What makes a planet a planet?, Proposal raises the number from 9 to 12

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ry/Science/home

There goes the neighborhood. I think their definition is too basic.

...and then there were eight.

Thirty-some-odd years?

Maybe they should just ditch all the hypothetical definitions, and generically call them "bodies". Measure distances and plot orbits, define colors, consistency, etc., and leave the name-calling to the less scientifically inclined. That would save a lot of money reprinting textbooks...

I really like the new definition. So now there are 12 official planets, divided into two classes, classical and dwarf.

Too bad the media seem incapable of reporting this correctly. "Pluto no longer a planet." "Group votes to strip Pluto of its planetary status." Um... no. Pluto is still a planet. Pluto is now classified as a "dwarf planet". Say that very slowly: dwarf... planet.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's what the official IAU website says:

If we ever find the elusive brown dwarf that some (Brown: et. al. & others) theorize is out there, all the new IAU def's aren't going to worth jack.

I think it would have been better if the IAU had classified Pluto and 2003UB313 as planetesimals, or even left them as KBO's- and called Ceres something else. If Ceres, and it neighbors are ever determined to be planet fragments, then a "Pluton"- by definition, won't quite fit.

Maybe it doesn't matter. From what I heard of the conference, only about 20% of the group stuck around until the end vote. It would seem their agenda was more political than scientifically motivated. At the end of the day, I think all they did was add more distance between themselves and the rest of the astronomical organizations. Even before this, many astronomers (including ameteurs) had a somewhat 'distanced' opinion of the IAU. This action certainly didn't help, though it's apparently not uncharacteristic.

Perhaps this is why many groups view and identify spacial bodies and systems by their coordinate or scientific names rather than the nomenclature assigned by the IAU.

...just my 'plutonic' .02

If they didn't vote, then they can't complain. I have no sympathy for the IAU astronomers who bitch and moan over the new classifications but didn't bother to vote on them.

The new definitions sound straightforward and logical to me. What is your problem with them?

As I understand this, it's not exactly a linear voting lineup. Out of some 2000+ participants at the conference, about 400 or so have voting rights, and of them, less than a dozen actually have any weight. The dissents had their opportunity to voice concerns, then they left, likely after realizing it wouldn't make a difference. I think this vote could probably have been predicted 2 years ago.

I think the IAU should stick to naming conventions, which is their primary function, and leave the definitions alone. Making cavilier requirements in a field that is still largely unexplored is ludicrous. Mimicking star descriptions ("dwarf" in this case) to planets is even more bizarre. Just like Newton, Galileo, Coppernicus and others that explained that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, then the Sun was the center of the Galaxy, and the Galaxy was the center of the Universe, I would've thought that by now- these folks would have had a good dose of reality.

Apparenty not. And because the IAU heads are bonafide "astro-people", I don't believe they're a bunch of ignoramuses, so I have to consider the possibility that a lot of what they do is politically motivated. And I've learned through the years that science and politics gel about as well as gunpowder and matches. So if the IAU wants to isolate themselves to their own volitions, that's their preogative. However I believe they run the risk of losing support and credibility as a result.

Mike Brown/Caltech (co-discoverer of 2003UB313) had an interesting dissent of the IAU. I'll see if I can dig up the link...

Can we submit this for a "worst pun ever" award?

Sure can!

- Right after the motion and carry on the idea of the name 'pluton' as an asinine planet designator!

If I'm reading you correctly, it sounds like you want no definitions. That just seems absurd to me. Sounds like Wikipedia's "argue over everything endlessly" method. Very ad-hoc, inconsistent, and unscientific, not to mention a total waste of time.

And it seems like your only objection to the defininitions is that we might discover something in the future that'll require them to be changed. That's an incredibly lame objection, in my opinion. With that logic, we shouldn't define anything till science achieves 100% perfect knowledge. See you in a million years.

It's not like this is a bunch of vote-grubbing politicians or clueless managers deciding on the definitions. It's a bunch of experts. The exact people you WANT to be deciding these things.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Does some country have a stake in what is called a planet and what isn't?