Comments on: 300 Astronomers Will Not Use New Planet Definition http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/ LiveScience Blogs | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:02:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: AshTray’s Online Journal » Why Planets Will Never Be Defined http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-2650 AshTray’s Online Journal » Why Planets Will Never Be Defined Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:07:42 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-2650 [...] The controversial planet-definition resolution, passed Aug. 24 in a vote of just 424 IAU members, will not stand as worded. Some 300 astronomers have pledged not to use it, and many others say it must be redone to eliminate contradictions. It will be reworked, at the least, and possibly overturned at the 2009 IAU General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. [...] [...] The controversial planet-definition resolution, passed Aug. 24 in a vote of just 424 IAU members, will not stand as worded. Some 300 astronomers have pledged not to use it, and many others say it must be redone to eliminate contradictions. It will be reworked, at the least, and possibly overturned at the 2009 IAU General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. [...]

]]> By: AshTray’s Online Journal » Why Planets Will Never Be Defined http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-2649 AshTray’s Online Journal » Why Planets Will Never Be Defined Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:56:43 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-2649 [...] The controversial planet-definition resolution, passed Aug. 24 in a vote of just 424 IAU members, will not stand as worded. Some 300 astronomers have pledged not to use it, and many others say it must be redone to eliminate contradictions. It will be reworked, at the least, and possibly overturned at the 2009 IAU General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. [...] [...] The controversial planet-definition resolution, passed Aug. 24 in a vote of just 424 IAU members, will not stand as worded. Some 300 astronomers have pledged not to use it, and many others say it must be redone to eliminate contradictions. It will be reworked, at the least, and possibly overturned at the 2009 IAU General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. [...]

]]> By: albertvv http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-2648 albertvv Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:31:57 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-2648 Without going into any relevant details, may I make 2 points why the attitudes & arguments are silly. Firstly, Pluto is not a planet. This has been known for decades now, and should have been renamed straight away. Tradition and emotion cannot, should not, must not have a place in scientific definitions. And I hope we are talking about scientists here. Secondly, whether one agrees or not with a rule (definition, standard), never justifies not adhering to it in your (scientific) work. I don't agree with all rules and standards we have to adhere to as software engineers within the fire alarm industry, but I can't say: "I do it my way anyway, so there!" Come on people, GROW UP!!!!! Without going into any relevant details, may I make 2 points why the attitudes & arguments are silly.
Firstly, Pluto is not a planet. This has been known for decades now, and should have been renamed straight away. Tradition and emotion cannot, should not, must not have a place in scientific definitions. And I hope we are talking about scientists here.
Secondly, whether one agrees or not with a rule (definition, standard), never justifies not adhering to it in your (scientific) work. I don’t agree with all rules and standards we have to adhere to as software engineers within the fire alarm industry, but I can’t say: “I do it my way anyway, so there!”
Come on people, GROW UP!!!!!

]]> By: fooleycooley http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1808 fooleycooley Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:07:27 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1808 Fine! Pluto is not a planet. We only have eight planets in our solar system. No problem. So, what is Pluto? I've heard the use of Dwarf planet. So, does that means Pluto is planet? Unfortunately, the answer is No. Who came up with this Dwarf Planet? Was it Pluto or Goofy? To the members of the astronomical community who are endorsing "Dwarf Planet", please repeat the following statement aloud: "I endorse the use of the term Dwarf Planet to define a non-planet. I also wish to relinquish all of my status and belongings, as I in no way deserve them." Let me explain my insult, for those of you who are confused or insulted. It is fundamentally incorrect to use "planet" in a label for non-planets (unless of course you are preceding planet with "Non-".) Pluto is a "Non-Planet", not a "Dwarf Planet". This usage violates basic rules of grammar and word-usage. The term Dwarf Planet is a disservice to the scientific community, and to the progress of our scientific understanding. I have no problem demoting Pluto or any other planet. Just use proper terminology, which not only gives these smaller Non-Planets a classification label, but also sets then apart from Planets. Come on people - this high school grammar. Fine! Pluto is not a planet. We only have eight planets in our solar system. No problem.

So, what is Pluto? I’ve heard the use of Dwarf planet. So, does that means Pluto is planet? Unfortunately, the answer is No.

Who came up with this Dwarf Planet? Was it Pluto or Goofy?

To the members of the astronomical community who are endorsing “Dwarf Planet”, please repeat the following statement aloud: “I endorse the use of the term Dwarf Planet to define a non-planet. I also wish to relinquish all of my status and belongings, as I in no way deserve them.”

Let me explain my insult, for those of you who are confused or insulted. It is fundamentally incorrect to use “planet” in a label for non-planets (unless of course you are preceding planet with “Non-”.) Pluto is a “Non-Planet”, not a “Dwarf Planet”. This usage violates basic rules of grammar and word-usage. The term Dwarf Planet is a disservice to the scientific community, and to the progress of our scientific understanding.

I have no problem demoting Pluto or any other planet. Just use proper terminology, which not only gives these smaller Non-Planets a classification label, but also sets then apart from Planets.

Come on people - this high school grammar.

]]> By: ktasay http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1718 ktasay Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:18:36 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1718 Instead of the "sweeping out" concept, perhaps a better alternative would be that the object has stopped accreting enough material to significantly increase it's mass. That would serve to eliminate any objects in the Asteroid belt, and may or may not eliminate KBO's - more study would be required to determine if there is still enough material for active accretion. Instead of the “sweeping out” concept, perhaps a better alternative would be that the object has stopped accreting enough material to significantly increase it’s mass.

That would serve to eliminate any objects in the Asteroid belt, and may or may not eliminate KBO’s - more study would be required to determine if there is still enough material for active accretion.

]]> By: jorraxx http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1665 jorraxx Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:54:23 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1665 I think it is time to get away from the idea of simply looking at the objects in our solar system and attempting to fit them into traditional categories. Frankly I don't care if Pluto or Ceres or any other object is or is not a "planet". Earth is a planet and will always be considered a planet. However, once we get a better understanding of planets in other solar systems we may find our solar system is unique, or not. There are supposed to be some solar systems with gas planets cirling their star closer than our Mercury does. Plus, there is no reason to believe it is impossible that two earth sized objects or Jupiter sized objects could share the same orbit around another star. Unlikely perhaps but not impossible. Since it's a tie, does that make them both planets or does one arbitrarily become a moon? The problem is tradition. Tradition says that a smaller object orbiting a larger object is a moon, making the other object a planet. There is no reason why an object cannot hold the status of both moon and planet. We need better classification, it's what humans do when they do science. Jupiter has always been considered a planet yet it is large enough to theoretically have no core, to be all gas. The pressure and internal temperatures generated could well ensure that nothing in the planet is capable of a core any size. The general public can call it a traditional planet if they want, science needs a better description. The same goes for dwarf planets. Claiming Pluto is a planet simply because it has other objects circling it is to simply hold on to tradition in the face of science. I agree it will take time to hammer out just what the difference is between earth sized planets and dwarf planets should be considered. I just think it is time to get away from the idea of simply looking at the objects in our solar system and attempting to fit them into traditional categories. I think it is time to get away from the idea of simply looking at the objects in our solar system and attempting to fit them into traditional categories. Frankly I don’t care if Pluto or Ceres or any other object is or is not a “planet”. Earth is a planet and will always be considered a planet. However, once we get a better understanding of planets in other solar systems we may find our solar system is unique, or not. There are supposed to be some solar systems with gas planets cirling their star closer than our Mercury does. Plus, there is no reason to believe it is impossible that two earth sized objects or Jupiter sized objects could share the same orbit around another star. Unlikely perhaps but not impossible. Since it’s a tie, does that make them both planets or does one arbitrarily become a moon? The problem is tradition. Tradition says that a smaller object orbiting a larger object is a moon, making the other object a planet. There is no reason why an object cannot hold the status of both moon and planet. We need better classification, it’s what humans do when they do science. Jupiter has always been considered a planet yet it is large enough to theoretically have no core, to be all gas. The pressure and internal temperatures generated could well ensure that nothing in the planet is capable of a core any size. The general public can call it a traditional planet if they want, science needs a better description. The same goes for dwarf planets. Claiming Pluto is a planet simply because it has other objects circling it is to simply hold on to tradition in the face of science. I agree it will take time to hammer out just what the difference is between earth sized planets and dwarf planets should be considered. I just think it is time to get away from the idea of simply looking at the objects in our solar system and attempting to fit them into traditional categories.

]]> By: bydsa http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1666 bydsa Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:46:36 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1666 Below is how you can incorporate the IAU's stand on Planets for our Solar System (as best as can be thanks to the IAU's explaining what it defines as a Planet more) (http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/iau0603_Q_A2.html) to other Stellar Systems (http://astro.berkeley.edu/~basri/defineplanet/IAU-WGExSP.htm). 1) Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) and sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, that orbit stars or stellar remnants, dominate their orbital area and do not orbit in zones that have many other objects in them are "planets" (no matter how they formed). 2) Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs", no matter how they formed nor where they are located. 3) Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets", but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate). My petition on Exomoons http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Exomoon/ comes right after the petition we're talking about and is meant to prevent the what is a moon issue from spilling beyond the confines of our Solar System. Where there is consensus there is no need for the IAU to make an official definition. With Brown Dwarfs and Starless Planets being able to have what could be called Moons http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060605190412.htm and a Brown Dwarf and its Planemo ( http://jumk.de/astronomie/about-stars/planemos.shtml ) companion orbiting each other http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060804084105.htm you can see that the word Moon when not used synonymously with Satellite really could use more than ever some redefinition. It's a bigger struggle for our Solar System I see where so many Moons have been officially recognized by the IAU but not for outside of it. The IAU doesn't officially use the term Moon and it hasn't used the concept of it beyond the Solar System. So I say: 1) Objects outside of our Solar System that orbit objects with sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape are Exomoons of Objects if they would have been considered planets if what they orbit would have been a Star. 2) A System Planemo is an object that orbits a Brown Dwarf or Interstellar Planet and would have been considered a Planet if it orbited a Star. 3) Multiple System Objects, objects that travel around each other are recognized as a separate class of objects. Below is how you can incorporate the IAU’s stand on Planets for our Solar System (as best as can be thanks to the IAU’s explaining what it defines as a Planet more)
(http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/iau0603_Q_A2.html)
to other Stellar Systems
(http://astro.berkeley.edu/~basri/defineplanet/IAU-WGExSP.htm).

1) Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for
thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) and sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, that orbit stars or stellar remnants, dominate their orbital area and do not orbit in zones that have many other objects in them are “planets” (no matter how they formed).
2) Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are “brown dwarfs”, no matter how they formed nor where they are located.
3) Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not “planets”, but are “sub-brown dwarfs” (or whatever name is most appropriate).
My petition on Exomoons http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Exomoon/ comes right after the petition we’re talking about and is meant to prevent the what is a moon issue from spilling beyond the confines of our Solar System. Where there is consensus there is no need for the IAU to make an official definition.
With Brown Dwarfs and Starless Planets being able to have what could be called Moons http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060605190412.htm and a Brown Dwarf and its Planemo ( http://jumk.de/astronomie/about-stars/planemos.shtml ) companion orbiting each other http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060804084105.htm you can see that the word Moon when not used synonymously with Satellite really could use more than ever some redefinition. It’s a bigger struggle for our Solar System I see where so many Moons have been officially recognized by the IAU but not for outside of it. The IAU doesn’t officially use the term Moon and it hasn’t used the concept of it beyond the Solar System. So I say:
1) Objects outside of our Solar System that orbit objects with sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape are Exomoons of Objects if they would have been considered planets if what they orbit would have been a Star.
2) A System Planemo is an object that orbits a Brown Dwarf or Interstellar Planet and would have been considered a Planet if it orbited a Star.
3) Multiple System Objects, objects that travel around each other are recognized as a separate class of objects.

]]> By: iblog.co.uk » Blog Archive » Pluto http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1613 iblog.co.uk » Blog Archive » Pluto Sun, 03 Sep 2006 22:14:13 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1613 [...] Much fervour has been generated by the recent demotion of Pluto to merely ‘dwarf’ status among the other planets of the solar system. Large protests are forming against the draft resolution voted in by a fraction of the members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), generally claiming the new definition to be ‘fundamentally flawed’. [...] [...] Much fervour has been generated by the recent demotion of Pluto to merely ‘dwarf’ status among the other planets of the solar system. Large protests are forming against the draft resolution voted in by a fraction of the members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), generally claiming the new definition to be ‘fundamentally flawed’. [...]

]]> By: sailom http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1560 sailom Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:12:10 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1560 I agree with most of what has been said. The whole problem is the historical place given to orbit characteristics of an object. Thanks to space exploration, planetary science has become a geological science. There is no doubt that - geologically speaking - a planet is round... A planet may be a gas planet, a rocky planet, an ice planet, a small planet, a big planet. However, we can't confuse a planet with the irregular shape of an asteroid and neither can we confuse it with a star. There are controversies in defining a lower limit or an upper limit for sure, yet the definition of a planet should be about its geology just like the definition of a star or the definition of an asteroid should be about geology. I agree with most of what has been said. The whole problem is the historical place given to orbit characteristics of an object.
Thanks to space exploration, planetary science has become a geological science. There is no doubt that - geologically speaking - a planet is round…
A planet may be a gas planet, a rocky planet, an ice planet, a small planet, a big planet. However, we can’t confuse a planet with the irregular shape of an asteroid and neither can we confuse it with a star.

There are controversies in defining a lower limit or an upper limit for sure, yet the definition of a planet should be about its geology just like the definition of a star or the definition of an asteroid should be about geology.

]]> By: pleasesavepluto http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1516 pleasesavepluto Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:10:04 +0000 http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/08/31/300-astronomers-wont-use-new-planet-definition/#comment-1516 While the scientists engage in a fightback, the common people are also fighting back the IAU's decision. There are 450 plus signatures against the IAU's decision at http://pleasesavepluto.org along with many tools to garner support from like-minded individuals. While the scientists engage in a fightback, the common people are also fighting back the IAU’s decision. There are 450 plus signatures against the IAU’s decision at http://pleasesavepluto.org along with many tools to garner support from like-minded individuals.

]]>