Comments on: Odds and Ends part n http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:11:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: StevoR http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-39 StevoR Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:41:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-39 I've just sent the following open letter to the IAU people listed on the Plutroid announcement link : *** Dear Dr. Edward L.G. Bowell (& so forth) Rather than adopt the new “Plutoid" term, I strongly urge the IAU to reconsider and reverse its decision to revoke Pluto's planetary status and to adopt the initial proposal for planet proposed at the last Prague IAU meeting or alternatively adopt this suggested variant of that definition : "A planet is a natural, gravitationally-forced spheroidal, non-fusing object (ie. not just round by happenstance & allowing for rotational oblateness) directly orbiting a star or fusing object." I think it would be a good idea to then classify solar system further by breaking them into the sub-classes of : I) Terrestrial or rocky (Mercury, Venus, Earth, & Mars) II) Asteroidal (Ceres & also possibly the largest couple of other asteroids eg. Juno, Pallas, Vesta.) III) Gas Giants or Jovian (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) IV) Ice Dwarfs (Pluto, Eris, & maybe also Sedna & others.) Here are ten good reasons why I consider Pluto worthy of full planetary status and the IAU's current definition problematic : 1) Pluto has all the characteristics of a planet except for the "orbital clearing" criteria - however this criteria is flawed because it is itself too hard to define – what is meant by "cleared" & how far from the planet must the orbit be cleared? Strictly speaking this eliminates any object in our solar system as all planets have objects – comets and asteroids crossing their orbits, Jupiter has 100,000 Trojan asteroids, Neptune has Pluto crossing its orbit, Earth has 10,000 near-earth asteroids such as Eros and comets even venture inside Mercury’s orbit. By this logic, no planet can be considered a true planet unless it wanders its star essentially alone and all our solar systems twenty plus worlds - including the IAU’s eight ‘Classicals’ - are disqualified! 2) A further reductio ad absurdum approach then reveals that this criterion fails again because it leads to absurd results ruling out objects we’d clearly consider planets based only on their location. If a Jupiter or Earth-type planet was located in the Oort cloud surely we’d still call it a planet! So why then draw the line at smaller objects otherwise fitting the planetary description? 3) Furthermore, in relation to forming planetary systems (including historically our own,) we know planetary orbits cross and interact, even colliding to form moons and larger planets. Our own Moon formed from such a collision with our Earth and a Mars-sized body. By that poorly considered and ill defined third criterion, these youngest growing planets - even ones Jupiter sized and above – are NOT technically planets because their orbits are not yet cleared – again failing the reductio ad absurdum test. This also reveals that by that criterion's definition, ‘planets’ cannot collide because their neighbourhood then isn’t clear – nor can they exist as binaries or "double planets" by the same logic. This is contrary to common-sense and consistency. It potentially creates trouble with exoplanets given the possibility that some extrasolar planets may exist in this form – even perhaps twin Neptunes or Jupiter’s. Given that some would describe the Earth-Moon system like the Pluto-Charon system as such a ‘double planet’ then a strict definition of the IAU rule (assuming one can be ‘strict’ with so-vaguely defined a law) could disqualify Earth from planetary status - clearly an absurd proposition! 4) The current anti-Pluto definition is not applied to and is inconsistent with regard to exoplanets – among the flaws of the IAU ‘planet’ definition was its application only to solar system planets. Surely planets orbiting other suns are no less planets for not orbiting our star! Even more tellingly, at least one of the Pulsar planets, PSR B 1257+12 e is tiny – smaller than our Moon and even smaller than Pluto at just 1/5th Pluto’s mass (and another of the Pulsar planets has a mass about the Moon’s) raising a blatant inconsistency. As that is counted as an exoplanet then Pluto, equally, for the sake of consistency should also count among our star’s planets. 5) The dwarf planet-dwarf star analogy; just as dwarf stars are still stars so surely are dwarf planets still planets. Extrapolating the "dwarf planets don’t count" line to stellar astronomy would imply our Sun is not a proper star nor are 99 % of all stars – those 90% on the main-sequence and the 10 % of "stellar corpses" such as white dwarfs and neutron stars. Clearly an absurdity! Moreover, just like with stars, the smaller the class the more its numbers! Therefore calling a planet a "dwarf" should NOT rule it out of being considered a proper planet! 6) Then there are the problems with the whole "classical planets" term. It is hard to see how they apply to exoplanets or how the term can work usefully as a scientific description. Apart from these "classical planets" differing immensely among themselves – Earth and Pluto are arguably far more similar than Earth and Jupiter – the term also clashes with a previous understanding and use of the term namely the more apt concept of "classical planets" being the ones visible to the "classical" age peoples – the five original bright wanderers – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, & Saturn. Thus if we retain the ‘classical’ term, it seems best used as in that original sense applying to the bright planets easily visible from Earth with unaided eyesight and consequently first recognised as planets. Planets discovered later could contrastingly be termed ‘modern’ or ‘Post-Telescopic-era’ planets. This keeps ‘classical’ as a historical term rather than a scientific one and renders it useful in a descriptive, sky-viewing sense. 7) Pluto is the dominant body in its immediate gravitational region among a complex, intriguing system of four bodies; (Pluto, Charon, Hydra & Nix) two moonlets and two worlds with a surrounding atmosphere, seasonal weather of a kind and perhaps rings. It is a complex, slowly changing place, well worthy of attention and planetary status. It is a lot more than just a rocky asteroid or cometary nucleus! 8) Clearly it is important to have a reasonable definition of the term 'planet' and thus there's a need to set maximum and minimum boundaries to rule out objects that are clearly not planets however we can do this by using two criteria – ability to shine by nuclear fusion for the maximum and gravity-driven roundness combined with direct solar or stellar orbiting for the minimum boundary. This can be done without leading to ludicrous results or setting an arbitrary division with no logical basis. Such a more reasonable definition keeps Pluto and adds the largest ice dwarfs and Ceres and was the original, superior definition considered by the Prague IAU meeting. 9) There are also a whole range of cultural, historical and political arguments favouring Pluto’s long scientifically and culturally established place as a recognised planet from its discovery in 1930. Among these are the slight to Clyde Tombaugh’s memory, widow and family plus the perceived political aspect of stripping from planetary status the first planet discovered by an American. 10) Finally, we have, in addition to the logical and scientific flaws outlined already, the rather undemocratic manner in which the IAU ruling was made. Bad enough that of the 10,000 IAU members only 2,500 attended that Prague meeting, it was worse still that of those 2,500 only 424 actually got to vote therefore making a very unrepresentative decision. Worst of all is that in that single room, last minute, key meeting some highly relevant and articulate people were excluded from voting and arguing their case; notably Pluto expert, Alan S. Stern, head of the New Horizons mission. His concise summary of the IAU decision making process and its verdict : "... idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision." (on P.28, ‘Astronomy Now’, October, 2006.) I personally am inclined to agree with Alan Stern and feel the decision-making process reflected badly on the IAU and the astronomical community world-wide and is therefore in need of rectifying. Hence I am hoping and urging you to please raise the issue of the planetary definition and Pluto's status again as soon as is possible and restore Pluto (and add Ceres and Eris) to their proper planetary status. Best regards : Steven C. Raine *********SNIP my eml & postal addresses ***** Adelaide South Australia Ph***** Snip **** I encouarage others here who feel likewise to follow my example and if they wish to send this as their letter too - or customise it to suit themselves - they're very welcome too! I’ve just sent the following open letter to the IAU people listed on the Plutroid announcement link :

***

Dear Dr. Edward L.G. Bowell (& so forth)

Rather than adopt the new “Plutoid” term, I strongly urge the IAU to reconsider and reverse its decision to revoke Pluto’s planetary status and to adopt the initial proposal for planet proposed at the last Prague IAU meeting or alternatively adopt this suggested variant of that definition :

“A planet is a natural, gravitationally-forced spheroidal, non-fusing object (ie. not just round by happenstance & allowing for rotational oblateness) directly orbiting a star or fusing object.”

I think it would be a good idea to then classify solar system further by breaking them into the sub-classes of :

I) Terrestrial or rocky (Mercury, Venus, Earth, & Mars)
II) Asteroidal (Ceres & also possibly the largest couple of other asteroids eg. Juno, Pallas, Vesta.)
III) Gas Giants or Jovian (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune)
IV) Ice Dwarfs (Pluto, Eris, & maybe also Sedna & others.)

Here are ten good reasons why I consider Pluto worthy of full planetary status and the IAU’s current definition problematic :

1) Pluto has all the characteristics of a planet except for the “orbital clearing” criteria – however this criteria is flawed because it is itself too hard to define – what is meant by “cleared” & how far from the planet must the orbit be cleared? Strictly speaking this eliminates any object in our solar system as all planets have objects – comets and asteroids crossing their orbits, Jupiter has 100,000 Trojan asteroids, Neptune has Pluto crossing its orbit, Earth has 10,000 near-earth asteroids such as Eros and comets even venture inside Mercury’s orbit. By this logic, no planet can be considered a true planet unless it wanders its star essentially alone and all our solar systems twenty plus worlds – including the IAU’s eight ‘Classicals’ – are disqualified!

2) A further reductio ad absurdum approach then reveals that this criterion fails again because it leads to absurd results ruling out objects we’d clearly consider planets based only on their location. If a Jupiter or Earth-type planet was located in the Oort cloud surely we’d still call it a planet! So why then draw the line at smaller objects otherwise fitting the planetary description?

3) Furthermore, in relation to forming planetary systems (including historically our own,) we know planetary orbits cross and interact, even colliding to form moons and larger planets. Our own Moon formed from such a collision with our Earth and a Mars-sized body. By that poorly considered and ill defined third criterion, these youngest growing planets – even ones Jupiter sized and above – are NOT technically planets because their orbits are not yet cleared – again failing the reductio ad absurdum test. This also reveals that by that criterion’s definition, ‘planets’ cannot collide because their neighbourhood then isn’t clear – nor can they exist as binaries or “double planets” by the same logic. This is contrary to common-sense and consistency. It potentially creates trouble with exoplanets given the possibility that some extrasolar planets may exist in this form – even perhaps twin Neptunes or Jupiter’s. Given that some would describe the Earth-Moon system like the Pluto-Charon system as such a ‘double planet’ then a strict definition of the IAU rule (assuming one can be ‘strict’ with so-vaguely defined a law) could disqualify Earth from planetary status – clearly an absurd proposition!

4) The current anti-Pluto definition is not applied to and is inconsistent with regard to exoplanets – among the flaws of the IAU ‘planet’ definition was its application only to solar system planets. Surely planets orbiting other suns are no less planets for not orbiting our star! Even more tellingly, at least one of the Pulsar planets, PSR B 1257+12 e is tiny – smaller than our Moon and even smaller than Pluto at just 1/5th Pluto’s mass (and another of the Pulsar planets has a mass about the Moon’s) raising a blatant inconsistency. As that is counted as an exoplanet then Pluto, equally, for the sake of consistency should also count among our star’s planets.

5) The dwarf planet-dwarf star analogy; just as dwarf stars are still stars so surely are dwarf planets still planets. Extrapolating the “dwarf planets don’t count” line to stellar astronomy would imply our Sun is not a proper star nor are 99 % of all stars – those 90% on the main-sequence and the 10 % of “stellar corpses” such as white dwarfs and neutron stars. Clearly an absurdity! Moreover, just like with stars, the smaller the class the more its numbers! Therefore calling a planet a “dwarf” should NOT rule it out of being considered a proper planet!

6) Then there are the problems with the whole “classical planets” term. It is hard to see how they apply to exoplanets or how the term can work usefully as a scientific description. Apart from these “classical planets” differing immensely among themselves – Earth and Pluto are arguably far more similar than Earth and Jupiter – the term also clashes with a previous understanding and use of the term namely the more apt concept of “classical planets” being the ones visible to the “classical” age peoples – the five original bright wanderers – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, & Saturn. Thus if we retain the ‘classical’ term, it seems best used as in that original sense applying to the bright planets easily visible from Earth with unaided eyesight and consequently first recognised as planets. Planets discovered later could contrastingly be termed ‘modern’ or ‘Post-Telescopic-era’ planets. This keeps ‘classical’ as a historical term rather than a scientific one and renders it useful in a descriptive, sky-viewing sense.

7) Pluto is the dominant body in its immediate gravitational region among a complex, intriguing system of four bodies; (Pluto, Charon, Hydra & Nix) two moonlets and two worlds with a surrounding atmosphere, seasonal weather of a kind and perhaps rings. It is a complex, slowly changing place, well worthy of attention and planetary status. It is a lot more than just a rocky asteroid or cometary nucleus!
8) Clearly it is important to have a reasonable definition of the term ‘planet’ and thus there’s a need to set maximum and minimum boundaries to rule out objects that are clearly not planets however we can do this by using two criteria – ability to shine by nuclear fusion for the maximum and gravity-driven roundness combined with direct solar or stellar orbiting for the minimum boundary. This can be done without leading to ludicrous results or setting an arbitrary division with no logical basis. Such a more reasonable definition keeps Pluto and adds the largest ice dwarfs and Ceres and was the original, superior definition considered by the Prague IAU meeting.

9) There are also a whole range of cultural, historical and political arguments favouring Pluto’s long scientifically and culturally established place as a recognised planet from its discovery in 1930. Among these are the slight to Clyde Tombaugh’s memory, widow and family plus the perceived political aspect of stripping from planetary status the first planet discovered by an American.

10) Finally, we have, in addition to the logical and scientific flaws outlined already, the rather undemocratic manner in which the IAU ruling was made. Bad enough that of the 10,000 IAU members only 2,500 attended that Prague meeting, it was worse still that of those 2,500 only 424 actually got to vote therefore making a very unrepresentative decision. Worst of all is that in that single room, last minute, key meeting some highly relevant and articulate people were excluded from voting and arguing their case; notably Pluto expert, Alan S. Stern, head of the New Horizons mission. His concise summary of the IAU decision making process and its verdict : “… idiotic. I have nothing but ridicule for this decision.” (on P.28, ‘Astronomy Now’, October, 2006.)

I personally am inclined to agree with Alan Stern and feel the decision-making process reflected badly on the IAU and the astronomical community world-wide and is therefore in need of rectifying.

Hence I am hoping and urging you to please raise the issue of the planetary definition and Pluto’s status again as soon as is possible and restore Pluto (and add Ceres and Eris) to their proper planetary status.

Best regards :

Steven C. Raine
*********SNIP my eml & postal addresses
***** Adelaide
South Australia Ph***** Snip

****

I encouarage others here who feel likewise to follow my example and if they wish to send this as their letter too – or customise it to suit themselves – they’re very welcome too!

]]> By: Lugosi http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Lugosi Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:14:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-38 I always thought plutoids were small hemorrhoids around Uranus. I always thought plutoids were small hemorrhoids around Uranus.

]]> By: StevoR http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-37 StevoR Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:32:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-37 & Sedan = Sedna naturally too! ;-) Typos, italics, bold, sheesh there must be some way <b> Dr Phil Plait </b> can get us an editing ability here ... Now there's an odd and end I'd like to see addressed! ;-) & Sedan = Sedna naturally too! ;-)

Typos, italics, bold, sheesh there must be some way Dr Phil Plait can get us an editing ability here … Now there’s an odd and end I’d like to see addressed! ;-)

]]> By: StevoR http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-36 StevoR Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:29:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-36 Goshdurnnit!! You can't blinkin'win! Bolding above is supposed to end at the end of <b> Wil </b> Sigh. Goshdurnnit!! You can’t blinkin’win! Bolding above is supposed to end at the end of Wil Sigh.

]]> By: StevoR http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-35 StevoR Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:27:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-35 Correction : (Editing capability please BA!) <blockquote> <i> “Its almost as large as freakin’ Mercury.” So according to you 1,195 km is “almost as large as” 2,439.7 km… nice reality bias, isn’t it? You are really funny." </i></blockquote> & you really are sounding patronising & dumb. In relative terms Pluto is nearly as large - admittedly the term is a bit vague but its clear - & true - what’s meant. <blockquote> <i> “Its a planet.” No, it isn’t. Get over it. </i></blockquote> Yes it is. Face it you (& the IAU) have this badly wrong. The correct response is : to acknowledge this, correct your error & apologise! Plutoids .. Ugh what a shocking name! 'Ice dwarfs', if you please, to go with terrestial or Earth-like planets and Jovian or gas giants. <b> Willon 11 Jun 2008 at 1:40 pm <blockquote> <i> I always though objects in the Kuiper Belt should be called Kuipers. </i></blockquote> Actually its really the Edgeworth-Kuiper disk and the terms KuiperBelt Object (KBO), Trans-Neptunian Object (TNO etc .. have been thrown around a lot ... then there's the Oort cometary cloud of which Sedna maybe a member beyond that. Personally, I think TNO is the better term for the smaller asteroidal objects (but not for the ice dwarfs like Pluto & Eris & Sedan itself) for being inclusive of objects that are in both the Edgeworth-Kuiper disk and the Oort cloud. :-)</b> Correction : (Editing capability please BA!)

“Its almost as large as freakin’ Mercury.”
So according to you 1,195 km is “almost as large as” 2,439.7 km… nice reality bias, isn’t it? You are really funny.”

& you really are sounding patronising & dumb. In relative terms Pluto is nearly as large – admittedly the term is a bit vague but its clear – & true – what’s meant.


“Its a planet.” No, it isn’t. Get over it.

Yes it is. Face it you (& the IAU) have this badly wrong. The correct response is : to acknowledge this, correct your error & apologise!

Plutoids .. Ugh what a shocking name! ‘Ice dwarfs’, if you please, to go with terrestial or Earth-like planets and Jovian or gas giants.

Willon 11 Jun 2008 at 1:40 pm


I always though objects in the Kuiper Belt should be called Kuipers.

Actually its really the Edgeworth-Kuiper disk and the terms KuiperBelt Object (KBO), Trans-Neptunian Object (TNO etc .. have been thrown around a lot … then there’s the Oort cometary cloud of which Sedna maybe a member beyond that.

Personally, I think TNO is the better term for the smaller asteroidal objects (but not for the ice dwarfs like Pluto & Eris & Sedan itself) for being inclusive of objects that are in both the Edgeworth-Kuiper disk and the Oort cloud. :-)

]]> By: StevoR http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-34 StevoR Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:18:03 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-34 <b> MaDeR </b> on 11 Jun 2008 at 4:59 pm <blockquote> <i> “It�s round.” Yep. You have this one. “It circles the Sun.” Errrm. Ever heard of ecliptic orbits? Or inclination? Or other little funny differences between orbit of Pluto and orbits of eight planets?</i></blockquote> Yes, but that's irrelevant. A planet in a weird orbit is exactly that <b> a planet in a weird orbit </b> Many exoplanets have farmore excecntric orbits. <blockquote> <i> “It has moons of its own (3)” Yep. Like some other asteroids in this belt or that other belt. ... </i></blockquote> Or like Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Neptune, Ouranos and other planets. Alos unlike planets Mercury and Venus. Frankly, having moons isn't a necessary part of the planetary criteria -whether ithasd 'em or not doesn't matter as longas it isn't a moon itself. (ie. Titan isn't a planet but a moon because it does orbit Saturn whereas Pluto is a planet because it directly orbits the Sun.) <blockquote> <i> It not matters anyway, because Mercury and Venus have no moons and still are planets. Moons simply have nothing to do (at least when they are significantly smaller than parent body) with planetary status. </i></blockquote> Yup. Although its worth noting Pluto has an atmosphere too which no asteroid really claims. <blockquote> <i> “Its almost as large as freakin' Mercury.” So according to you 1,195 km is “almost as large as” 2,439.7 km… nice reality bias, isn’t it? You are really funny. & <em> you </em> really are sounding patronising & dumb. In relative terms Pluto is nearly as large - admittedly the term is a bit vague but its clear - & true - what's meant. <blockquote> <i> “Its a planet.” No, it isn’t. Get over it.</i></blockquote> </i> Yes it is. Face it <i> you </i> (& the IAU) have this badly wrong. The correct response is to acknowledge this. Correct your error & apologise! :-P Plutoids .. Ugh! Ice dwarfs if you please to go with terrestial or Earth-like planets and Jovian or gas giants.</blockquote> MaDeR on 11 Jun 2008 at 4:59 pm


“It�s round.” Yep. You have this one.

“It circles the Sun.” Errrm. Ever heard of ecliptic orbits? Or inclination? Or other little funny differences between orbit of Pluto and orbits of eight planets?

Yes, but that’s irrelevant. A planet in a weird orbit is exactly that a planet in a weird orbit Many exoplanets have farmore excecntric orbits.


“It has moons of its own (3)”
Yep. Like some other asteroids in this belt or that other belt. …

Or like Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Neptune, Ouranos and other planets. Alos unlike planets Mercury and Venus. Frankly, having moons isn’t a necessary part of the planetary criteria -whether ithasd ‘em or not doesn’t matter as longas it isn’t a moon itself. (ie. Titan isn’t a planet but a moon because it does orbit Saturn whereas Pluto is a planet because it directly orbits the Sun.)

It not matters anyway, because Mercury and Venus have no moons and still are planets. Moons simply have nothing to do (at least when they are significantly smaller than parent body) with planetary status.

Yup. Although its worth noting Pluto has an atmosphere too which no asteroid really claims.

“Its almost as large as freakin’ Mercury.”
So according to you 1,195 km is “almost as large as” 2,439.7 km… nice reality bias, isn’t it? You are really funny.

& you really are sounding patronising & dumb. In relative terms Pluto is nearly as large – admittedly the term is a bit vague but its clear – & true – what’s meant.


“Its a planet.” No, it isn’t. Get over it.

Yes it is. Face it you (& the IAU) have this badly wrong. The correct response is to acknowledge this. Correct your error & apologise!
:-P

Plutoids .. Ugh! Ice dwarfs if you please to go with terrestial or Earth-like planets and Jovian or gas giants.

]]> By: StevoR http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-33 StevoR Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:04:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-33 <b> # the madlolscientist </b> on 11 Jun 2008 at 4:28 pm <blockquote> <i> "It’s round. It circles the sun It has moons of it’s own (3) It’s almost as large as freakin’ Mercury It’s a planet. LOLPluto agrees." </i></blockquote> & so do I! Well said. 8) Pluto is indeed a planet - an ice dwarf class world like Eris. & the IAU are only making themselves look very silly & losing peoples respect by saying anything else. # the madlolscientist on 11 Jun 2008 at 4:28 pm


“It’s round.
It circles the sun
It has moons of it’s own (3)
It’s almost as large as freakin’ Mercury

It’s a planet.

LOLPluto agrees.”

& so do I! Well said. 8)
Pluto is indeed a planet – an ice dwarf class world like Eris.

& the IAU are only making themselves look very silly & losing peoples respect by saying anything else.

]]> By: Ronn Blankenship http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Ronn Blankenship Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:48:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-32 If you have a collection of odds and ends and choose one, is that one item an "odd" or an "end"? If you have a collection of odds and ends and choose one, is that one item an “odd” or an “end”?

]]> By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Torbjörn Larsson, OM Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:51:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-31 So, finally all the balls are lined up for the big naming bonanza of the Oort cloud. ... hey, didn't they forget the Oortooids? <blockquote> Were ovens 1-3 ruined by the previous attempts to load them? </blockquote> No, according to the press release it was the first oven, that the previously stubborn sample suddenly dropped into. <a href="http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images.php?gID=4471&cID=63" rel="nofollow">They used a convenient location for the first test which happened to be "cell 4" from the symmetry, and the numbering vs position suggest to me they are on a binary numbering system compliant with the electronics logic, with "cell" 0-7 ovens</a>. <blockquote> Were there 8 of them for redundancy or scientific reasons? </blockquote> They are one shot ovens, so they have 8 shots of it as they dig down to get a depth profile. So, finally all the balls are lined up for the big naming bonanza of the Oort cloud.

… hey, didn’t they forget the Oortooids?

Were ovens 1-3 ruined by the previous attempts to load them?

No, according to the press release it was the first oven, that the previously stubborn sample suddenly dropped into. They used a convenient location for the first test which happened to be “cell 4″ from the symmetry, and the numbering vs position suggest to me they are on a binary numbering system compliant with the electronics logic, with “cell” 0-7 ovens.

Were there 8 of them for redundancy or scientific reasons?

They are one shot ovens, so they have 8 shots of it as they dig down to get a depth profile.

]]> By: Charles http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Charles Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:17:03 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-30 <i>"Oh, and secondary planets. I like that… Gets rid of the problems of large round moons not being planets."</i><i> <b>Obi-Wan:</b> ""That's no <b>secondary planet!</b> That's a space station." <b>Han Solo:</b> "Too big to be a space station. Look at the size of it! It can't be artificial -- it can't!" <b>Luke Skywalker:</b> "I have a very strange feeling about this."</i> “Oh, and secondary planets. I like that… Gets rid of the problems of large round moons not being planets.”

Obi-Wan: “”That’s no secondary planet! That’s a space station.”

Han Solo: “Too big to be a space station. Look at the size of it! It can’t be artificial — it can’t!”

Luke Skywalker: “I have a very strange feeling about this.”

]]> By: Buzz Parsec http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Buzz Parsec Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:11:36 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-29 PS. I'm not bitter about Pluto. Oh no. Not me. Not at all. :-b PS. I’m not bitter about Pluto. Oh no. Not me. Not at all.

:-b

]]> By: Buzz Parsec http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Buzz Parsec Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:09:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-28 Oh, and secondary planets. I like that... Gets rid of the problems of large round moons not being planets. Planets: Large round objects too small to be a brown dwarf, but big enough to become round due to self-gravitation (or ellipsoidal if spinning fast.) Primary planets: Planets orbiting stars Secondary planets: Planets orbiting primary planets (Moon, Titan, Europa, etc. etc.) Tertiary planets: Planets orbiting secondary planets (No known examples) Free planets: Planets not orbiting anything (or orbiting a galaxy?) (No known examples) Gas Giant Planets: Jupiter, Saturn, many exoplanets Terrestrial planets: Rocky or metallic planets (Earth, Moon, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Ceres, maybe Titan, Ganymede?) Ice Dwarf Planets: Small (size-challenged) planets consisting mostly of ice. (Pluto, Eris, Europa?, maybe lots of other KBOs) Asteroids: Rocky or Metallic objects too small to be round. (All the other asteroids, Phobos, Deimos, many of the objects orbiting the gas giants in our solar system) Comets: Icy small objects. (Charon, Dis, most KBOs, many of the objects orbiting the gas giants, Halley, Hale-Bopp, etc.) Ooh! Thirteen planets is too many for my small brain to remember! What about the 200+ exoplanets? Oh, and secondary planets. I like that… Gets rid of the problems of large round moons not being planets.

Planets: Large round objects too small to be a brown dwarf, but big enough to become round due to self-gravitation (or ellipsoidal if spinning fast.)

Primary planets: Planets orbiting stars

Secondary planets: Planets orbiting primary planets (Moon, Titan, Europa, etc. etc.)

Tertiary planets: Planets orbiting secondary planets (No known examples)

Free planets: Planets not orbiting anything (or orbiting a galaxy?) (No known examples)

Gas Giant Planets: Jupiter, Saturn, many exoplanets

Terrestrial planets: Rocky or metallic planets (Earth, Moon, Venus, Mars, Mercury, Ceres, maybe Titan, Ganymede?)

Ice Dwarf Planets: Small (size-challenged) planets consisting mostly of ice. (Pluto, Eris, Europa?, maybe lots of other KBOs)

Asteroids: Rocky or Metallic objects too small to be round. (All the other asteroids, Phobos, Deimos, many of the objects orbiting the gas giants in our solar system)

Comets: Icy small objects. (Charon, Dis, most KBOs, many of the objects orbiting the gas giants, Halley, Hale-Bopp, etc.)

Ooh! Thirteen planets is too many for my small brain to remember! What about the 200+ exoplanets?

]]> By: sprocket http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-27 sprocket Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:55:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-27 It all raises the question, who is the smallest giant in the world? It all raises the question, who is the smallest giant in the world?

]]> By: Buzz Parsec http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Buzz Parsec Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:53:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-26 Okay, no one else has said a word... YIPPEE FOR GLAST!!!!! Okay, no one else has said a word…

YIPPEE FOR GLAST!!!!!

]]> By: Didac http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Didac Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:15:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-25 I don't know if Pluto deserves to be called "a planet", but Titan surely does. For comparative planetology, Titan is studied in the same cathegory as Earth, Venus or Mars. So, Pluto is a planet (albeit a little planet), Titan is a planet (albeit a secondary planet). I don’t know if Pluto deserves to be called “a planet”, but Titan surely does. For comparative planetology, Titan is studied in the same cathegory as Earth, Venus or Mars.

So, Pluto is a planet (albeit a little planet), Titan is a planet (albeit a secondary planet).

]]> By: Dave Hall http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Dave Hall Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:02:55 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-24 Plutoids: the curiously strong little planets. Now in mint and wintergreen! Hey, it was better than something about plutoids hanging behind Uranus--- Plutoids: the curiously strong little planets.
Now in mint and wintergreen!

Hey, it was better than something about plutoids hanging behind Uranus—

]]> By: John Meacham http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-23 John Meacham Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:34:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-23 Were ovens 1-3 ruined by the previous attempts to load them? or can they give them a shake too to try to get samples into them? Were there 8 of them for redundancy or scientific reasons? just curious. Were ovens 1-3 ruined by the previous attempts to load them? or can they give them a shake too to try to get samples into them? Were there 8 of them for redundancy or scientific reasons? just curious.

]]> By: Simon Dunn http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Simon Dunn Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:03:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-22 You neglected to mention that you also have a high scratchability factor too Mr Plait. Hug testing duties have now been reassigned to myself, and your rating is in need of renewal. But based on your constantly excellent writings and those images from the sky you posted earlier, it will still be pretty high. Someone asked if there was a feed for our podcast, and yes there is, but I feel it would be rude to post it in the comments here. Details are in the facebook group listed in the post. You neglected to mention that you also have a high scratchability factor too Mr Plait. Hug testing duties have now been reassigned to myself, and your rating is in need of renewal. But based on your constantly excellent writings and those images from the sky you posted earlier, it will still be pretty high.

Someone asked if there was a feed for our podcast, and yes there is, but I feel it would be rude to post it in the comments here. Details are in the facebook group listed in the post.

]]> By: MaDeR http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-21 MaDeR Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:59:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-21 "It�s round." Yep. You have this one. "It circles the sun" Errrm. Ever heard of ecliptic orbits? Or inclination? Or other little funny differences between orbit of Pluto and orbits of eight planets? "It has moons of it�s own (3)" Yep. Like some other asteroids in this belt or that other belt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/243_Ida http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_Eugenia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/87_Sylvia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(136108)_2003_EL61 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroid_moons It not matters anyway, because Mercury and Venus have no moons and still are planets. Moons simply have nothing to do (at least when they are significantly smaller than parent body) with planetary status. "It�s almost as large as freakin� Mercury" So according to you 1,195 km is "almost as large as" 2,439.7 km... nice reality bias, isn't it? You are really funny. "It�s a planet." No, it isn't. Get over it. “It�s round.”
Yep. You have this one.

“It circles the sun”
Errrm. Ever heard of ecliptic orbits? Or inclination? Or other little funny differences between orbit of Pluto and orbits of eight planets?

“It has moons of it�s own (3)”
Yep. Like some other asteroids in this belt or that other belt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/243_Ida
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_Eugenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/87_Sylvia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(136108)_2003_EL61
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroid_moons

It not matters anyway, because Mercury and Venus have no moons and still are planets. Moons simply have nothing to do (at least when they are significantly smaller than parent body) with planetary status.

“It�s almost as large as freakin� Mercury”
So according to you 1,195 km is “almost as large as” 2,439.7 km… nice reality bias, isn’t it? You are really funny.

“It�s a planet.”
No, it isn’t. Get over it.

]]> By: Peter http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Peter Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:55:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-20 Phil, I hate to oversell, but wait until you see the new Futurama movie, "Beast With a Billion Backs" -- I predict you will love it if only for all the scientist jokes. (The actual) Dr. Hawking gets all the best lines...! Phil, I hate to oversell, but wait until you see the new Futurama movie, “Beast With a Billion Backs” — I predict you will love it if only for all the scientist jokes. (The actual) Dr. Hawking gets all the best lines…!

]]> By: themadlolscientist http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-19 themadlolscientist Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:28:44 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-19 <blockquote>It’s round. It circles the sun It has moons of it’s own (3) It’s almost as large as freakin’ Mercury It’s a planet.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/themadlolscientist/2542236349/" rel="nofollow">LOLPluto</a> agrees.

It’s round.
It circles the sun
It has moons of it’s own (3)
It’s almost as large as freakin’ Mercury

It’s a planet.

LOLPluto agrees.

]]> By: Vagueofgodalming http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Vagueofgodalming Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:09:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-18 I saw that list of items and thought "I wonder what the comments will be about?" Well done Navneeth, for proving me wrong. I saw that list of items and thought “I wonder what the comments will be about?”

Well done Navneeth, for proving me wrong.

]]> By: Thomas Siefert http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Thomas Siefert Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:54:57 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-17 Plutoids? This calls for intimidate discussion.... Plutoids? This calls for intimidate discussion….

]]> By: Kullat Nunu http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Kullat Nunu Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:52:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-16 <i>What was wrong with Plutinos? Haven’t folks been calling them that for a while?</i> Plutinos refer to a specific group of Kuiper Belt Objects (objects that are in 3:2 resonance with Neptune). Most plutinos are far to small to qualify as plutoids. What was wrong with Plutinos? Haven’t folks been calling them that for a while?

Plutinos refer to a specific group of Kuiper Belt Objects (objects that are in 3:2 resonance with Neptune). Most plutinos are far to small to qualify as plutoids.

]]> By: The Centipede http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/comment-page-1/#comment-15 The Centipede Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:40:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/11/odds-and-ends-part-n/#comment-15 Boobieoids. Heehee. Booboids. Buboes? Eww. Seriously, why didn't they just pick the least-common-denominator descriptor for "planet" (self-sphericality due to gravity, not self-luminous, etc.) and then add simple <i>adjectives</i> for more specific description? Modularity is your friend in making a robust system amenable to change... bah. Frakkin' waste, is all it is. Sounds like astronomy needs to be Leaned up a bit! In other news, I now want an EasyBake Oven based on the Phoenix lander. Boobieoids. Heehee.

Booboids.

Buboes?

Eww.

Seriously, why didn’t they just pick the least-common-denominator descriptor for “planet” (self-sphericality due to gravity, not self-luminous, etc.) and then add simple adjectives for more specific description? Modularity is your friend in making a robust system amenable to change… bah. Frakkin’ waste, is all it is. Sounds like astronomy needs to be Leaned up a bit!

In other news, I now want an EasyBake Oven based on the Phoenix lander.

]]>