Animals
Health
Environment
Technology
History
Strange News
Space & Astronomy
Society
Astronomers continue to wrangle over a proposal to define the term “planet,” one they can at least agree to vote on Thursday at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.
But the latest rendition, a third try that seems to be a melding of the first two and which would demote Pluto to dwarf status, was presented earlier today and “shot down in flames again,” a source tells me. “The IAU is now working on a [another] version that may be much more acceptable to the majority of astronomers,” the source said.
Just to illustrate how crazed the effort has become, the latest (and apparently defeated) proposal suggests various possible terms for defining a new class of dwarf planets, which would not be real planets and would include Pluto. The suggestions: plutons (suggested in the initial controversial proposal), plutoids, plutonids, plutonoids, plutinos (already used to describe known comet-like objects in the outer solar system), Tombaugh Objects (after Clyde, who discovered Pluto), Tombaugh Planets, plutians.
Science at work, folks!
Anybody’s guess at this point, but don’t be too surprised if the version that goes to a vote is more cultural than scientific, somehow retaining Pluto as a planet but preventing the list from heading into the dozens. Then again, I could be completely wrong. And I expect astronomers are just about as sure about all this as me right now.
Catch up on the arguments in last week’s blog.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Planets are wanderers, and if nothing else, Pluto does wander more than our current planets do.
I would propose that if you want to be anally correct about this, our current planets should be renamed to “Orbital Worlds” and small rocky bodies with less regular orbits should take on the moniker of planet. ^.^ Of course, people would argue that you can’t term something a world unless we live on it, or that the world encompasses everything we know.
Or we could call them ‘ekkentros’ the greek root of the word eccentric, since they have eccentric orbits.
I was about to go on about how Pluto was discovered through it’s gravitation effects on Neptune, but then I remembered that that was a mistake and Pluto just happened to accidentally be discovered. So I guess the only thing it really affects is itself and Charon. Maybe Pluto should be reclassified as a Solar Moon due to it’s size and orbital eccentricities.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:43 pm
The twelve planets?
Well, they’ve been debating removing Pluto as a planet. Or so the story went. Now, it seems they’re inclined to make it twelve planets using a new definition: The asteroid Ceres, which is round, would be recast as a dwarf
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Seems to me, they already have a perfectly descriptive name for Pluto and its ilk. Kuiper Belt Object. What could be simpler?
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:25 pm
n9lij:
Good point. This whole debate could circle right back to where it started. And KBO is just one of the myriad bizarre terms for things out there.
Check out also the idea of using an atmosphere to define a planet. Hmm. A reader suggested as much last week, somewhere in all these postings.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:28 pm
It is a Kuiper Belt object. Treat it as such. A Planetoid.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:20 pm
i think that demotion of Pluto will be one heck of a hard job, those astronomers must be really good because they have to consider the feelings of children worldwide and the rest of civilians thta has accepted Pluto as a planet for 30 years.
In my opinion, there should be a 12+ planet solar system because our solar system is just too large to contian only 8 planets, besides the original proposal is the one that makes the most sense. Let nature determine the fates of the planets. Let physic define planetary status, ex. ability to form a hydrostatical equilibrium with sufficient gravitational force.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
I like the basis of the original draft proposal, based on minimum mass to make and object round however I am not happy that we would then get hundreds of objects all classified simply as planets. I would prefer to call these objects planets but to further classify them into major and minor planets. We would then end up with these objects:
- major planets (the 8 largest planets) - the dominant planets in their orbits
- minor planets (all else including Pluto, Ceres, etc - Charon is up for debate)
- small solar system bodies (other non-planet, non-star objects) (possibly extended to small stellar system bodies for non-planets around other stars).
This approach has the benefit that it is based on hard scientific rules to define a “planet” but also keeping the significant planets distinct. Textbooks would have to change 9 to 8 and replace references to “planet” with “major planet”.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
most of the people i talked to is concerned that soon all the moons in the solar system will become planets because of the Charon-exception. I think most people dont realize WHY charon is not a moon. Because a moon orbits a planet but Charon orbits a point in space, with Pluto. I think people need to start to relaize that our moon wont become a moon until billions of year later when it moved far enough away from the Earth and that as long as the moons of the planets dont move, they will remain moons and that they dont not have to fear losing all the moons in the solar system.
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:02 pm
i really think size/mass/volume should not be a factor used to determine planethood, because then, the decision of what come as a planet lies in the hands of the astronomers, because they can pick a number that gives mercury planethood marginally and kcik pluto and xena out marginally, which wouldn’t be fair.
Best trait to characterize a planet is its physical nature, for ex. gravitational ability to form a spehrical shape, maintain an atmosphere.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
The latest developments and revisions seem rather troublesome in that they focus on our solar system rather than applying universally. All things considered, I’d rather wait another three years for a better-crafted set of guidelines which apply equally to extrasolar planets.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:02 pm
I am 35 years old and Pluto was always a planet to me because that’s what I was taught in school. I can’t help but feel now that like many other things I learned in science class 20-odd years ago, it was taught so out of ignorance. There’s been a lot of debate about how big a celestial body has to be to be considered a planet. I personally think this is important. How big should it be? HellifIknow. The size of Earth’s moon is a decent benchmark. This would exclude Pluto and Charon, Ceres, UB313, and numerous other bodies discovered and undiscovered. So we thought Pluto was a planet for a long time… Science is supposed to be about learning the truth about nature and the universe. So we made a mistake. What are we, anyway? A bunch of bleeding heart Plutoists? Our solar system is more complex than we had imagined. We have planets, eight of them. (Only seven if an atmosphere is a requirement. Mercury is too close to the sun to maintain any real atmosphere. Maybe that’s not a bad idea. If Pluto should be demoted, let Mercury join the club.) We have asteroids, but Ceres and similar objects really don’t fit in that category. What ever happened to the word ‘planetoid’, anyway? Did it get lost in cheesy sci-fi along the way. It’s a good word. It fits objects like Ceres and many other objects in the asteroid belt, as well as Mercury. Pluto is quite different, but I hate the word Plutonians or Plutoids or whatever. Forget Pluto. People need to let go. There is already a name for these and I think it’s cool and very scientific. They are called Kuiper Belt Objects. Good name. Who knows how many of them sit out there in millennial orbits waiting to be discovered. Would you want your grandchildren to have to memorize the 147 planets of our solar system? I’m actually indifferent about Mercury. It can be a planet or not, but Eight is Enough.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
let me just say, we all originally KNEW pluto was a planet. based off this: its a large (whatever that means) spherical object that orbits the sun. then astronomers made a big deal out of it and gave us interesting facts to make us doubt whether it should really be a planet or not. so for a while i thought, “oh yeah, it makes sense, pluto isnt a planet!” but just recently i realized how silly this all really is. let me illustrate. imagine you are standing on pluto or any other relatively pluto-sized spherical KBO for that matter in a spacesuit that provides the allowance of such an experience. i mean really IMAGINE it…….. ok are you there on pluto? sure feels like a planet doesnt it? you wouldnt be standing there thinking, “wow im standing on a dwarf planet.” you would say, “wow, im standing on a planet this far from the sun!” you might even say, “im soaking in all i can of this double planet system!” i know this is highly silly the way im putting this together but it makes sense doesnt it? i dont care if its part of a large community of “dwarf planets” a planet is a planet no matter if its cleared the area around it or sharing it. and notice how they say a dwarf planet isnt a planet, well then why have the word planet still a part of the new classification - dwarf planet? its because they know a planet is a planet. no matter what you want to call it. if we end up having 400 planets so be it. just because we all grew up in the 20th century doesnt mean we have to stay there. knowledge and technology is advancing, why not get all excited about finding 10 new planets rather than say, “oh, they are just dwarf planets… nothing to hooray about.”
i bet, if Pluto could speak, and Earth, who could also speak, said to Pluto, “hey Pluto youre not a planet!” Pluto would say back, “oh silence yourself, yes i am! im deeply offended.”
October 10th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
and Jupiter would say none of you are planets but me; saying Pluto is not a planet is like saying midgets are not people