A proposal to change the definition of a planet

[tater]

3 hours ago, Kryten said:

Biological definitions don't work like that. Consider myxozoans; they're parasitic worm-like organisms composed of only a few cells each. Morphologically they're very similar to protozoans, and that's what they were assumed to bebut genetic testing shows they're descended from cnidarians (jellyfish, hydra, et.c.) which secondarily lost most of their complexity. Therefore, they're cnidarians; because biological classifications are based on ancestry and relationships. You need to look at the genetic space around an animal to properly classify it, not the animal in isolation.

Yes. There are different classifications, too, depending upon what the available data is, as well. For extant species, geographic isolation can create speciation in classification (done by observation of morphology and behavior), while if the same animals managed to survive the process of fossilization, they could be unearthed eons hence, and be indistinguishable cladistically based upon their identical bone morphology. If the genetic material was still available (as is the case with some extinct species), then that can be used to demonstrate relationships as well. 

Classification I think becomes less and less important as our ability to deal with large volumes of data increases. It is primarily an organizational tool in the grossest sense. Given the modern ability (constantly improving) to simply pile up data on individual subjects, there is less and less need for fixed classification, since groupings can become visible by plotting different elements of available data (hence some of the empirical ideas around the discriminant for the clearing concepts suggested for the planet definition where clusters manifest themselves pretty clearly). Giving the clumps names is useful where it is useful, I suppose. Select different sets of data to plot, and you'll see different clumping that is useful for your needs at that time. Grouping by atmospheric type is important to those working in that area, while magnetic field is the critical component to others, etc, ad nauseum.

I'd think that in general, the distinction between planet and dwarf planet is not much of a thing for planetary scientists, as the specimens man has managed to get a closer look at so far have tended to be very different (and interesting) from each other. In some sense, we might have more need of classification for the stuff we have yet to discover, or those that are less well understood (exoplanets, and the many objects in the outer solar system).

Edited February 24, 2017 by tater

[YNM]

7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Yeah. But you can't tell immediately when you see a planet, that it IS a planet. You have to do an analysis on the space around it. Which is part of the issue some folks are having. If the definition is dependent on a factor outside the object, why even have it? In this case, it's like an insect no longer being called an insect because there are other bugs of a certain size near it. Which is an almost irrelevant property when actually studying the insect (except for certain things like swarms and such, but those don't apply to planets) itself.

Well, in that case you'd have problems defining most "object" in the rest of the universe. How can you tell is it a star cluster, or just a random chance ? Or galactic core ? The same even goes to animals : once you get them as gelatin, how can you tell what it was from ? (hint : there isn't, which is why they have to inspect the whole production line to tell is it safe or not.) Even more goes to single-celled things, that can cluster up or can live in solitary.

Looking for things around is fine, really. Otherwise, we'd just call everything blobs of matter.

Edited February 24, 2017 by YNM

[Nikolai]

20 hours ago, tater said:

They don't need to memorize planets to learn the solar system any more than they need to memorize star names.

Good grief.  My point wasn't that they need to memorize planet names so much as what the lack of memorizing planet names would do to remove space issues even further from the public consciousness.

There are probably things that would work every bit as well for retaining that consciousness and leave people better informed than memorizing a bunch of names.  I'd rather have that than rote memorization any day.  But when a common public sentiment with regards to education is a demand that every morsel handed down be directly applicable in the things they need to devote conscious attention to in their daily lives, it can often be a struggle to convince people that space exploration confers any benefit worth considering.  That's the downside I mean to point to, in the hopes that we can come up with better strategies for educating the young about space.

[YNM]

TBH from that point of view, choosing whether Pluto is a planet or not is like choosing the amount of "dimensions" in string theory.

Problem is, string theory was just coming (and unsettled). "Planet" has been there since ancient greeks (and probably before).

I suppose this is high time to have a proper understanding of the whole problem. Coupled with planets of other stars, this should be aimed at reducing headache (of who ?). Oops, never heard that done before...

Additionally :

I have to say that the current definition is quite proper. The same with these trees (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummholz). They are trees, despite doesn't look like one. It can be said that trees are usually larger and more complicated. On the other hand we have these massive grass (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo) which may come very, very close to trees (or even larger), but are not trees.

Something like that, I think.

Edited February 25, 2017 by YNM

[NSEP]

I dont care about names. If you want Pluto to be a planet again: