So, after Sedna, Quaoar, 2004DW, and 2003EL61 (spotted yesterday), there's now yet another candidate with the highly descriptive designation of 2003UB313 in the running for Planet-X status, and as usual the discussion about what a planet should be has flared up once more, leading me to conclude (and I'm positive no-one else has thought of this) that it might be a good idea to reach a consensus on the term before we catalog the rest of the Pluto-sized crap hiding at the edges of the solar system, because of such crap there evidently is a whole lot. (Astronomers say.)
Also, this is neat.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
People have been contesting Pluto AS a planet ever sicne they found it 75 years ago. Unlike the four gas giants and four rocky inner worlds, Pluto, Sedna, Quaoar and these two new worlds are composed mostly of stellar leftovers, mostly ice, are not geologically active, and occupy noncircular orbits. Back when Pluto was discovered, there wasn't any real way to classify planets in the first place except size; now, most scientists are thinking that planets should be classified more on what they're made of rather than size. Some once said that since it was large enough to have a moon, it ought to be a planet; but since then we've discovered irregular-shaped asteroids with "moonlets" of their own too.
Then there's stuff like the moons of the gas giants (Titan, Io, Europa, Tethys...), many of which are larger and more geologically active than Pluto and its bretheren, and in many respects are closer to the rocky inner planets than them. And let'snot forget the asteroids in the belt, some of which are larger than these outer iceballs.
The upshot of this is that the traditional definition of "planet" needs to be looked at. There are going to be dozens or HUNDREDS of bodies the size of Pluto or larger, way out there in the Oort cloud. Are they planets? No more than Pluto is.
I think that Pluto can't really be called a planet like the eight inner ones. But HOW the classification works out will be in the hands of a bunch of rocket scientists that are way smarter than we are.
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, it should be size-based. Otherwise we may (eventually) find small bodies wth the characteristics of what is deemed a "planet" (they could find an asteroid with peculiar geoligical features for example).
So...I just read that the team announcing the discovery has unoffically dubbed the planet "Xena" after that silly TV show. Once again, my faith in the utter stupidity of mankind is solidified.
Really, if this name sticks, the people responsible should be neutered to prevent any future generations from suffering their stupidity at a genetic level.
[ July 30, 2005, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Original posted by Houston Chronicle: Brown said they had a name they have proposed for the planet, but did not want to disclose it publicly until it had been formally approved by the International Astronomical Union. "We have a name we really like, and we want it to stick," he said.
Informally, the astronomers have been calling it "Xena" after the television series about a Greek warrior princess, which was popular when the astronomers began their systematic sweep of the sky in 2000. "Because we always wanted to name something Xena," Brown said.
The real name of the planet/planetoid/Discovery is pending. I read on another site that I can't find at the moment that it's also unofficially known as Lila, after one of the discoverer's first-born daughter. Personally, I hope they name it Discordia.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I really want to send the entire search team to live on this new incredibly cold world... "because they really wanted to name something Xena".
Discordia would be a intresting name, but I'd prefer "Nix" (Night), "Echo", "Hades" or "Anything except that cunt Xena".
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Gabrielle?
Ohh, can we have a link to this new planetoid/oort cloud object?
I'd gather they'd continue along the Native American route like Quaoar and Sedna.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
About the only pictures there are of it show it as a barely-moving white dot.
You know, a massive write-in campaign prompted NASA to name the first space shuttle Enterprise. Think we can lobby the International Astronomical Union to rename all the planets for the Star Trek actors? Imagine: we could live on a planet named Shatner.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
His ego is already that large, thank you.
Really, I dont think any TV show shoud be considered for such a permanant name. Stick with greek mythology- that way the planets have a theme of sorts.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Sorry, I didn't notice the links - I seem to pass over quoted material!
Thanks for the links, though.
Well the Moons or Uranus are named after characters from Shakespeare - what about naming them after - I dunno, characters from The Lord of the Rings? Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Stick with greek mythology- that way the planets have a theme of sorts.
Roman mythology. And Discordia seems oddly appropriate considering how it's throwing into chaos the definition of a "planet".
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: His ego is already that large, thank you.
And so is his body.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
I'm with Douglas Addams - name it Rupert.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krenim: And Discordia seems oddly appropriate considering how it's throwing into chaos the definition of a "planet".
Thank you, someone got my joke. I've also heard some people on other message boards toss around Proserpina tossed around as another option, which would make the two outer planets the rulers of the underworld.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I got the joke, it just seems an odd choice for a name- it is larger than Pluto after all: hardly a golden apple.
Moons are good for Shakespere nmaes, but planets...?
Naah.
I'm thinking Hades as a name...though it seems wrong for it to be so far from Persephone (though -sort of -close to Charon, I suppose).
Mabye Thetis? If it has a moon, they could name it Achilles. That works for me.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I already suggested Proserpina many years ago, when someone thought they'd found something huge out in the Oort cloud. I guess nothing ever came of that.
And, Jason, Hades = Pluto.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I got the joke, it just seems an odd choice for a name- it is larger than Pluto after all: hardly a golden apple.
It's size is precisely why it is a golden apple. Pluto is only considered a planet today because astronomers were really ignorant about the outer solar system when it was discovered. We know now there are countless objects out there, similar in composition to Pluto and about the same size. 2003 UP313 is simply the first one found that is bigger than Pluto. There could be many others. This discovery should actually be considered more proof that we only have eight planets, not ten or more.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Roman mythology."
Well, since the Romans unashamedly stole it all from the Greeks anyway, maybe the planets should be renamed to their corresponding Greek mythology figures, which would have the added benefit that my choice (Kerberos, being the guardian of both the underworld and the shittiest neighborhood in the system) would fit right in with Hermes, Aphrodite, Gaia, Ares, Zeus, Cronos, Ouranos, Poseidon, and Hades. B)
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
My joke was more along the lines of the discord that is sure to erupt about whether to classify Pluto and "Xena" as planets or as planetoids. And Discordia is the Roman goddess of strife, so it'd be in keeping with the "use Roman gods and goddesses for the Sol Sytem planets except for Earth" theme that's currently going on.
One of my (Trekkie) friends thinks we ought to use Vulcan, which was once proposed for an imaginery planet between the sun and Mercury in the mid- to late- 1800s. I'm not so sure using the Roman god of volcanoes for a distant, icy chunk of rock is a good use of the name.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, I'm just not a fan of the lousy Romans glomming Greek mythology for their own use. Charon is Greek though, so there is an odd amount of crossover.
I still like Nix for something the sun barely reaches.
Anything but a TV show.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Charon is Greek though, so there is an odd amount of crossover.
If I remember correctly, the names of almost all the major natural satellites in the solar system are named for figures in Greek mythology. Io, Thebe, Phobos, Deimos, Charon, Ganymede, Amalthea, etc. I'm not sure if they have counterparts in Roman mythology, though.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think the Romans just ripped off the major gods- saves money on all those re-used statues and temples after all, and the rOmans were pragmatic...at first anyhow.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Deimos and Phobos do (Fuga and Timor), BUT THEY STOLES THEM FROM US.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Osirus.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I vote for Yuggoth- as long as we're pulling names out of fiction, I say we use Lovecraft and spook everyone out. Particularly the nuts that believe the Necromonicon is a real book that Lovecraft based his stories on...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
How about Andor/ia? Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Jerk Planet #2 I Don't Care What You Eggheads Think World Weekend At Bernie's
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
How about we go politicaly correct and just name it "Fuck Allah". Boy, that'll go over like a pay toilet in a diarrhea ward.
Sure would spice up the science journals though. Imagine the cover of Discover: the #1 story of the year is Fuck Allah. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Jason: Latin for "night" is "nox". "Nix" is a word for "snow". Though, in a way, that still works. And far be it from me to object to a planet called "Nix".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...I'm at work (and away from my mythology texts) so I defer to your judgment.
Either sounds cool, though "Nox" sounds like those goofty Stargate aliens..
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Hell, why don't we just put the naming rights for the new planet/planetoid/whatever on eBay?
Oh, right. It'd likely be named GoldenPalace.com in that case.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Planet "F-F-F-fuckin' FREEZIN'!"
The search team should start a rumor that the planet is made of oil- then we'd actually send a probe to investigate it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You are the Erik the Red of your generation.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or he was the Jason Abbadon of his generation. Ever think of that, pallie?
Yeah, me neither.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The more we study the Oort Cloud the more of these things we're gonna find. I think we should stop now before we end up with a Solar System with 1,973 planets. And downgrade Pluto's status while we're at it. Of course, if they want to call it Tallulah I probably won't object.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My vote is for Kukalakka.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I have a suggestion for a name. How about Angerona, the goddess of the winter solstice? She was an ancient Roman goddess whose portrait was that of a woman pressing a finger against her mouth for silence. December 21 marked the holiday for this goddess.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Brown is one of the discoverers of the object, and this site has his thoughts on what qualifies as a planet, as well as some hints about what the name of the object will be.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It's good that they are *finally* going to put this issue to rest, but people are going to be arguing about the result for the next couple of generations. Any idea about what time they're going to announce it?
B.J.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
According to the program book available for download at the IAU site, it looks like the "definition of planet" stuff takes place on August 22.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Just to chip in with my 2�... one thing that occurred to me several years ago is, what would any hypothetical extraterrestrial intelligence think if they received a map of, or else discovered and were mapping, our solar system? Which objects would they consider significant?
For example, since everyone's making a fuss over Pluto, I wonder what any aliens might think if they ever find the Pioneer 10 plaque and start looking for a system with nine planets, when they should only be looking for eight. Aliens might not consider Pluto at all significant because it's much smaller and is essentially a glorified asteroidal comet.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Kind of reminds me of when one of the mapmakers left out the state of Oklahoma. (By forgetting to draw the borderline between it and Texas). If so-called PROFESSIONALS can't get it right.....
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
To me, the most scientific choice (and hence the one I think spacegoing extraterrestrials would choose) is the third definition. All the current planets except for Pluto are dominant in their region of the solar system (and I think "dominant" is defined as having more mass than everything else combined, but I'm not positive). Furthermore, the astronomical community already has prescendent for this definition (i.e. the downgrading of Ceres, etc.).
However, I'd bet the IAU decides to go with the arbitrary first definition, if only because they think that the public at large wouldn't understand Pluto's downgrade.
EDIT: Does anyone know if they're taking care of establishing the upper range of planets (i.e. where gas giants like Jupiter end and things like brown dwarfs begin)?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Or they might think "Holy flurking schnit! They destroyed one of their own planets - these are not people we want to mess with."
I wonder. . . what will be the implications for society (as it were) if we go back to 8 planets? I mean, would the switch be as accepted as the switch from eight to nine a century ago? Would the Solar System seem smaller?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I imagine the media would make a big fuss for a few days and then it'd die down and most people would forget.
Not to mention the fact that it's unlikely everyone will go out and buy new, updated space books, so it'd probably be some time before the idea of Pluto not being a planet really sinks in on a large scale.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I think the public at large isn't even aware there's a debate. My son, who's in 1st grade now, learned about the "Nine Planets" last year in kindergarten, which was after this mess started. We knew several years ago that we no longer have exactly nine, but we didn't know whether that number would increase or decrease.
As for the Solar System seeming smaller if we go to eight, I don't think so. There's a lot more to learn about now than there ever was before.
B.J.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No doubt the Daily Mail will cause a big stink, debating what effect the loss will have on house prices, and likely blaming either illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, Cherie Blair, or Europe. "They come over here, downgrading our planets' statuses. . ."
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee:
I wonder. . . what will be the implications for society (as it were) if we go back to 8 planets? I mean, would the switch be as accepted as the switch from eight to nine a century ago? Would the Solar System seem smaller?
Like....could you go back to your 7th grade science teacher and triumphantly exclaim "SEE! I WAS right after all!....EIGHT!"
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
They could call our rack a jar and it wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of the motions of our 'great' soceity. So removing Pluto as a planet, most likely, won't mean a thing to the general populace.
If it had a zip code then the mail could get screwed up for a century or two till they got it back together.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(recycling my IM logs)
1.) Gas balls with fusion. 2.) Gas balls without fusion. 3.) Rocks.
Addendum upon posting: Were someone to actually propose such a minimalistic rubric, 4.) or perhaps 3a.) Rocks with atmospheres, would probably be useful. (Though where does one draw the line between it and 2?)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Why can't they just use an asterix and call pluto both a KBO and a planet.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What will the creationists say?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
An Asterix? Of what use would a short, blonde Gaul with a big moustache be?
--Jonah
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt are probably great sources of raw material for menhirs?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yeah, but Asterix wouldn't care about those, would he?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
No, but Obelix would, and Asterix would want to make sure that his friend was happy.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
IF atmosphere is used as a basis, what would you do with a situation like Endor in Star Wars? A habitable moon orbiting a gas giant? Planet and Mini-Planet?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"An Asterix? Of what use would a short, blonde Gaul with a big moustache be?"
He could hurl Cacofonix to Pluto. I know Chief Vitalstatistix would approve it. Unhygenix, too.
Again, Siegfried summarizes nicely:
In other space news, Pluto is likely to remain a planet. The Big Get-Together of Astronomy Dudes and Dudettes is going to create a new category for Pluto, "Xena", and (possibly) Ceres. In essence, the solar system set up a kid's table and told Pluto to "go mind the kids". No word yet if Pluto is going spit on the next Thanksgiving turkey in retaliation. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Bah - asterisk! LOL! Sorry about that. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I just heard a report on the radio that said they'd decided, rather than to exclude Pluto, to be more inclusive. So the official definition of a planet (put loosely, one with sufficient gravity to be round) now allows for Pluto. . . And Xena. . . And Ceres. . . And, also, bizarrely, Charon (Pluto's moon). Surely the definition should exclude planets not actually in orbvit around the sun?
So, fear not, we're not down to eight planets, we're up to twelve. With more on the way. We've gone from living in the Mirror Universe, to living in the Firefly 'verse!
(I tried to find a news report online, but all I found was that Bruno Kirby has just died of Leukaemia. That's sad. Perhaps they should name a planet after him)
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
This is just the proposal for the definition. It hasn't been voted on just yet, but seeing as its the only proposal, I'd wager it's just a matter of time.
quote:From the IAU website: 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.
However, in all of ten seconds, I have discovered a fatal flaw in this definition.
quote:From the IAU website: For two or more objects comprising a multiple object system, the primary object is designated a planet if it independently satisfies the conditions above. A secondary object satisfying these conditions is also designated a planet if the system barycentre resides outside the primary. Secondary objects not satisfying these criteria are "satellites". Under this definition, Pluto's companion Charon is a planet, making Pluto-Charon a double planet.
Ergo, because the Pluto-Charon center-of-mass lies outside Pluto, Charon technically orbits the Sun.
Now follow this logic:
The Sun-Jupiter center-of-mass lies outside the Sun. Therefore, Jupiter does not orbit the Sun. Therefore, Jupiter is not a planet.
Pluto (the primary) satisfies A and B, so is called a planet.
Charon (the secondary) satisfies A, but not B, yet is designated as if it also satisfies B because of extra condition C, so is called a planet as well.
Thus we have the weird definition that a planet is any object for which the expression (A && (B || C)) or equivalently ((A && B) || (A && C)) [where the second operand is obviously out of place] evaluates to true. Someone at the IAU needs a course in basic propositional logic...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You know, I think what the IAU definition is supposed to imply is that it depends on how you define the "primary" and "secondary" objects in a system. The primary gets called a planet if (A && B) is true, but the secondary only if ((A && B) && C) is true, if I'm interpreting "a secondary object satisfying these conditions is also designated a planet if the system barycentre resides outside the primary" right. But by that logic, Charon shouldn't be a planet, while the IAU says it is in the same passage... ARGH.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
You're right. Charon (the secondary) does not satisfy these conditions, because it is not in orbit around a star (condition B). But perhaps what they mean is that Charon ISN'T in orbit around Pluto, they're both orbiting around a point in space (the barycentre).
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And, to add further brilliance - this idea, that a planet needn't orbit the sun per se but could join similar planets in orbiting around a central point/external barycentre (which itself orbits the sun) makes the multi-planet system in Firefly a lot more possible! I'd like to see Balaam have another crack at his 'verse map in these terms. . .
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Meh, the only reason that Charon isn't orbiting Pluto entirely is because Pluto is too damn small to hold its own position. The reason they both orbit a barycenter is probably because Pluto got knocked out of position when it captured Charon.
THEY'RE ALL JUST DAMN PLANETOIDS, DAMMIT!
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Meh, the only reason that Charon isn't orbiting Pluto entirely is because Pluto is too damn small to hold its own position. The reason they both orbit a barycenter is probably because Pluto got knocked out of position when it captured Charon.
Incorrect. The barycenter is just a fancy way of saying "center-of-gravity". The barycenter is outside of Pluto because Pluto isn't much bigger than Charon.
Which brings me back to my point: If Charon is now considered a planet because the Pluto-Charon barycenter is outside Pluto, shouldn't Jupiter be considered, uh, something else because the Sun-Jupiter barycenter is outside the Sun?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Interesting side note - Ceres was originally called a planet after its discovery in 1801 until about 1850. What caused astronomers to change their minds was simply the discovery of more asteroids� a lot more.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Yipe! Did anyone notice on this page (last question at the bottom) that if this passes as-is, we would have 12 planets to start with, and possibly 24 total that we know of today? Those last 12 aren't being immediately passed (several are larger than Ceres) I think because we don't yet know enough about them to be sure.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yep. Pluto was called a planet because they thought it was unique. Now it's obviously not unique. But now, astronomers seem to be going in the opposite direction.
I have to say I'm disappointed and annoyed, but not surprised, to see the IAU trying to keep Pluto's status as a planet. I'm just really shocked they want to consider Ceres a planet again, too. That's just crazy talk!
My dad asked an interesting rhetorical question as an analogy for this issue: "Just what marks the difference between a child and an adult?"
Also, to all those nutcases who want to keep Pluto as a planet because it's the only planet discovered by an American, I'd like to point out that Oog the Caveman, who lived in the vicinity of Nome, Alaska, was actually the first to notice the planet we now call Mars. Except that he called it Oogaboog.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Personally, I've always considered Pluto & Charon to be trojan planets. But I'm weird.
if I were on the naming board for the IAU, I would totally submit names from Firefly.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I have to say I'm disappointed and annoyed, but not surprised, to see the IAU trying to keep Pluto's status as a planet. I'm just really shocked they want to consider Ceres a planet again, too. That's just crazy talk!
I think you've summed up my position pretty well, too. I was really expecting that they would adopt the first of the three suggestions, that would make everything bigger than Pluto a planet, so that we would have a total of ten right now. But I never imagined that they'd go with the second suggestion (the "roundness" one)! Take it from me, I'm a science teacher! Kids can't even remember nine planets, let alone dozens!
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I say the Sol-Jupiter system either doesn't count because the sun is not a planet -- it is the system's star, or else Sol-Jupiter co-orbit a barycentre, Jupiter being essentially a Brown Dwarf (failed) star, and this is really a binary system, like so many others.
--Jonah
P.S. Given that the Sol-Jupiter barycentre is probably inside the orbit of Mercury, it'd probably be more accurate to say that Jupiter orbits Sol, but is sufficiently massive to make Sol wobble.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: if I were on the naming board for the IAU, I would totally submit names from Firefly.
Except that the most likely candidates to fit in the current naming scheme (Ariel, Miranda, etc.) are already moons.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
The Sol-Jupiter barycenter is just outside Sol. The point I'm trying to make is that if we start defining whether or not a secondary object is considered an equal or subordinate based upon whether the barycenter is within the primary object or not, then Jupiter becomes... Well, I don't know what Jupiter would be. Sub-brown dwarf maybe? But it would be considered a celestial object in the same "weight class" as Sol.
And for the record, I'm not for considering Jupiter as such. It's still nowhere close to achieving nuclear fusion, it'd have to be about 13 times its current mass to do so. It's just that I'm really against the barycenter reasoning behind Charon's proposed status.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
After reading that FAQ, my head is still spinning.
Man, the aliens that find those solar maps on Pioneer and Voyager are gonna think we're REALLY stupid, now...
Mark
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Oh, I think quite a few could work well, OTM. Saturnian moons seem to be gettin Inuit & Norse names, asteroids are named after whatever the discoverer likes (hence Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, & Starr), & Bellerophon & Osiris are only unofficial names for extrasolar planets. There's still Hera, Paquin, Sihnon, Triumph, whitefall. Hell, they haven't even touched the Chinese pantheon yet; I'd love to see a planet named Jian Lao, Ma-mian (the bureaucrat of the underworld) or even my favorite & patron Kuan Yin.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Lychee, Kung Pao, Sum Yung Guy. . .
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Honda, M. Bison, Chun-Li...
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Seems that the definition proposed earlier this week isn't very popular amongst the astonomers in Prague, either. A second definition has now been proposed that requires a planet be far larger than anything else in a similar orbit. The second definition also does away with the term "pluton", which I can't say I cared for.
However, the second proposal still proposes things such as Pluto (and who knows what else) be called "dwarf planets". I find my own position softening a bit on this. I wouldn't be opposed to things big enough to be round but not dominant enough in their orbits to be a planet getting their own category. I just don't like the word "planet" being in the name of that category.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Just call them "earths" like Malcolm Reynolds did & be done with it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
On the last page is the final draft version of the resolutions. The original resolution was so unpopular that major concessions were made. It was also split into several resolutions. The vote is tomorrow.
I imagine 5A and 6A will pass with little trouble. I doubt 5B will pass (I share the "against" opinion below the resolutions). I also like 6B, but I don't know whether it'll pass or not.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
You'll always be a planet in my heart.(Single Tear)
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
So long, Pluto. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nachos?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
More powerful than a Death Star....the IAU Resolution!
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Oh well, I'll scrub Julio �ngel Fern�ndez from my Christmas card list. Seems a bit silly to me revoking Pluto's planetyness after 76 years. Inconsequential as it is, it does seem a bit unfair.
EDIT: I also can not help but wonder if the new qualifiers were accepted simply because they remove Pluto from its status. The actual wording of the convention is more than a little ambiguous. As far as I can work out, apart from it's orbit, Pluto has not 'cleared its orbit'. But it seems that by this definition, Earth and Jupiter are not planets (shitloads of small lumps of rock in their proximity), and probably this aplies to all the other planets.
Would it not have been simpler for them just to have a vote thus: 'Should Pluto be considered a planet?', rather than going to all the effort of creating a new category of celestial objects with such a wishywashy definition? I hate office politics.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
FUCK.
STILL A PLANET TO ME, YO. KUIPER BELT FO' LYF DAWWWG!!
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: EDIT: I also can not help but wonder if the new qualifiers were accepted simply because they remove Pluto from its status. The actual wording of the convention is more than a little ambiguous. As far as I can work out, apart from it's orbit, Pluto has not 'cleared its orbit'. But it seems that by this definition, Earth and Jupiter are not planets (shitloads of small lumps of rock in their proximity), and probably this aplies to all the other planets.
Would it not have been simpler for them just to have a vote thus: 'Should Pluto be considered a planet?', rather than going to all the effort of creating a new category of celestial objects with such a wishywashy definition? I hate office politics.
I've been watching this whole planet thing for quite some time, and it seems to me that it wasn't an "anti-Pluto lobby" that did in Pluto.
Granted, as much as I disagreed with the idea of a planet being defined solely by its shape, it was at least a good attempt at a real scientific definition.
When the IAU committee came up with its first definition draft, it did so pretty much in secret and did not take into account a lot of things. Geologists were outraged about the use of the term "pluton". The committee on exoplanets were outraged that they were not consulted. The part of the first draft concerning double planets and barycenters was pointed out to be faulty in the case of satellites with highly elliptical orbits.
But most of all, I just don't think many of the astronomers could wrap their heads around admitting objects like Ceres and Charon to planethood, or the possibility of having over 50 planets. Therefore, the other definition based on good science, that of a planet clearing its orbit, was brought in. There was no way to include Pluto without including Ceres and Charon, except by going with an arbitrary and unscientific definition (like imposing a size limit).
And I'll admit that "clearing its orbit" is kind of vague. I don't think any planet has utterly and completely cleared its orbit. But if you add up the masses of everything that crosses Earth orbit, including the Moon, you still don't get anywhere near the mass of the Earth. Similarly, Jupiter's mass is much much bigger than all the Trojan asteroids combined. Heck, Jupiter's mass is bigger than everything in the solar system (excluding Sol) combined. Neptune's mass is much bigger than everything else that crosses its orbit (and that includes Pluto) combined. Pluto is disqualified first and foremost by the fact that it crosses Neptune's orbit and is way way smaller than Neptune, and secondly by the fact that its orbit is crossed by many similarly-sized Kuiper Belt objects.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
"The committee on exoplanets were outraged that they were not consulted."
Why? If you'll notice, this definition only applies to the Solar System, not to any other star systems.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: Why? If you'll notice, this definition only applies to the Solar System, not to any other star systems.
Compare the first version of the resolution with the ones that were passed. You'll see that the first version refers to objects that go around stars in general, while the one that was passed refers only to the Sun. It was this first version that the exoplanet guys were awfully angry about. To see what I'm talking about, go watch the video I posted earlier in this thread.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yeah, the orbital plane bullshit is just that.
That video was sweet. I didn't watch it, but I listened. All we needed was Jason Lee standing up & saying "What's a Nubian?"
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I think that we should start calling the sun Sol. And then rename the closest habitable solar system Helios. And start naming the planets after the greek versions of our own. So its Helios the sun, then Hermes, Aphrodite, *Earth is already greek! Quick, call it Terra like Roman!*, Aries, Zeus, Cronos, I don't think Uranus changes, Poseidon, Hades. W00ber.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Saturn becomes Cronos & Uranus would be Coelus. Earth is not Greek, but Gaia is.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And if the closest habitable system doesn't have nine planets? What then, eh? EH?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
And that's what we call full circle, folks.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Is there really anything to this "Pluto should/should not stay a planet because it's the only one discovered by an American" thing?
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
MinutiaeMan's the only one I've heard suggest that.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
It wasn't mentioned here, I don't think, but I read in one or two places that there were people arguing for Pluto's status as a planet out of nationalistic jingoism. Hence my comment.
I'm definitely happy with this decision, myself. I was going to post a long-winded explanation of why all the quibbling about "a planet must clear its orbit" is reasonable and logical, but Krenim already did that for me. It's simply an issue of mass.
Now, all we need to do is find some way to recall Pioneer 10 so we can swap out its plaque... Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
From Livejournal:
SCENE: a dingy, gray-green office in a run-down inner-city police precinct building circa 1973. CAPTAIN SOL, a large, sweaty, loud black guy, is harassing DETECTIVE PLUTO, a thin-lipped, flint-eyed wiry hardass in a gray suit.
SOL: I don't LIKE you, Pluto! You're a loose cannon! You don't play by the book! You're outta control! Your orbit is elliptical and mysterious. I HATE "mysterious!"
PLUTO (taking a long, slow drag on an unfiltered cigarette): What are you saying, chief? You want me off the Xena case? If you ask me, that icy bitch had it coming...
SOL: I'm saying your license has been revoked, detective. Commissioner Terra wants your badge and your gun on my desk.
(PLUTO stands up and drops his badge on the desk dismissively. He reaches for his police-issue revolver and pulls it, tension on his face--but places it next to his badge, scowling.)
SOL: And the other gun.
(PLUTO reaches beneath his equator and withdraws a smaller revolver, putting it on the desk.)
PLUTO: You tell the Commisioner from me...he can cram this one sideways 'till the barrel reaches his molten core.
SOL: GET OUTTA MY OFFICE, PLUTO!
(PLUTO strides purposefully out of the precinct, "wokka-chikka-wokka-chikka" 1970's "cop movie" music following him out onto the street where the writer suddenly loses all interest in continuing the story. PLUTO is suddenly struck by a cable car that has the words "LOL SCIENCE" written on the side.)
THE END Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
HEY GUYS I AM STILL BELIEVING IN THE �THER AM I RIGHT?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
PRAGUE, Czech Republic - Leading astronomers declared Thursday that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.
After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930. The new definition of what is � and isn't � a planet fills a centuries-old black hole for scientists who have labored since Copernicus without one.
I bet it was the Gas Giant lobby that did poor Pluto in.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)