".
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
So what is pluto? A planet or an asteroid? What about all the other objects we're discovering outside of Pluto? What about independant "planets" (i.e. objects very much like mars)?
How about this for a definitiion? If it's had the title role or a main role in a major motion picture or hit TV series it's a star. If it just wanders around, it's a planet.
But then how do you define major and hit?
A planet that's on fire.
Duh.
problems for astronomers, who still don't have a basic definition for the word planet or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars.
It's not as sexy as having a word like "planet", but all this confusion could be eliminated with a basic classification system that took into account distinguishing characteristics besides just it's mass.
As an example, one could define these objects through two primary attributes: The body's mass and the mass of that which it orbits. As I don't have exact mass data at hand, this example will use the following over-simplifications:
S = Solar Mass
G = Gas Giant Mass
R = Rock Planet Mass
M = Minor Mass ( appx Phobos to Pluto )
A = Asteroid Mass
D = Debrit ( 1m or smaller )
Of course, the real system would use exact scientific measurments rather than these crude examples.
Earth = SR ( Rock Planet Mass orbiting a Solar Mass )
Jupiter = SG ( Gas Giant Mass orbiting a Solar Mass )
Pluto = SM ( Minor Mass orbiting a Solar Mass )
Titan = GR ( Rock Planet Mass orbiting a Gas Giant Mass )
etc
etc
You could even create a symbol to represent the galactic center, which could be used in relation to stars and other free roaming bodies. Binary stars can be represented using SS, since they're orbiting each other.
Anyway, the point is that you can not come up with solid definitions of these bodies on mass alone. Take into account other major factors as this example does.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
well, I'm not a girl so diamonds really don't do it for me.
My God, man! An oompa loompa!
Homer: I'd like to answer any questions regarding the alien, any questions at all.
Dr Hibbert: Yes. Is the doctor carbon based or silicon based?
Homer: Uhhh, the second one, Zillifone.
Always labeling things.
--- Ban humanity.
you can make computers out of them :o
No point in trying to make formal mutually exclusive labels for something which is so obviously a continuum.
I don't know about you and I don't care what you tell me but when I look up I see a bunch of stars and a really big one that my family named the Moon. When I look down I see a planet. In the daytime I see a Sun. My formal definition:
Stars are bright at night and Sun(s) are bright during the day.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
It's now going to be mini-this and mini-that. He's just trying to milk the mini craze!
mini-AC
That was the first thing I thought of too... I was actually surprised that the post that mentioned it was half way down the page of comments and not right up the top.
mercury, to me, is a moon orbitting the sun
titan, to me, is worthy of being considered a planet on the same level as earth or venus
and then there are gas giants, stars, and all the little bits (comets, asteorids, etc.)
so to me, phobos and deimos are not moons: they are still asteroids, they just happen to orbit mars instead
and i really believe considering the characteristics of the object separately from what it orbits is way more important
our current nomenclature seems obsessed with what an object orbits, which really seems less important to me
so there you have it: moons (round rock without atmosphere), planets (round rock with atmosphere), gas giant (cold ball of gas), star (burning ball of gas), extra non round bits
that's it
the point is: what orbits what is a completely different dimension of understanding things
and so what orbits what should be a completely different naming convention, maybe a prefix to the words "planet", "moon"... solar moon (mercury), terrestrial asteroid (phobos and deimos), terrestrial planet (titan)
furthermore, you could indicate orbital characteristics: retrograde, non-circular, etc.
and then we get into the concept of binary objects, and orbits in systems with more than one dominant gravitaitonal center
oh joy...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Pulling together some suggestions seen in other threads with my own thoughts:
A star: Generates energy by sustained, large-scale fusion reactions.
A brown dwarf: A 'failed' star with less than the minimum mass necessary for sustained large-scale fusion, but enough to generate either minimal fusion reactions or to glow by the energy of it's slow gravitational contraction. To be honest, I can't think of any non-arbitrary distinction between a brown dwarf and a large gas giant, just as there is a continuous spectrum between a centrally-planned and free-market economy.
A planet: Is massive enough to form itself into a sphere or ellipsoid and orbits a star in a stable orbit uniquely it's own (ie is not shared with other orbiting bodies, and is circular or some semblance thereof).
A moon: A natural satellite that orbits a planet in an orbit uniquely it's own (re: is not a ring particle).
An asteroid: An object, not any of the above, that orbits a star and does not contain significant deposits of volatile compounds.
A comet: An asteroid that does contain significant amounts of volatile compounds.
By my system, Ceres is an asteroid, because it does not have it's orbit to itself. Pluto is a planet because it can pull itself into a sphere, and possesses it's own (admittedly rather elliptical) orbit. The KBOs are all asteroids or dormant comets, because they either lack the mass to shape themselves or share orbits with other KBOs.
A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.
ME: Hey professor! What separates planets from stars?
PROFESSOR: Space. Or about 2,500 to 50,000 Kelvin.
ME: Thanks professor!
What sprang to my mind first was, "If it hurts to stand on, it's a star".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe a brown dwarf is just still a star in training? It just didn't get fed enough as a kid, but it could have hope someday, couldn't it? It's so cruel to just label it "failed" and leave it in misery... It could get a job on the set of a sci-fi show or something, you never know.
It's that reporter for Space.com, Robert Roy Britt.
He has a habit of using the word "solar" for non-solar topics, and of course the Space.com stories end up on the wire services and are repeated by hundreds of TV talking heads. All that does is make the problem worse. It's bad enough that most people don't even know the name of their star. We don't need them attaching that name to totally unrelated objects.
Here's an unedited quote from him regarding a complaint on the same subject from one of his previous stories:
Thanks for your note. You are correct in the strict sense, but astronomy and language are evolving. We now know of many other systems that look familiar. And many astronomers have come use the term "solar system" to describe other planetary systems. It's becoming a bit like Kleenex in its generic usage.
I'm all for accuracy, but I think also that language is fluid, and if astronomers use the term interchangeably, then I think it's best I do so,
too. I also find it the most convenient term to convey a system of planets with a central star -- and there are hints of lone, wandering planets not
hosted by a star, so a distinction is helpful (at least until the latter situation is sorted out). I appreciate hearing from you because notes like
yours help me frame my approach to writing.
Sig for hire.
I think we should define a planet as a celsestial body that can support multi-organism life.
otherwise it's an asteroid, comet, celestial body, whatever.
would that mean that this solar system doesn't have 9 planets? yes it would. it doesn't change the fact that we still have 9 celestial bodies in the vicinity.
Why are we trying to hang on to old definitions that don't make sense? Because our ancestors used them? Advance, make progress people.
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
DeBeers is essentially a cartel, and keeps the price of diamonds high by keeping diamonds artificially scarce, as well as using a very successful marketing campaign that goes back something like 70 years - basically, they were the ones who started the idea of a diamond being the primary engagement gift. There are many gems that are more rare than diamonds, though, and not nearly as expensive.
All your sol-ar belong to us?
sorry
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
If bruce willis is trying to protect it...it's a planet.
If he's trying to blow it up...it's an asteroid.
If you wish you could throw him into it and watching him vaporize...it's a star.
I call it the willis theory of astronomy
(movies stars...is there any problem they can't solve?)
I was sure that was historically settled. Stars shine. Planets reflect. And that's all. Who needs anything more?
Not like they'd be reading this or anything, but I would propose to Mr. Britt and all those astronomers out there wanting a phrase to describe more succinctly "a star and the system of other bodies associated with it", that they use the similar-sounding term "stellar system" instead. Stellar, being a word for things relating to stars in general, and not necessarily to our star, The Sun (which, contrary to the OP, is not actually called Sol in any scientific circles, as much as you and I might wish it were. Likewise, it's The Moon, not Luna, and The Earth, not Terra).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Lame. I want a solar system shuffle.
sulli
RTFJ.
See the subject.
What happens if we send out a solar powered craft and it goes beyond the reach of sol? does its name then change? - member of the "strange star system" power group.
Strange mini solar system found...in your pants.
The dinner is prepared!!!
The article mentions that a brown dwarf is an object not quite massive enough to jump-start a fusion reaction and become a star. Could a collision with another object such as a large asteroid provide the needed energy and cause a brown dwarf to ignite? I wonder if future astrophysicists will do such colossal experiments.
Would The Earth cease to be a planet just because something threw it forever out of our solar system? (Well actually, for now almost certainly yes, 'cos then there'd be no humans to define "planet" ;). At what point does an asteroid have to collect enough dust and become spherical enough to become a planet? Not all planets are spherical - Mercury is more elliptical from memory, thanks to effects of being in close proximity to a star... errr, the Sun. They wouldn't even have to necessarily spin - though that would help with roundness.
Also from recollection of earlier dictionaries, our moon would become a planet (or planetoid?) if some catastrophe yanked it away from the earth, to forever go around the sun - because it wouldn't then be a body orbiting a planet - a simple, but rock solid definition IMHO. Oh but hang on, what about all those little rocks orbiting Earth???
In that respect remember that some definitions are probably inherently transitional, depending on what they are doing. If it's a rock orbiting a sun, it's an asteroid, around a planet then it's a moon, if it's become round (has enough gravitational pull to hold itself together?) then it's a planet if it's going around a Sun - or is it, because what if the planet escapes?
I believe the dictionary definition of "moon" is pretty good already, but as for the rest... I hope you can see what I mean because it gives me a headache! If we set a strict definition of a type of celestial body, and then suddenly we discover that there are so many more bodies that just don't quite fit the category, then what? I don't fancy taking liquid paper to my dictionary. So I will leave splitting those hairs to the experts.
My teamleader thinks he's a star, and he often emits huge gas clouds. My boss, on the other hand, is a friggin' planet, and she drives a Galaxy because it's the only thing she fits in. Back to the drawing board with those definitions, boys.
planet n.
Big lump of stuff, roundish, spinning a bit, usually orbiting a, um, star thingy. Might have aliens on, but probably not. Probably.
What happens? Probably not much because the sunlight is really, really weak at that distance. Any ship expecting to do useful work out that far would have to use another power source. With our current technology, Mars is about the outer boundary for effective solar power. Including all the fringe planetoids, Oort clouds and other leftover junk, the Solar system is roughly 9,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter. Big. Vast. Empty.
Sig for hire.
robbIE steps on /.'s pedigree with whoreabull MiSuse of the patentdead PostBlock censorship devise?
(Score: mynuts won, fauxking corepirate nazis' puppets on a string)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 08, @03:56AM (#11604730)
what some fools will do for a little more monIE?
lookout bullow.
all is not lost?
consult with/trust in yOUR creators, supplying additional resources as needed, since/until forever. see you there?
Astronomers indeed have a very good idea what is a star and what is a planet! =) We might brag about if Pluto is a planet or not, but there's just no dispute whether something that burns nuclear fuel is a star or a giant planet set on fire by some neanderthals in a dense wood, or some President with a finger on the button... And if it orbits around bigger body while being cold, there's a fat chance it is not a star. Unless there's Holywood sign on some hill. Or it might harbour semi-intelligent life that belives everything revolves around them, but in that case we're talking law of relativity, and it doesn't have much to do with intelligence, for nature laws are quite happy even if they're not discovered by self-proclaimed intelligent life forms. :)
or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars
Space! Mostly a vacuume, but with small charged particles 'heated' to ~4 degrees K.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Its on Orians' belt.
Or that a whole mini universe.
...that you can't spell hypocrite and either can't be bothered right-clicking and choosing "Dictionary" or you use a browser that sucks. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The controversy had nothing to do with the possibilities of life - it was entirely regarding whether the planets existed or not.
what it orbits, by right, should be less important than it is
titan is far more interesting than mercury
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All objects could be "celestial objects." Anything that orbits it, is a "drabant" whether they are what we today call stars or planets. Then, use its size, mass, sphericalness and various other physical and chemical properties and add those numbers to its name. That way we don't need to come up with sharp lines between planets, stars and aseroids.
Portuguese speakers call Sun Sol, Earth Terra, and Moon Lua (instead of Luna). Spanish speakers call Sun Sol, Earth Tierra, and Moon Luna.
Am I the only one who's disappointed that this mini solar system wasn't discovered on a speck of dust on a dandelion?
Strictly speaking the Earth Moon Center of gravity lies in between them, but is contained within the earth, which to me would indicate the "dominant" partner.
I hate when scientists find a planet, and then just ignore it, saying there's no chance that there could be life. Life has evolved to survive in some pretty hard regions of earth, including the bottom of the ocean, where there isn't even any sunlight. What makes these scientists so sure there isn't any life.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I know exactly how to fix this:
1. Disengage fingers from keyboard.
2. Stand up.
3. REMOVE STICK FROM ASS. Sheesh.
Together, more problems for astronomers, who still don't have a basic definition for the word planet or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars.
It is rather funny how we humans need a way to pigeon hole everything we observe. And the more we observe the more pigeon holes we need to add. The universe didn't come with labels and many things are don't neatly fall in to a area. I think we have forgotten that language is created by humans and can and should be expanded to explain new things we observe. Maybe english needs a word that explains objects in less of a pigeon hold method and more of a gradient scale. I will use say we use the word. "blong" for something is more then something else like "Jupiter is planet blong star", quaz for something that is in the middle "Pluto is planet quaz asteriod"
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"planet-making disk"?
Shouldn't that be "disc"
Off topic; did Star Trek's Enterprise (the "Kirk" one) ever have a "Sol Drive" or "Sol Speed"? I seem to remember something like that. Been a while. Maybe our translators just couldn't make sense of "Warp" for a while.
ahhh... diamonds...
Making her fake it like she never faked it before.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
With a large enough diamond, maybe the girl will do it to you?
Otherwise you won't be needing that research grant. :-)
Thank you. I'll be here all week.
Hubble is going submarine soon. More militarization of space. Protect us from the Brown Dwarf aliens and their non christian lifestyle.
Perhaps this was addressed in an earlier post, but I think they are trying to build an all-encompassing definition. If they continue to build additions and corrolaries onto the definiton of the word "Planet" it will become ever more ill-fitting to any of the various objects they are decribing. What is really needed are more words to describe them. Perhaps something as simple as working a little genus/species into the cataloging system would help to clear up the confusion and give a working definition, e.g. Just as all Primates are not humans, all planets do not (as we now know) revolve around a star...and if calling planets roaming planets or orbiting planets to clear up their state of being, well all the better for us.
This is almost like the terms apogee and perigee that get transformed to things like apohelion and perihelion or apojove and perijove. They all refer to defintions of point in an orbit, but also refer to the object that item is orbiting.
I would have to agree with you that there is really only one Solar System, but there needs to be a more generic term, and at the moment solar system happens to be handy absent any other reasonable term (like "star system" that seems to indicate only collections of stars alone, not with planets).
BTW, the name of our sun is simply "The Sun". Sol is the name of the Sun in Latin, hence solar (because acedemic high brows think anglo-saxon terms are insufficient for scientific descriptions). If you were speaking a romance language derived from Latin, you would already know that the name of our star is Sol, as that is the word used to describe it in those languages.
Science Fiction writers, because of necessity due to a lack of vocabulary, tend to use the Latin term of Sol for our sun when specifically describing the star that the Earth (old home Terra, another Latin term there) orbits and is dominated by. The big ball of nuclear fusion in the sky around on any other planet in SF stories is also simply called "The Sun". By using Latin in these cases, it also makes the stories seem a little more exotic.
From my own viewpoint, talking about "the Earth" and "the Sun" is just fine, and I like the Anglo-Saxon terms very well. As an English speaker, I don't need the Latin terms.
Unfortunately, because this is a relatively new area the terminology is still not nailed down, and science journalists are not very good at coining new terms. Instead they rely on the researchers to come up with the terminology, which in this case is seriously lagging behind what needs to be described.
Note also that you should probably add 'more massive', i.e. 'orbits a fusor or more massive isolated non fusor'.
Also I'd replace 'fusor' with 'star' because that's clear enough.
-isn't already referred to as any other type of object by convention
Err, convention can be wrong. Are you saying that once astronomers label an object, it's stuck with that label forever, even if it turns out to be incorrect? What about Pluto, for example?
+1 Funny Troll.
...cue jokes about Bush's proposed expedition to the Sun.
http://wallpapers.for.free.fr/galleries/cartoon/pe titprince/al_St_Exupery07_Le_Petit_Prince.jpgdamn French beat us there
Star:
Heavenly body with a mass large enough to sustain a gravity induced fusion reaction indefinitely.
Planet:
Heavenly body with a mass not large enough to sustain a gravity induced fusion reaction.
the word "hoshi" means both planet and star.
So we live on a hoshi, and all the bright things you see in the sky are also hoshi's.
In borderline cases concepts proliferate.
The universe is not populated by natural kinds--groups of individual entities that "naturally" fall into distinct classes. Apparently because of parsimonious physical laws and fairly deep, narrow ecological optima, we do find lots of things that are pretty similar to each other because their existence is possible only within relatively narrow physical bounds or they are the result of selective processes that don't allow for a lot of latitude.
However, despite a couple of millenia of bad philosophy, we should not be fooled into believing that because most of the time we can group things into convenient categories that that will always be the case, and when we have very few examples of individuals in a given category (the nine planets in the solar system, for example) we can expect that our categorization criteria will undergo radical change as we discover more more-or-less similar individuals. And not only will our categorization criteria change: the categories themselves will change, as we try to find the most epistemologically efficient means of grouping individuals.
"Efficiency" in this case is measured by some combination of keeping the number of classes as small as possible for our purposes, and practical ease of categorization (there's no point in having a very small number of classes if the criteria for membership are practially impossible to apply.)
So asking "What is a planet REALLY?" is the wrong question. The right question is: "What is the most useful classification scheme for these objects, given our purposes as human beings?"
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
("Astrophysically it's important and interesting," Weintraub said of the pulsar planet work. "But these planets are irrelevant to questions of life in the universe.")
So, in the 15 or so billion year life of the universe only "now" matters.
Now excuse me while I go look up the list of lifeforms known to live on brown dwarves and gas giants.
It's times like these when I wish there was a "+1, Pedantic" mod.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
In general only the fast, large, or hot planetoid bodies can seen because they have the strongest IR or doppler signals. Several space-based probes planned in the next decade will get closer the earth-like planets in capability.
Neutron stars reflect.
who still don't have a basic definition for the word planet or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars."
Here's an easy way to remember, stars are on fire, planets are not.
That's no moon, it's an engagement ring!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars.
Perhaps planets are bodies that don't have nuclear fusion going on in their cores, do not self-generate light, and are non-plasma material on their surface?
But seriously, how can one not draw a distinction?
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
In the construction of Matrioshka Brains (previously discussed on /. here) one has the common choices found in software development. "Do we do it top-down or bottom-up?" Taking an existing solar system (such as ours) and disassembling the asteroids and planets and eventually shrinking the star is the top-down approach and tends to be expensive (lifting material out of large gravity wells and relocating them within solar system volumes requires a great deal of energy and time). On the other hand optimizing the development of mini-solar systems could be the bottom-up approach as one avoids the expense of large gravity wells and one can optimize the construction of "computronium" as the dust cloud and brown dwarf evolve. One could imagine an advanced civilization structuring things such that they feed material into the brown dwarf such that they keep it just on the edge of becoming a star. Under ideal circumstances a civilization would like an energy source which produces the greatest amount of light (or IR) energy with the minimal amount of UV energy (which can break atomic bonds and is ultimately wasteful).
If the only criteria the astronomers are using for their conclusions is an excess of IR radiation then they don't really have much of a basis for their proposal other than the bias that such observations must fit the perspective of "natural" objects rather than "engineered" objects.
Reminds me of one of the trivia questions that I find most annoying:
"What is the largest island?"
To which I always want to reply "either Eurasia or Eurasia/Africa depending on if you think they are sufficiently connected".
The question they are really trying to ask would be more honestly asked as: "What is the arbitrary cutoff point geographers have defined for 'Island', well at least the geographers we most recently talked to?"
Conventions-through-grey-areas are great for assisting in information transmission and processing when you are clearly on one side of the grey area or the other. But in cases when you are right around the grey area, it actually hampers communication and effective thought when people forget that these words are just arbitrary defintions used to simplify things for our tiny primate brains.
"You don't vote to become a planet!"
"Than I can be a planet!"
"I, [insert the name of your favorite certified planet here], was deemed a planet by a bunch of eggheads, their clipboards clad by the shimmering moonlight, who had only seen one grain of sand but were making heady predictions about the seas for no other reason than to tout their own self worth"
"Come and see the stupidity inherent in the nomenclature..."
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I have found billions of microgalaxies called molecules. There is live on almost all of them.
Could we have found the Tao?
windopain
I remember a prof saying in a college astronomy class that he believed that jupiter was just a failed star.
My yard = GRASS (Pair of Solar Masses orbiting one another orbiting an Asteroid Mass orbiting a Rock Planet Mass orbiting a Gas Giant Mass)
Hmm. Ok maybe that last one doesn't describe what's growing in my yard afterall. I think I need some more funding to complete my uh "research".
I am Blong, of the Quaz nebula. By using my name without permission you have violated galactic copysnark law. Your puny planet will be destrobulated in 65 metrons.
I appreciate the karma, but that was meant to be Funny, not Interesting....
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That's nice for them. In English they insist on using these special case the-This and the-That names.
Personally I'm rooting for the Latin derivatives (Sol, Terra, Luna) but I don't expect it to catch on in English any time soon.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
First the Mini-me. Then the iPod mini. Mac mini. Now a whole solar system mini? OK, the Hummer and Super Size Me showed something broken with society, but this kind of overreaction is worse than the disease!
Maybe yours is!
TIMON: They're fireflies. Yeah, fireflies stuck in that great big...bluish-black thing.
PUMBAA: And I always thought they were huge flaming balls of gas burning billions of miles away.
TIMON: Pumbaa, with you, everything's gas.
How much less?
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Right click and get a Dictionary? Gee, I must use a browser that sucks. Whenever I right click, I get a list of links to anal porn.
---
And I always thought I was the worst kind of prick.
I don't know about Uranus, but my anus IS a gas giant.
Still, there are smelly individuals who deliberately set up their browsers like that that. Who would want mud on their wand?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing