new planet definition proposal

[jaxtraw]

"If we take <br />the all inclusive "No iceball left behind"(1.) <br />approach, we're going to run into the situation of <br />finding objects that fall into a size range that is difficult <br />to catagorize as either a planet or something else."<br /><br />This is surely the point though- the new defninition doesn't define anything by size, or by constitution, or anything else particularly rational- it defines it by neighbourhood. This is really rather unusual. We don't categorise something as a comet, star or black hole by dint of its neighbours. Imagine- "A star must be on an independent galactic orbit and not part of a cluster. Stars in clusters are "dwarf stars"."<br /><br />The original proposal OTOH *did* demarcate a clear boundary- between spherical and irregular objects. Regardless of whether one considers that a valid boundary, everyone can at least agree which category any object falls into just by looking at the object on its own.<br /><br />To have created a broad category of "planet" would then allow any number of suitable sub categories- gas giant, terrestrial, icy, dwarf, silicaceous, hydrogenaceous, trans-neptunian, belt planet, whatever you fancy depending on which aspects are important to your research. THe broad distinction between spheres and irregulars would be a convenient way to sort the "worlds" from the "rubble".<br /><br />The whole thing's astonishingly classist really <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> We want our little world to be in the Top Class, even though it's clearly outclassed by 4 massive gas giants, so we create an artificial Top Class which we are in by definition, then exclude the "rabble". It doesn't seem scientific at all, to me. There are many types of world, and there are many worlds in our solar system-- and other star systems. Trying to keep our own in an exclusive club seems a bit sad to me.

 

[MeteorWayne]

<i>Trying to keep our own in an exclusive club seems a bit sad to me. </i><br />Unless you lived here <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

Hmm, does anybody fancy starting a Pluvian Rights Movement? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I want a teeshirt with "No Iceball Left Behind" on it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[MeteorWayne]

I survived 4.5 billion years and all I got was this lousy "No Iceball Left Behind" T-shirt <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

that wasn't the only reason.<br /><br />One reason is they don't properly fit into existing subcategories.<br /><br />Second is they don't really fit the bill planetwise. I wouldn't call Ceres a full blown planet. It's sitting in the middle of an asteroid belt of, while much smaller, very numerous objects. The amount of influence it has over them is almost non-existent when compared to the influence the other planets exert upon their neighbors.<br /><br />Its round, so I wouldn't have a problem calling it a planetismal, or planetoid, or something that recognizes the similarities between it and a planet...but it isn't one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

So Saiph, did you ever find a connection between orbital dominance and the IAU resolution?<br />I think that's important. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

clearing the neighborhood really is an odd way of saying orbital dominance, which is my term, not the Wikipedia article's term. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

cp28<br />Saw this over on cnn and the main page here. Guess this is right spot?? :/ <br />What do people think of this? <br />---------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />So much fuzz about ’loosing’ a planet or two.<br />We might have gained 9 dwarf planets. That’s good news.<br />http://www.solarviews.com/browse/misc/plntmoon.jpg<br /><br />That balls&chains criteria of being satellites shouldn’t keep those magnificent dwarfs in the dark anymore.<br />