Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday April 03 2017, @06:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-need-cleanup-in-orbit-3 dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

It turns out that Earth is not a planet. Asteroid 2016 H03, first spotted on April 27, 2016, by the Pan-STARRS 1 asteroid survey telescope on Haleakala, Hawaii, is a companion of Earth, too distant to be considered a true satellite.

"Since 2016 HO3 loops around our planet, but never ventures very far away as we both go around the sun, we refer to it as a quasi-satellite of Earth," said Paul Chodas, manager of NASA's Center for Near-Earth Object (NEO) Studies at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

Asteroid 2016 H03 is proof that Earth has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. Therefore, under the definition of a planet vigorously defended by the IAU [International Astronomical Union] since the adoption of Resolution 5A on August 24, 2006, Earth is a 'dwarf planet' because it has not cleared its orbit, which is the only criteria of their definition that Pluto fails. (I think we'll eventually discover that very few of the 'planets' have cleared their orbits).

Most of us who were baffled by the IAUs declaration and outraged at the obvious discrimination of Pluto knew there was something wrong, even if we couldn't put our finger on it — we just 'knew' Pluto was a planet, right?

[...] Here's what all of us non-scientists intuitively understood all along: "A planet is defined as an astronomical body that "has not undergone nuclear fusion, and having sufficient self-gravitation to assume a spheroidal shape" — in other words, it's round and not on fire.

How could the distinguished scientists be so wrong?

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday April 03 2017, @07:31PM (13 children)

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday April 03 2017, @07:31PM (#488313) Homepage

    If thiat is the case, then Jupiter isn't a planet either. There are trojan asteroids sharing its orbit.

    As for the outrage, given the options between dropping Pluto or finding ourselves in a sea of hundreds of planets... well, sorry little fella. Doesn't mean I don't think you're awesome. It wasn't done out of any spite for Pluto, but out of concern for all the other objects like Pluto that are out there. It took kind of a kludge to keep the out of the planet club, and it could probably be looked at again to clarify the definition.

    How could the distinguished scientists be so wrong?

    They're not. You're just deliberately be an arse about it to whip up a stink, aka (one form of) journalism.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday April 03 2017, @07:49PM (3 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday April 03 2017, @07:49PM (#488328)

    >between dropping Pluto or finding ourselves in a sea of hundreds of planets

    I fail to find an issue with the idea that there are hundreds of "planets".
    8 of them are special because of their locations. That doesn't mean nothing else can be a planet, or that you have to remember all of the names beyond the special 8...

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:58AM (2 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:58AM (#488491)

      No, 8 of them are special because of their size. They're not the only planetoids in the inner system; Ceres is between Mars and Jupiter (as is Vesta, but it's not even round). Ceres is considered a dwarf planet too, but for some odd reason the Pluto-defenders don't want to include Ceres in the planet-club. The main 8 are special because they're all *much* bigger than the others.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:30AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:30AM (#488527)

        Well, really they're special because of the combination of size (mass, really) and location. Mercury is a big neighborhood-clearing bad-ass in its 88-day orbit, but if you put it out in the Kuiper Belt, it would be just another KBO, worth exclaiming "Pretty big for a dwarf planet!", but definitely not a proper IAU-approved planet.

        Also, be careful with "size" -- Titan and Ganymede are both larger in diameter than Mercury, but about half the mass; important to note which one we mean, so I'll go with mass. As soon as you include satellites in a list of solar system bodies, the supposed big gap (factor of 25) between Mercury and Eris/Pluto/etc. is shredded by the six big satellites (the Galileans, Titan, and Luna), and the biggest gaps left are between Neptune and Earth (factor of 14.5, everyone agrees this is a big deal), between Venus and Mars (factor of 7.5 -- but we treat terrestrial planets as basically similar?) and between Saturn and Uranus (factor of 5.5); from there down, I don't see any gaps bigger than a factor of 2-3 (but I gave up somewhere around Ceres, Orcus, and Tethys, or about 0.0001 M).

        Remember, definitions promoted by many people do include the larger satellites as planets. Not the "You'll have exactly nine planets, and you'll like them!" nostalgiacs, obviously, but people like Alan Stern think planethood should be determined by intrinsic properties, and follow that principle to its logical conclusion.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:35AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:35AM (#488529)

          Whoops, make that the big seven moons; how could I forget Triton?!

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Monday April 03 2017, @08:36PM (8 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Monday April 03 2017, @08:36PM (#488355)

    "As for the outrage, given the options between dropping Pluto or finding ourselves in a sea of hundreds of planets..."

    There are more than 2 options; this is a false dilemma.

    We can keep Pluto as a planet due to it's historical significance, and not extend that classification to everything else... the rest are just KBO's. Nothing else like Pluto need ever be classified a planet ever again.

    The Caspain Sea is a lake, there are mountains that are just hills, there are rivers that are just streams... the Niagra Peninsula isn't really a peninsula, it's an ithmus... etc.

    We can call pluto a planet without breaking Astronomy.

    • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Monday April 03 2017, @10:44PM (3 children)

      by Murdoc (2518) on Monday April 03 2017, @10:44PM (#488421) Homepage

      This makes the most sense to me. It works in the animal kingdom too; killer whales aren't whales either, etc. If needed we could go so far as to call it an "honorary" planet, like how people get "honorary" doctorates, because of Pluto's historical and cultural significance. You're right, it wouldn't break astronomy.

      • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday April 03 2017, @11:01PM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday April 03 2017, @11:01PM (#488431) Homepage

        "Killer whale" is the common, historical name for the species. They are not scientifically classified as whales. Even in layman's terms they are not usually referred to as whales.

        It's not like Pluto is called "Planet Pluto."

        If needed we could go so far as to call it an "honorary" planet, like how people get "honorary" doctorates, because of Pluto's historical and cultural significance. You're right, it wouldn't break astronomy.

        Historical and cultural significance have little, perhaps nothing, to do with the science of astronomy. Pluto belongs far more obviously in the same scientific category as Sedna, Eris, and Ceres than it does with Neptune, Mercury, and Mars.

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:59AM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:59AM (#488492)

        "Killer whales" aren't even called that any more except by fools. Their more proper name is "orca". Scientists have Latin names for these animals anyway.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @02:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @02:47PM (#488635)

          Do the needful, Grishna, and correct hundreds of years of English usage!

    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday April 03 2017, @10:54PM (3 children)

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday April 03 2017, @10:54PM (#488427) Homepage

      That's not a very scientific thing to do. If you're going to have categories at all, they should be defined as scientifically as possible. Some thought should be given to convenience - it's perhaps a little late to start renaming the Old World Monkeys and the New World Monkeys despite the troublesome position of apes between them - but for simply moving Pluto to another category, it's hardly a big problem.

      The Caspain Sea is a lake, there are mountains that are just hills, there are rivers that are just streams... the Niagra Peninsula isn't really a peninsula, it's an ithmus... etc.

      Those are names, not category memberships. As an analogy, it only works if people referred the Caspian Sea as "a sea," but they don't. They refer to it as a lake, which is what it is; only its name is "The Caspian Sea." There may be features called "(X) Mountain" that are just hills, but there are no actual mountains that are just hills.

      (That said, by some criteria, the Caspian Sea is sometimes classified as an actual sea, but not for historical naming reasons)

      Pluto's name is not "Planet Pluto," it's just "Pluto."

      We can call pluto a planet without breaking Astronomy.

      We can also just call it a dwarf planet, which far better suits its actual state, and puts it in a category with objects with which it has far more in common than the planets.

      It doesn't make it any less interesting an object.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:01AM (2 children)

        by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday April 04 2017, @01:01AM (#488463)

        "That's not a very scientific thing to do."

        The difference between a planet and not a planet isn't really that scientific.

        "If you're going to have categories at all, they should be defined as scientifically as possible."

        Reality defies such classification. Species can't interbreed fertile offspring... and then ring species (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) show up to mangle the system.

        "We can also just call it a dwarf planet, which far better suits its actual state"

        Until we find some planetoid somewhere that sites right on the cusp between planet and dwarf planet... or worse it'll violate all the 'rules' ... a ball of ice the size of jupiter floating around in an eccentric axis off the planetary plane. Its not an ice giant class of planet... because its not a planet due to its orbit and position. Its not really a KBO because its the size of jupiter....etc.

        " it only works if people referred the Caspian Sea as "a sea," but they don't"

        Of course they do. Perhaps scientists don't, but most people do.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 04 2017, @02:02AM (1 child)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 04 2017, @02:02AM (#488493)

          What "most people" do is not of much concern to scientists when they're doing scientific work. But for some stupid reason, these idiotic "most people" seem to think that they can dictate to scientists what kind of terminology they can use.

          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:54AM

            by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday April 04 2017, @04:54AM (#488534)

            What "most people" do is not of much concern to scientists when they're doing scientific work.

            Don't over inflate how much science this really is. Planet vs dwarf planet ... especially for things right up against the line is as much science as hill vs mountain... The stuff in the middle of each class is quite distinct... but there is no 'hard line' between the classes and whatever the exact line they pick is going to be arbitrary.

            There is no real 'scientific work' that depends on pluto being a planet or not-planet. As far as I can tell the only real difference to the IAU is that the classification determines how it gets named... Pluto is already named so what difference does it really make what its classified?

            All the planet 'discriminators' are pretty arbitrary. I mean...Stern-Levinson lamda > 1? Soter's mu > 100 ? Margot's Pi ...? Why those constants? because they are round numbers? This isn't "science". This is as arbitrary as deciding that a hill is 2000 ft, but its a mountain if its 2001 ft tall... or is that 'science' too?