Slashdot Mirror
Astronomer Finds Potential Furthest Object In Solar System
Prominent astronomer Dr Scott Sheppard, of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington D.C., has discovered a new object in the distant reaches of our solar system and given it the name FarFarOut. "At 140 times further away from the sun than our own planet is, the newly identified body -- if its discovery is confirmed -- will become the furthest known object in our solar system," reports The Guardian. Sheppard's discovery was made after his team was analyzing astronomical data to track down Planet Nine, a yet-to-be-discovered body thought to have 10 times the mass of Earth. From the report: Sheppard said he made the discovery of FarFarOut when a lecture he was due to give on his team's work was postponed and he went back to analyzing his data. He said FarFarOut was somewhat mysterious. "It is very faint; it is on the edge of our ability to detect it," Sheppard said. "We don't know anything about the orbit of this object, we just know it is far, far out." Sheppard said further observations were in the offing to shed more light on the find. The current record holder -- a dwarf planet at 120 times the Earth-sun distance -- was named merely FarOut when it was spotted by the same team in December last year.
The first Planet Nine was Ceres, and it was demoted again after the discovery of lots of objects in what we call now the Asteroid belt. Then in 1931, Pluto was promoted a planet because for some time, no one found other objects that far out that weren't moons of Neptune. And then suddenly, the number of objects discovered around Pluto increased, and Pluto wasn't even the largest of them (Ceres on the other hand is the largest object in the Asteroid belt). Thus Pluto shared the fate of Ceres and got demoted from planetary status again.
We should have kept the original definition of planets: sky objects that move against the stellar background, hence the greek name 'planetos', wanderer. Then we would have to include for instance Barnard's star or Proxima Centauri into the definition, and Sun and Moon would be planets too.
The definition of a Planet is arbitrary, as there is no clear cut-off between white dwarfs, planets, comets, asteroids and space debris. All of them circle larger objects which radiate energy from nuclear fusion, but don't have nuclear fusion themselves. Whatever definition you come up with, it will be arbitrary again, and lots of people like you will complain and find holes or apparent holes in that definition.
But the most useless definition of planets is "planets are objects we call planets". And that's what you are promoting with your insistence on the planetary status of Pluto.