Slashdot Mirror
IAU Proposes 3 New Planets
IZ Reloaded writes "Sources tell SPACE.com that the International Astronomical Union is preparing to include three new entries to the current list of planets in our solar system. From the article: The asteroid Ceres, which is round, would be recast as a dwarf planet in the new scheme. Pluto would remain a planet and its moon Charon would be reclassified as a planet. Both would be called "plutons," however, to distinguish them from the eight "classical" planets. A far-out Pluto-sized object known as 2003 UB313 would also be called a pluton."
How long until we can get Cowboy Neal reclassified as a pluton?
liqbase
What the pluton is going on here? Since when are moons and asteroids without names included in the list of planets?
Funnypics
As I concurrently submitted this I had to put in my 2 cents... By the article here If you use the new definition proposed... there would be up to 53 known planets in this Star System... Quite a lot of them to remember. Also by the definition since Charon would be a planet... wouldn't the moon need to be its own planet? And the 9580723409875 moons of Staurn/Jupiter etc? I think this will go back to the drawing board eventually.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
Here are the three additions:
*The asteroid Ceres, which is round, would be recast as a dwarf planet in the new scheme.
*Pluto would remain a planet and its moon Charon would be reclassified as a planet. Both would be called "plutons," however, to distinguish them from the eight "classical" planets.
*A far-out Pluto-sized object known as 2003 UB313 would also be called a pluton.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Pluton politely asks media corporation not to use His name as a generic noun.
The way I teach it in my classes is that there are 4 inner planets, 4 outer planets, and a (large) set of Kuiper Belt objects, of which Pluto is one of the largest and closest members. Why do we need a planetary definition? Historically, any serious attempt to classify natural objects eventually runs into problems anyway, especially when our first attempt includes objects that obviously belong to a number of sub-classes, each of which contains a continuum of members.
Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Pluto
I mean its been that way for years...just classify those other things as whatever you want to call them.
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
scientists will try to define the word "beautiful".
From the Article:
I though Charon was a moon of Pluto
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
Somewhere, Space Fonzie is jumping over an Astro-Shark.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
So how would this definition handle a Rocheworld, like in the book by that name by Robert L. Forward?
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Planet: A celestial object orbiting a star that is massive enough for its own gravity to warp itself into a nearly round, spherical shape. A planet may not be massive enough to initiate thermonuclear fusion. In order for a pair of celestial objects to be considered a double planet, in addition to meeting the forementioned criteria, the barycenter of both objects must be located above their surfaces. Planetary systems orbit a barycenter, or their center of mass. Usually that center of mass is located at the center of the planet, but in the case of Pluto, the gravity of its "moons" pull the barycenter above the surface. As a result, Pluto is perpetually orbiting the center of mass of the planetary system, as illustrated in a chart located in the Wikipedia article. This is why Charon and Pluto are being considered double planets. I think that's the best set of criteria that can be offered. Why is the idea of over 50 planets so abhorent? Why must size and the number of planets be decided arbitrarily? We might as well use Isaac Asimov's mesoplanet suggestion, in which all objects with radii between Ceres and Mercury are mesoplanets, if this is how it is to be decided.
That's already how Pluto is spelled in French. I guess we could refer to small-p plutons for Pluto, Charon and Kuyper objects. And of course 'Pluton', being the eponymous pluton.
"Remember the one where I petition the Almighty for three more planets? That one."
-- Meat Puppets (Classic Puppets - 23. Meltdown)
Charon doesn't actually orbit Pluto. It just remains "behind" Pluto, relative to the sun, over the course of its (and Pluto's) orbit around the sun.
Since Charon doesn't orbit around Pluto, but instead has an orbit just slightly larger than that of Pluto around the sun, it can't really be called a satellite of Pluto's. As such, it satisfies both criteria you listed.
Maybe there should be a show like "American Idol" to decide "who" gets to be a planet.
BB
old geek
....what do they smell like?
Fry: Did you build the Smellescope?
Farnsworth: No, I remembered that I'd built one last year. Go ahead, try it. You'll find that every heavenly body has its own particular scent. Here, I'll point it at Jupiter.
[Fry sniffs.]
Fry: Smells like strawberries.
Farnsworth: Exactly! And now Saturn.
[Fry sniffs.]
Fry: Pine needles. Oh, man, this is great! Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus.
[Fry laughs.]
Leela: I don't get it.
Farnsworth: I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.
Fry: Oh. What's it called now?
Farnsworth: Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you.
That's not to say the definition might not have problems. Using this definition, would ice worlds be more likely to achieve "planet" designation than rock worlds because their components soften and deform at a higher temperature?
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.
Presumably, a satellite of a planet must have its orbit's barycenter lie within the interior of a planet to count as a satellite, which seems somewhat arbitrary. As is pointed out, Pluto and Charon would be planets, a double planet and "plutons" under these definition, though "pluton" will not have an actual formal definition. I think the committee, which had already been disbanded once for not coming up with a workable definition, decided to attempt too much and also address the double planet issue which they've muddled. So I suspect in the IAU vote either this will not pass or it will pass on the votes of the non-solar-system astronomers, who may be sick of all the attention this issue has raised.
If we keep adding planets we'll need a new mnemonic phrase for the kids at school to learn our solar system. Any suggestions?
"if only i had known i would have been a locksmith." -albert einstein
I guess the center of rotation of the Pluto-Charon system is actually above the surface of Pluto, making it a double-planet system? So far so good.
The bit about plutons and dwarf planets is a _lot_ less clear however.
"The IAU proposal suggests (but does not require) that these be called dwarf planets. Pluto could also be considered a dwarf, which the IAU recommends as an informal label.
So to recap: Pluto would be a planet and a pluton and also a dwarf."
So we've gone from the term planet being an indistinct label that we apply to whatever we happen to think deserves it to it being an exact definiton, but added _two_ new indistinct labels that we apply to whatever we happen to think deserves it. To me this doesn't seem like a great deal of improvement.
At least i'm not the only one who thinks this is a bit foobared:
"Boss was bothered by the lack of definitiveness on this and other points.
Boss, along with Stern, was on an IAU committee of astronomers that failed to agree on a definition. After a year, the IAU disbanded that committee and formed the new one, which included the author Dava Sobel in an effort to bring new ideas to the process.
Boss called their proposal "creative" and "detailed" but said it does not hang together as a cohesive argument."
I think whatever definition they finally settle on should be a usefull one once we actually start traveling between solar systems (wishfull thinking.) If we were just coming across the Sol system for the first time we would probably be concerned about the 8 major planets as places for potential habitation, convenient gravity wells and sources of resources. We might care about Pluto and Charon, but i doubt it would be for any practical purpose. We almost certainly wouldn't care about the 20-50 other planets this new definition would add other than as a curiosity.
I'm not sure if there's an easy way to clearly differentiate between the two, but there really ought to be at least two clearly distinct categories, "major planets" and "minor planets" or "planets" and "planetoids" or "dwarf planets."
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Although I thought they'd avoid the issue of Ceres instead of granting it planetary status of any sort.
What about all the other KB objects that are roughly spherical under their own gravity. Are they all going to be called Plutons?
I'm surprised at Charon too, I understand that the centre of gravity of the two is outside either of their masses, but Charon is more of an orbiting hunk of ice and dust and crap than a planet - on its own it'd be very ignorable.
Maybe now the predictions will improve the next level.
It's a b... I mean, it's actually part of a double-planet system, orbiting around a common point in space (unlike all other moons in our solar system). And Ceres is an asteroid with a name, thank you very much.
In answer to your second question, since August 24, if the vote passes.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
(Nor a space station)
It's not orbiting Pluto, but instead a point between itself and Pluto. If the mass of Pluto was higher, so that their common center of gravity was inside pluto, then Chauron whould indeed be a moon.
FRA: STFU GTFO
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
Let's see the good side of things, maybe Ceres with its new status will gain some more interest, *maybe* even enough for it to have the honour to be probed by us. Would surprise me a bit tho.
Edit : seems that there's already a probe destinated to Ceres (among others) nammed Dawn
Edit #2 : yeah I know, you can't actually edit your posts
You just got troll'd!
Yo' momma's so fat, the IAU had to convene to discuss her planetary status!
Planets are a fairly arbitrary categorization by us anyway - why not just use some nice round number - like 1 Meter per second per second of Gravity as an arbitrary cutoff between planets and minor planets?
Plus there's already something called a pluton made of rock - it's a 'floater' in that solidifies before the rest of the molten rock.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Does your quaint little ditty hold if we decide to reclassify the stinkhorn under the genus rosa? I think not.
I find sad that the spectacularly successful Apollo program that America spent so much money on was treated with such disrespect. It went from operational to museum in such a short time that all the knowledge of it was completely buried. What a waste that so little of it was passed to the younger generation of nasa engineers that now they're resorting to raiding museums just to get back to 1969 level technology. It's short-sightedness on a grand scale
If you're going to do science then you have to live with knowledge changing.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
This, unfortunately, is what happens when you try to wrap a scientific definition around a cultural concept. It seems pretty clear that the simplest and most logical option (demote Pluto) was deemed unpalatable to the general public. Which, really, is what this is all about; solar system research will go on the same regardless of what the things are being called. Since the textbooks will be rewritten anyway, why go for such an unwieldy change? No one now cares that Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta were all initially designated as planets before their nature was realized and the term "asteroid" was coined; I suspect that if Pluto were redesignated then its former status would likewise be forgotten in a few decades.
In any case, let's note that this isn't official yet; it will be voted on at the IAU symposium in the next couple of days. Let's hope that enough present have the good sense to send this back to committee.
Back in the olden days we used to call these 'planetoids' which I feel is as good a term as 'dwarf planet' even if it is less formal. Both of them are, however, preferable to 'pluton' which sounds like it is some sort of a subatomic particle. I suppose 'planetoid' smelled to much of computer games, marvel comics and sci-fi novels to pass muster.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
...I can't help but think the textbook publishers must be drooling buckets right now (plus, I wonder if anyone on the committee(s) making this decision have an "interest" in such publishing?)
And don't bother taking that "Oh, these are scientists, they're above such things as pride and avarice!" air, human nature is human nature.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
... because my very earnest mother, who, by the way, just served us nine pickles, is starting to get a little fscking frazzled.
drink beer, and let the water run the mill
Don't you see? They're an astronomers Union. More planets = more jobs for astronomers! :P
:P
It's all part of Bush's reformed science plan. Take all those stem cell scientists and give them telescopes.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
The sun shines
And Pluto orbits
The spray flies as the comet glides
And planets orbit, orbits they're hiding
The IAU smile
And Pluto orbits
The system packs as the commity tracks
And planets orbit, orbits they're hiding
Behind an Astronomers front
Astronomers front - it's a pluton
(to the tune of Eminence Front by The Who - don't ask me why this song jumped into my head while reading the article)
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
I never knew that the barycenter between Jupiter and the Sun was outside of the Sun. I didn't think that Jupiter was big enough. You learn something new every day!
Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
I live on an elliptical planet with an extremely high rate of rotation, you insensitive clod.
But this would make sense. I bet we get even more anomolies when we start getting some serious data on extra-solar planets still.
Corporate sponsorship is running rampant... how did they get naming rights to the 9th planet in the first place?
"When Joseph said unto his father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me." (12:3)
This was covered on the local version of KBBL, and the commentary was spot on:
"These guys are in serious need of a girlfriend."
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Just think of it people. If this resolution passes, every text book, every diorama, every educational video about the solar system in the WORLD will become obsolete. School districts around the world would have to spend thousands of dollars to replace all of that. Not to mention can you believe poor little Timmy, looking like he's about to win the big science fair, when the Judge disqualifies him because "It's 12 planets now Timmy, you only have 9". Think of the tears rushing down poor Timmy's face. Think of it!
Needs an update, then.
At what altitude?
Yeah alright, at the surface, sure, but I think you're missing the point.
The classification of these bodies NEEDS to make some kind of abstract sense to people, since it gives us a "handle" with which to manipulate these thoughts in our minds. It may seem arbitrary, but you'll notice that all the definitions given - out of necessity - are given in terms of things to which we can relate. Spherical (ish), smaller than Mercury, centre of mass outside of the body etc. These are all things we can appreciate as solid criteria rather than abstract, even if they do become fuzzy right at the border; therefore they are not arbitrary definitions, which was rather the point of this re-classification. They allow us to apply labels with some degree of agreed certainty, and then we can move on.
Meta will eat itself
In other news, IAU has proposed that Star Jones no longer be considered as a star. She will be declassified accordingly.
That's sooo Osama bin Laden.
The Englishman Who Landed On A Planet But Lifted-Off From a Pluton
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Better to find a way to restrict the definition to only the very largest bodies in a system - even if the cutoff point is plucked out of thin air. Otherwise the term will be completely divorced from its historical and popular meaning.
Orbjects: noun. contraction of ORBiting oBJECTS (with the repeated B collapsed to a single character). Any object in a solar system that orbits. Focus of such orbit must be another object or center of gravity derived from two or more objects.
Further classification:
Little Orbjects: Wee orbjects that require only a passing flock of waterfowl to achieve escape velocity. Can only contain volcanos, sheep, roses, and possibly a child, tippler, king, or accountant.
Big Orbjects: Orbjects that would require an actual propulsion system including significant amount of reaction mass to achieve escape velocity.
Huge Orbjects: Orbjects whose mass is so great that a human being could not survive its gravitational pull. Or better stated, orbjects that you might have sex with, but wouldn't introduce to your friends.
This is affirmative action at its worse... Can't we just call a rock a rock... and not an autonomous grouping of like minded stones or something....?
...what will mother very tenderly make a jelly sandwich under none of?
Calling Ceres a planet Bode's well.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I have found a good example: 2003 EL61 has a much bigger mass than both Charon and Ceres but its shape is clearly not round: 1960×1520×1000 km!
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
The term "dwarf planet" is actually starting to grow on me. It still keeps Pluto as a planet, for those who absolutely need it to be a planet, but really it IS a demotion to a status equal to the larger asteroids & KBOs. The way I see it, the Solar System has 8 Major Planets (4 terrestrial, 4 gas giants), at least 50 Dwarf Planets (Pluto, Ceres, 2003 UB313, etc) that are round due to self-gravitation, and the non-round objects can still be called Minor Planets. It just adds an intermediate classification between "planet" and "asteroid/minor planet".
There, let's just drop the whole "planet" thing altogether and call them what they are. :)
When they discovered that Uranus had rings, like Saturn, I was so excited that I ran out the front door and announced it VERY loudly to my little brother, at the far end of the driveway, by saying something along these lines: "Hey, they discovered that Uranus has rings!"
It was a classic example of realizing, only too late, that something might have been phrased much differently, or, perhaps, privately...
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus will be called jupitons.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Pluton? Who the heck came up with that? Pluton already has a definition in geology where it is applied to blob-shaped masses of igneous rock that have solidified beneath the surface, such as typical granite intrusions.
And Ceres is going to become a planet? It messes up the traditional order of the long-recognized planets (e.g., Saturn is no longer the 7th planet from the Sun), and its composition is completely different from Pluto and its Kuiper Belt allies.
It's dumb.
Kids can remember 12 planets no problem:
My Very Eager Children Just Showed Us New Planet Called X
or if you want to be technical:
My Very Eager Children Just Showed Us New Planet Called 2003UB313
I for one, am very happy that Ceres is now called a 'planet'. It's a neat little world that will now hold more public interest when Dawn visits it.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Any object as big or bigger than those we can see with the naked eye from Earth is a planet. Any object smaller than that isn't. That's entirely anthropocentric, of course, but so is the need to classify solar system objects in the first place.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
If they want to classify Charon (Pluto's moon) as a planet then
they also need to classify Lunar (EARTH'S MOON!) as one also. Actually
when you get down to it Charon and Pluto are a single double planet, as
are Earth and Lunar. (And don't give me the BS about the location of the
CG between the two bodies, that's just nit picking).
Plutons? Do we really need plutons? Are we naming subatomic particles here? I have a real simple solution:
If they orbit the sun (or any star) they are "planets", incluging moons. Then we can divy them up any way you like from there.
- 7 platonic planets (includes the Moon and Earth)
- 9 classical planets
- 12 major planets (spherical minus moons)
- 4 terrestial panets (5 if including Ceres)
- 4 gas-giant planets
- 41 kuiper planets (kuiper belt objects including pluto)
- ?? moon planets (planets whose primary orbit is not the sun)
Etc. Have a ball! Invent categories to your hearts content, like "3 blue planets": Earth, Uranus and Neptune.
:T:R:A:N:S:
I would do this: rename Pluto and Charon to be Xena and Gabrielle.
Then 2003UB313 could be called Pluto. He's the Roman God of the dead and mining, I'm sure he won't mind moving way out into the Kupier Belt.
Despite the different views on the subject, I'm glad at least there's an educated discussion somewhere. I was flying to NY just a few minutes ago and had to watch Fox News' coverage on this, and believe me, it was typical Fox coverage, complete with idiotic commentary worth absolutely nothing to the viewers. The woman even expressed her desire to see these "smart people" working on "more important problems."
As for the addition of three planets to the solar system, it's hard to say where to draw the boundary. There are many other objects circling around our solar system, some big, some small. We therefore need to come to an agreement to what exactly is called "planet;" thus the discussion.
Hi! I wanted to say that I can't believe 2500 renowned astronomers would come up with that ill-considered, 12 planet proposal. It's horrible! The methodology of planetary designation you have chosen and the results it will entail are pretty awful. I have a proposal for you to vote on. It's very simple:
"There are nine planets in the Solar System: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto".
How simple is that! Sometimes -- as in the weight of the standard kilogram -- a definition is more of a tautology than an expression of some empirical standard. In the case of the nine planets I think that is how you have to go. Call the other bodies planetoids or to be more elegant call them heavenly bodies. Don't trash science with a huge number of asteroids, moons, and Kuiper Belt objects just so you have some meaningless "standard" to fall back on. The planets are the planets and that is good enough for everyone. Even the world's best astronomers! Please submit my proposal for review. Thank you, I do appreciate all your hard work to discover everything there is to know about our world and the massive stretch of space that surrounds it.
Sincerely,
Kevin M. Hebert
Regular Meta Moderators are not more likely to get mod points.
Even though the calculations were done in pre-computer days, a "Planet X" has been suspected due to anomalies in Neptune's orbit unexplained by the other three massive planets. Neptune itself was triumph of Newtonian mechanics having been predicted and discovered in a famous 19th century competition. Pluto is too small to be Planet X. Planet X might be a fifth massive planet. More recently, extensive sky survey projects have been discovering Kuiper belt objects similar to Pluto. There could be dozens of Pluto size objects.
Yeah, I ain't as smart as I pretend to be...
Here's another one:
My Very Eager Mission Control Just Showed Us New Planet Called X
And if you only want 'classic' planets:
My Very Elderly Mother Could Just Speed Up Now
or with more road rage:
Move Very Elderly Man!! Car Just Speed Up Now
or
My Very Expressive Mother-in-law Could Just Shut Up Now
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Wrong tab, you old Luddite :)
A "pluton" is a geologic term for a volcanic deposit made below the earth's surface, compared to volcanic deposits made above the earth's surface. Most granite mountains such as the Sierra Nevada are plutons. The name comes from the Roman god of the underworld. In the early decades of geology there was a fierce debate as to whether rocks were Neptunian (percipitated from water) or Plutonic (volcanic). It turns out there are geologic processes of both kinds- now called sedimentary and igneous.
Since pluton is not a commonly used term, I dont think borrowing it in astronomy will matter too much.
They want their solar system back.
Planet = orbit around star
Moon = orbit around planet
If you must, then apply your "minimum size/mass" requirements afterward, but don't mess with the two rules above... How fu**ing difficult is that?
We're picking up two Class M planets in the system...
I can't recall the BSG naming system...
Marques Johansson
A planet:
1) Orbits the sun.
2) Is massive enough to have cleared out everything else in its orbit, so that it's the only significant body at its distance from the sun.
This would leave us with the current planets through Neptune, and exclude asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects, and comets. I don't think Pluto should be a planet, and definitely not Ceres and Charon.
I wish there were some way that ordinary citizens could make a proposal to the IAU. Anybody have any ideas?
We only want a quiet place to finish working while God eats our brains.
--Bruce Sterling
There are plenty of stupid naming conventions we have already for historical purposes. I mean, what's really the difference between the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean, or the Atlantic Ocean? Nothing... but for historical reasons we have named them as such.
It's the same as Pluto. Yes, technically we can say it doesn't fit a perfect definition, and yes maybe Charon isn't exactly a moon, but FUCK IT. It's pretty obvious from looking at how the plane of Pluto's orbit is vastly different from the other planets that it must have come from elsewhere, but like every adopted or foster child, it's part of the family.
Don't go around and start re-classifying stupid shit like Ceres as a planet. Yes, maybe technically, it could be, but it never has been, and there's no point.
Astronomers, instead of wasting your and our time with this nonsense, go find a new solar system and name everything you want as planets or asteroids, plutons or whatever the fuck you want. The fact that Pluto has been considered a planet for a long time is good enough to just leave it as it is. We're not going to find new planets, this isn't a classification that will cause things to get fucked up, just leave it alright, and start discussions on things that are more relevant.
The wording of the proposed changes is:"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet." Member of the Planet Definition Committee, Richard Binzel says: "Our goal was to find a scientific basis for a new definition of planet and we chose gravity as the determining factor. Nature decides whether or not an object is a planet." According to the new draft definition, two conditions must be satisfied for an object to be called a "planet." First, the object must be in orbit around a star, while not being itself a star. Second, the object must be large enough (or more technically correct, massive enough) for its own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape. The shape of objects with mass above 5 x 1020 kg and diameter greater than 800 km would normally be determined by self-gravity, but all borderline cases would have to be established by observation.
I propose this controversy is solved by forming a committee. It could be called the:
Committee for the Renaming of Astronomical Phenomena
An appropriate acronym for such an important thing.
I for one mourn the loss of our traditional 9 planet system, and with it, "My Very Energetic Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas."
It's not going to be easy making a pneumonic device that includes 2003 UB.
Many Virtuoso English Majors Continued Serving Us Nonsensical Pneumonics. Circa 2003? Doesn't quite flow . . .
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
I would like to protest all this spacial profiling. We do not have a right to apply an arbitrary set of standards to decide who gets to be a planet, and who does not. These heavenly bodies have rights, and we are trampling on them. Once we start applying arbitrary standards, then we've lost morally. Why, with all the threats of meteors in the solar system, we're just asking to be attacked.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
An example that I have given before:
I would define a planet as being an object formed out of an accretion disk of a stellar object (and is thus an adjective of both the disk and the star as well as being baseline to the planet), where that object is gravitationally rounded, has a single core, has well-defined strata and is of a non-uniform composition that is a direct function of the orbit, the type of star and the abundance of the elements in the Universe.
Let's take each of these in turn. It is formed from an accretion disk. In other words, I am saying that if you had asteroids from multiple solar systems plunge together to form a large body (ie: it is formed from multiple disks) OR a failed/collapsed star somehow became small enough (ie: formed from no disks at all), it should NOT be called a planet, no matter how rounded it was.
It also should not be formed from a planetary accretion disk. Those are moons, Star Wars jokes aside.
Gravitational rounding - well, it's gotta be large enough. Planetoid is a good name for anything that meets the rest of the description but fails to meet this.
All comets (and therefore almost anything built from comets) have multiple cores. Ergo, to make sure that comets and cometary objects are completely excluded, you should ban all objects that exhibit a fundamental characteristic of comets.
All meteorites and many asteroids show very uniform composition and/or a lack of strata. They are either congealed lumps that have never seperated out, or they are pulverized remains of such lumps. There is no organized structure and only a subset of elements are present. (The asteroids in the asteroid belt aren't known for their abundance of hydrogen, helium, carbon, oxygen, etc. They are much heavier elements. The lumps of ice in the Kuipier Belt seem to be mostly lighter elements and contain almost nothing that is heavy.)
The eight objects we can all agree on as being planets all meet the definition. (We know the gas giants have highly complex layering, for example, and as all eight rotate evenly rather than tumble, it's a fair bet they all have a single core.)
Objects that cannot be classified (insufficient data) should be marked as planetary candidates and not as planets (or any other object) until there is enough firm data to make such a classification.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Here is my proposal:
Earth and Earth-like ("Class M") planets shall be known as Human planets.
All planets with pointy ears shall be called Elf or Orc planets--depending on whether they are good or evil.
All big rocky planets (turned to stone by their sun, of course) shall be called Troll planets.
But big rocky planets covered with trees shall be called Ent planets.
Little planets shall be called Dwarf planets if they have lots of gems and precious metals.
Little planets consisting primarily of soil fit for growing things shall be called Hobbit planets.
Planets that look like some lab experiment gone wrong shall be called Uruk-Hai planets.
All planets not fitting these criteria shall be named after me, JediGrover! Bow to your new overlord--master of planets!
...your new planets are ready... Ceres........The Bringer of hors d'oeuvres Charon.......The Bringer of guests 2003 UB313...The Bringer of Gabrielle
This would seem to me to be a great thing for Astronomy. It puts more wonder back into our own backyard. This would give people more incentive to peer into their telescopes. Amateur astronomers may now perhaps discover a new planet. Each of these bodies is a place with a surface, horizon, hills, mountains, caves, etc... As many pointed out, it's mainly political anyway. It certainly has no actual effect on the bodies themselves, so why shouldn't 'Planet' refer to an active and growing part of Astronomy? I think naming them and including them would help school children appreciate how vast and interesting the universe is. The idea that there are such a small number of planets in the universe that a school child could memorize them is a rediculous idea anyway. The sooner we're rid of it, the better.
4nd w1|| 74k3 0v3r !!!!
They're always looking for a new word to rhyme with "Klingons".
The definition of a planet should include how it orbits it's star. The Main 8 Planets all orbit in the same direction in the same plane to the sun, therefore they were created in the accretion disk of our sun at the birth of our solar system. Other bodies that orbit the sun but are not in the same plane should not be called planets because they were not massive enough to with stand the start of fusion shockwave that blew away alot of the small debris in the early solar system. Because a stellar body is sphereical does not mean it is a planet, the most common shape for objects in the universe is sphereical.
P3X-2W3 Would be Pluto
P3X-4Z2 Would be Xena
etc etc etc etc
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Peter Griffin Put enough monkeys in a room with a typewriter they'll produce Shakespeare.
Monkey Let's see. "A something by any other name..."
Monkey "Carnation," "peony."
Monkey No, they did that on last week's Marlowe.
Monkey What about "daisy"?
Monkey "Chrysanthemum"!
Monkey "Iris," "rose"? What about "rose"?
Monkey Did you say "rose"?
Monkey Yeah, "rose."
Monkey "Rose" is good!
Monkey "A rose by any other name." That works.
Monkey I like that a lot.
Monkey Moving on.
Monkey What about "tulip"?
Monkey "Rose" is fine. Moving on.
So, what does the Astrologer's Union think of all of this?
This sig is inappropriate in a post-9/11 world.
> The asteroid Ceres, which is round
Well, at least they've put a little bit of brainpower into this -- enough gravity to pull itself into a sphere (and is not in orbit about another planet) = planet. Don't know what the big deal is about hemi-demoting Pluto into "it's still a planet...and a pluton!" I do believe Pluto + Charon count as a double-planet, being their common center of gravity is outside either, but is Charon also round?
What about a tiny planet at the borderline, just barely able to pull itself into a ball, but with a large moon that can't quite do that, but the center of gravity is outside either?
Planet? Pluton? Double planet? Planet with moon? M****r f***** I hate thinking!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
How do plutons manage to stay so fetchingly slim? Simple: as you can tell from their name, they're actually a kind of elementary particle. A big kind, to be sure, but an elementary particle nonetheless. What do you think plutonium is made of? Obviously not protons, because then it would have to be called protonium. No, plutonium is made of plutons -- smaller plutons than Pluto, but still plutons.
Of course, everyone knows that elementary particles can't be as big as real planets. So that's how they stay slim: it's genetic, so to speak. As for what they want: they like to hang around bigger planets because they hope someday to become a real planet, just like Pinocchio wanted to become a real boy. So there's no need to be afraid of plutons, unless one tries to merge with your planet.
I just can't believe the audacity of these activist scientists trying to change the definition of "planet".
The plutocrats.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Charon is large enough that it doesn't orbit around Pluto, Pluto and Charon orbit around a common point in the space between them.
This is similar to Earth and the Moon, except that the Moon is small enough that the "common point" is beneath the surface of the Earth.
Clear, Dark Skies
science doesn't fit people's social convenience.
They aren't "trashing science" by coming up with a definition that fits the phenomena; "trashing science" would be trying to force reality to conform with your preconceived notions of "how it should look".
Clear, Dark Skies
Titan and Jupiter are double planets.
Clear, Dark Skies
The difference between a "pebble" and a "boulder" isn't tangible.
"Pebble" has a formal scientific definition of small alluvial material from 4 to 64 mm diameter. "Boulders" are more than 256 mm diameter. Assuming the piece is a standard stony material such granite, drop a pebble of granite on your left toe and a boulder of granite on your right. I believe you will quite clearly note tangible, tactile differences. You might also try carrying a boulder in your back pocket and a pebble in a front pocket in your pants, or the other way around, if your are insecure with your girlfriend. Whenever you try sitting I again suspect you will note "tangible" differences.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
The thing about Ceres being "promoted" is actually more interesting to me than having Pluto downgraded. I never realized Ceres was large enough to be a sphere.
Clear, Dark Skies
only for hysterical raisins.
Clear, Dark Skies
This is really absolute and total Bull Crap!!!!
Most of my fellow cube mates are like why would I be so pissed - but this is the heart of it - they have frickkin' compromised serious science for social and monetary gain.
Socially they have succumb to the pressure to keep Pluto an important object, while at the same time they have sold us out for the prospect of extra funding and projects.
What's so very sad about all this is - in an age of surprising scientific illiteracy - they blew this very public opportunity to show science at it's best - and how it can be properly used to fine tune our knowledge and understanding of complex phenomena in the universe.
Demoting Pluto would have sent the message that science was not dogmatic but rather dynamic and that persuing good science (and scientific method) was a journey filled with wonder, progress, and adventure.
Instead they have just proven that yet another "so called" scientific institution is still subject to the same social manipulation and corruption as readily seen in any Human government.
This is the same road the AMA followed a long time ago making them an ineffectual and even dangerous organization.
When will we finally learn to take a different road for our future generations?
"2003 UB313" has had several proposed names - Xena was the internal name before they formally announced its discovery. Disney/Pixar had better leave it alone unless they want to be on the receiving end of some neo-classical whoopass....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
So if the sun excerts such a pull on the moon when its orbit goes between the Earth and the sun, would it make sense to launch rockets from Earth to take advantage of the extra pull from the sun + moon to cut down on fuel needed to launch?
Or do they do this already?
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
there is a lot of noise about this topic, but is it all that important.
These objects have been there millions of years before us and will likely still be there after we've blown ourself up.
And now suddenly it's like the human race would have the right of life or death over these objects by "granting" them the title of planet or not.
Whatever the human race will call them, it won't change their nature ! Why do we always have to classify things to such an extreme.
Funny enough ! If these objects could talk !
I'm more disturbed by your defence than the admission- why are you keeping track of how hard you laughed at stupid jokes when you were thirteen?
This must be some British twit problem- Oh forgive me, forgive me for laughing out loud! An egregious faux-pais, indeed! I contain my amusement to low-pitched chuckles and snorts of amusement, now! Jolly good.
Pluto is still a planet.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
At 1.5 inches per year, after 1 billion years, it would be about 15,000 farther out from earth.
The moon is around 250,000 miles away from the earth currently (or about 30 times the earth's diameter).
Would annother 15k miles really make so much difference that it would move the center of gravity outside of the definition?
A pluton is already a solidified magma intrusion. Calling little planets "plutons" is just silly.
Way to confuse planetary Geologists.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Hi,
it is possible that today (August 24th 2006) will IAU issue the final decision. Visit Live broadcasting announcement portal to tune up live transmission from Prague.
MK