SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Number-Nine,-Number-Nine,-Number-Nine... dept.
Planet Nine: 'Insensitive' Term Riles Scientists
The International Astronomical Union (IAU) famously reclassified Pluto as a "dwarf planet" in 2006. That decision remains highly controversial today, as made clear by the new note, which appeared in the July 29 issue of the Planetary Exploration Newsletter.
The note:
ON THE INSENSITIVE USE OF THE TERM "PLANET 9" FOR OBJECTS BEYOND PLUTO
We the undersigned wish to remind our colleagues that the IAU planet definition adopted in 2006 has been controversial and is far from universally accepted. Given this, and given the incredible accomplishment of the discovery of Pluto, the harbinger of the solar system's third zone — the Kuiper Belt — by planetary astronomer Clyde W. Tombaugh in 1930, we the undersigned believe the use of the term 'Planet 9' for objects beyond Pluto is insensitive to Professor Tombaugh's legacy.
We further believe the use of this term should be discontinued in favor of culturally and taxonomically neutral terms for such planets, such as Planet X, Planet Next, or Giant Planet Five.
35 researchers signed the note, including Alan Stern, principal investigator of the New Horizons mission.
Of more interest may be this proposal concerning future exploration of Uranus and Neptune:
Related: Uranus and Neptune Are Potential Targets for 2030s Missions
Another Trans-Neptunian Object With a High Orbital Inclination Points to Planet Nine
CU Boulder Researchers Say Collective Gravity, Not Planet Nine, Explains Orbits of Detached Objects
Planet Nine Search Turns Up 10 More Moons of Jupiter
(Score: 3, Disagree) by bob_super on Thursday August 02 2018, @11:40PM (2 children)
My point was that it doesn't matter if the solar system has 253 planets (256 would matter, because of the 8-bit overflow).
Teach the kids the 8 to 10 Major Planets, and a selection of of the most interesting other bodies (Pluto, the big moons, notable comets).
"There are too many to remember everything" is a pretty shitty reason to demote a whole class of objects, especially when considering that wiki thingy. Promote the special ones instead.
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Friday August 03 2018, @01:14AM (1 child)
You are quite correct, I was not disagreeing, simply pointing to the fact that once more "planets" had been found some people felt the need to redefine what "planet" is, particularly because Pluto has a very large moon (Charon) that makes it almost a binary planet. Anyway, I never saw the need to redefine the status, in mind, it serves no purpose.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday August 03 2018, @01:24AM
> Pluto has a very large moon (Charon) that makes it almost a binary planet.
I'd go as far as calling it a binary outright, because the center of mass of that system is outside of Pluto's body.
Since there's at least two more moons orbiting that binary system, i'm not quite sure what the secondary threshold would be to call it a quaternary system ... maybe the center of mass of the ensemble always staying in the cone formed by the big two (and by extension to ternary or more, the region of space between the main bodies) would be a good idea.
The Solar system has :
- 4 Major rocky planets (inner ones - few moons)
- 4 Major Gas/frozen giant planets (outer ones - lots of moons)
- At least one binary system
- A lot of other planets, many still to be discovered.
- other stuff that's not in hydrostatic equilibrium, or is on highly eccentric orbits
How is that nomenclature a topic of arguments ?