Scientists against the demotion of objects like Pluto, Eris, Sedna, etc. to "dwarf planet" status have crafted a new definition:
It's no secret that Alan Stern and other scientists who led the New Horizons mission were extremely displeased by Pluto's demotion from planet status in 2006 during a general assembly of the International Astronomical Union. They felt the IAU decision undermined the scientific and public value of their dramatic flyby mission to the former ninth planet of the Solar System.
But now the positively peeved Pluto people have a plan. Stern and several colleagues have proposed a new definition for planethood. In technical terms, the proposal redefines planethood by saying, "A planet is a sub-stellar mass body that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid regardless of its orbital parameters." More simply, the definition can be stated as, "round objects in space that are smaller than stars."
From the proposal:
The eight planets recognized by the IAU are often modified by the adjectives "terrestrial," "giant," and "ice giant," yet no one would state that a giant planet is not a planet. Yet, the IAU does not consider dwarf planets to be planets. We eschew this inconsistency. Thus, dwarf planets and moon planets such as Ceres, Pluto, Charon, and Earth's Moon are "fullfledged" planets. This seems especially true in light of these planets' complex geology and geophysics. While the degree of internal differentiation of a given world is geologically interesting, we do not use it as a criterion for planethood in the spirit of having an expansive rather than a narrow definition.
Here's another article about the significance of the New Horizons mission. New Horizons will fly by 2014 MU69 on January 1, 2019.
(Score: 1) by Weasley on Wednesday February 22 2017, @05:24PM
You're right, it will never affect ordinary people's lives, so why do people care how astronomers classify those object which they study. It is their area of study, they have domain over how they classify objects which fall into that domain. Do we defy paleontologists when they need to reclassify a dinosaur fossil?
As for what this has to do with climate change, I have no idea. Do you do realize climatology and astronomy are completely different things and completely different people involved? There is not just one homogeneous group known as "scientists" that take care of all the smart people stuff.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 22 2017, @07:30PM
If we were talking about what kind of fungus grows under rocks along the Australia-Canada border then nobody would care. It probably would not be in the general public's news or in their mind. But we're talking about planets. And we're talking about not just renaming it, but re-re-naming it. Like switching back to coke classic. People may not care but they pick up or form perceptions of what is going on. And they may lose respect as a consequence. After all, if scientists can debate whether Pluto-classic is a real planet, then there must be some legitimate controversy over evolution, and climate science, and whether the sun rises in the East or in the West.
Don't tell me! Tell people who would lump scientists into one group. Don't believe it? Just look at terms like: Politicians. Immigrants. IT Department (which includes software development, dev ops, printer cartridge replacement, or anything remotely related to computers). And I could think of others.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 1) by Weasley on Wednesday February 22 2017, @09:05PM
Yes, you're right. People who don't know any better tend to classify science or scientists into one big group. But social/political/PR stuff should have no influence over science. If it does, you're not doing science anymore, you're just doing propaganda.