Slashdot Mirror
Definition of Planet to be Announced in September
MasaMuneCyrus writes "After over seven years of debating, the International Astronomical Union announced that it expects to announce the official definition of a planet in September. After many-a-deadlock, they handed the task of deciding exactly what a planet is to a new committee, which includes historians and educators. 'They wanted a different perspective from that of planetary scientists,' said Edward Bowell, an astronomer at Lowell Observatory who is also vice president of the IAU's Division III-Planetary Systems Sciences group. If all goes according to plan, the wording will be proposed in their 12-day General Assembly meeting in Prague."
....or is it? :-P
Pluto?
I've been 50-50 on it myself. I'm a fan of anything Arizona (having lived there), but apart from the moon system, I'm hard pressed to call it a planet.
If Pluto sticks - then there's probably 100s of Kuiper Belt objects that qualify.
... debian-legal will notice that Earth is not a planet under the new definition.
http://outcampaign.org/
I hope Pluto finally gets excluded from planet definition. It's too small (only twice the size as it's "moon", Charon, and a little less than a fifth as massive as Luna), it's out of the plane of the elliptic (a trait shared with objects like comets, but not any planets), and it's not even orbiting in a stable configuration with regard to Neptune (for part of it's orbit, Pluto is in fact eighth, and Neptune ninth).
Then there's the fact that it only really got counted as a planet in the first place because astronomers at the time of it's discovery were hung up on the idea of discovering a ninth planet. They thought they found a disturbance in Neptune's orbit, which they attributed to a ninth planet, but ended up being caused by the fact that they were working from bad data about Neptune's mass. Pluto's much too small to have any effect on Neptune's orbit.
This might finally put the final nail in the coffin of the idea of nine major planets in our solar system. We can only hope.
I've always thought that looking for intelligent life on other planets is premature, since we haven't conclusively found intelligent life on this one yet :-P
But seriously, what difference does life make? Any planet could support life if you put it in a habitat of some sort. Even gas giants could support life if said habitats floated (and yes, that hs been proposed - human breathable air is a lifting gas when the outside pressure is high enough). If you mean indigenous life, that's another story - we're very likely alone here in our solar system, so seeking to define a livable planet when we have exactly one example is a bit premature.
If you want to find examples of life outside our solar system, good luck. The best we can do currently is look for either signs of intelligence (which is SETI's business), or else look for a planet that shows signs of an oxygen atmospherem, since that would imply biological processes. We're already doing this IIRC.
And even then we'd be unable to show that a rocky body of the right temperature didn't have life - anaeorbic (sp?) life gets along just fine and dandy without toxic oxygen fouling up their enviroment. That doesn't even get into the possibility of life forms existing with completely different chemical composition, which we can't even make an educated guess about.
We couldn't even show that there isn't intelligent life somewhere, since there is no guarantee that they'd use the same methods of communicating as we do - all we can do is hope they're trying to contant us.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
I think the most logical thing would be to consider "planet" a part of the name of a celestrical body, just like we do with "ocean" and "sea", and not use it as a classification word.
OTOH the other two moons are small enough to be called moons.
The Raven
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of proof in science. We've observed those planets about as well as we've observed many subatomic particles. Entities are posited to fit the observation. This is the case in any area of science. Not counting possible margins of error in measurements, we've observed these planets in much the same way as we observe subatomic particles. Would you like to stop believing in those?
If you would, would mind explaining exactly how all our predictions based on those particles ended up being right? Lucky guesses, the lot of them?
That's an awfully big leap of faith.
Your comparison, by the way, entirely fails to hold water. The issue here is a historical mistake having been entrenched in the popular definition, and the lack of a technical definition. IUPAC doesn't have to deal with popular definitions confusing the issue, they're already developed technical definitions for anything within their scope.
for what it's worth (not much):
planet = mostly rock/metal sphere with a significant atmosphere (what "significant" means becomes a point of contention then of course)
asteroid = solid rock/metal object that is not spherical
moon = rock/metal sphere without an atmosphere
a gas giant should be considered as something different than a planet (mostly gas, obviously spherical)... a star is simply a gas giant that has achieved thermonuclear fusion... and in between you have your brown dwarfs and other objects occuring at the end of a star's life time/ before it's lifetime/ malformed and never quite stars, etc.
and comets should also come to mean any agglomeration of ice and rock and dust that is loosely packed, not just those we see streaming towards the sun on a regular basis... as we explore the oort cloud, we'll find plenty of these "dormant" comets
and most importantly: all of these objects should be defined independently of what they orbit
so mercury isn't a planet, it's a moon of the sun
likewise, pluto is a moon of the sun
and ceres and vesta are moons of the sun (small perfectly spherical "asteroids")
titan isn't a moon, it's a planet of saturn (it has a significant atmosphere)
the most important thing i think, no matter what nomenclature is agreed upon, is that as we discover weirder extrasolar objects out there, the "what it orbits" part of an object's identity should come to mean something totally different than "what it's made of"
and size should never have meaning
then of course, we have to come to grips with direction of orbit, orbits outside the elliptical, orbits with bizarre shapes, binary/ tertiary objects, binary/ tertiary/ quartanery star systems, etc.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This sentiment is baffling to me. You're living on a big hunk of emperical evidence. If the planets of our solar system can form it follows logically that planets can form around other stars. If our solar system is like even a small fraction of other solar systems we can use information about ours to look for other ones. There's several methods to find extrasolar planets, and quite often multiple methods can be used on the same system to verify the findings of other observations. Large planets cause a star to appear to wobble. This happens because the two bodies are orbiting their mutual barycenter. By keeping track of a star's periodic doppler shift it is possible to determine the mass of an orbiting planet or planets. This method can also be used to confirm findings from planetary transit observations. When a planet's orbit brings it between its parent star and us the light of the star will dim slightly and for a period of time related to the size of the planet and length of its orbital period. With this information the mass of the planet can be determined. If this meshes with the star's wobble you've got pretty good evidence of a planet orbiting that star.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Is it that important to have a precise definition of what is a planet and what is not?
Unless you are going to precisely define every single astronomical object. from dust to galaxy filaments.
I suspect that someone is going to claim the possession over those planets (apply the definition here).
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
I think it's a great definition:
I now officially qualify for planethood.
Dear IAU, You suck. Love, Merriam-Webster
By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes: Open, locks, whoever knocks!
- Four terrestrial planets
- Four jovian planets
- The Kuiper Belt objects
- and the remaining comets, asteroids, dust, etc.
(Yes, I know I'm using the word planet, but the actual dispute is being driven by the discovery of a Kuiper belt object larger than Pluto and farther from the Sun).Be careful man. Before you know it NASA has rovers rolling all over your ass.
A planet must:
Revolve around a star
within a certain maximum aphelion
having a maximum elliptic
Be large enough in volume
Not be artificial in nature (this provides that any intelligence in this universe creating an object that would fit the prior criteria would not be allowed to call it a planet)
Define maximum aphelion and maximum elliptic and minimum volume. What else is there?
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Maybe they should break the deadlock over Pluto by playing one (1) game of Rock, Paper Scissors.
www.wavefront-av.com
As Jesapoo points out, it's not about size, but as important as orbit eccentricity is material composition. Planets are historically categorized into two buckets based on their composition -- "terrestrial", which are mostly rock (mercury, venus, earth, mars), and "jovian", which are mostly gas (jupiter, saturn, uranus, and neptune). And then there are comets, which are mostly dirty ice and frozen gas with some rocks.
Pluto is cometary in composition, which has led some to classify it as a comet rather than as a planet. Frankly I can see the argument. Perhaps the best way out is to define "planet" such that some comets can be planets?
-- TTK