Planet No. 9 to be named Eeloo

[Bill Phil]

10 hours ago, NFUN said:

Why do most people want Pluto to remain a planet? Simple, they grew up with it being one. Why does this matter? Because being a planet is special, and Pluto was special to them; they didn't like to see it 'demoted'. If every insignificant little asteroid gets called a planet, that designation loses its value, and essentially you've done to all of the planets what has been done to Pluto.

That's a reason, yes. It's true with many.

Maybe the problem is people thinking "planet" is somehow special. For both sides of the argument. So what if we have thousands of planets, we have billions of stars, and probably trillions of undiscovered planets, all in our galaxy.

[*Aqua*]

Who's going to name all of them? That's not possible.

We name things that are in one way or another important enough to have a name. Nobody cares about a small asteroid (if it isn't on a collision course with Earth). A planet on the other hand controls its area of the solar system. And because there are only 8 of that kind they are important. If there were thousands of them we would put them into classes of 'more important ones' and 'less important ones'. The former will get names, the later ones not.

It always works that way.

Edited January 31, 2016 by *Aqua*

[Bill Phil]

40 minutes ago, *Aqua* said:

Who's going to name all of them? That's not possible.

We name things that are in one way or another important enough to have a name. Nobody cares about a small asteroid (if it isn't on a collision course with Earth). A planet on the other hand controls its area of the solar system. And because there are only 8 of that kind they are important. If there were thousands of them we would put them into classes of 'more important ones' and 'less important ones'. The former will get names, the later ones not.

It always works that way.

Then explain why we name the thousands of unimportant asteroids. They're not important, right? What about Comets? We name them, too. A lot. Even a catalog number is, technically, a name.

Technically asteroids aren't asteroids. They're not star-like. That is, after all, what "asteroid" means. When they were first discovered, they were points of light, appearing like a star. Until we got higher powered telescopes, we couldn't make out any details.

But even if they're "important", Pluto was a planet, while not controlling its area, until the redefinition. 

You appear to be using circular logic here. I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out the flaw in the argument. It's circular. Saying, "because there are only 8 of that kind [gravitationally dominant] they are important [worthy of the title planet]," only stands if that's the definition of planet, and, as per the IAU, it is. But it's completely arbitrary. Why do it that way? To specifically make Pluto and similar bodies non-planets. That was the reason. Or the biggest reason, at least. And I'm not saying that Pluto should be a planet. But I am saying that it shouldn't necessarily be not counted as one. 

Pluto, Ceres, and the others could easily be in the same category as Jupiter and Earth. Heck, why put Earth in the same category as Jupiter? It's not even 1% of Jupiter's mass, right? How can it even compare? Well, it's in the same category anyways. So why not the same for Pluto? Why not make Dwarf and Minor Planets taxons one level below Planets, along with Major Planets. The 8 that control their area still get a distinction, a big one, but the others are still recognized as Planets, but not Major Planets.

There is no problem with having thousands of planets. We have thousands of cities, and then Megacities, which are still cities, just really, really, big ones. We have seven billion people, all of whom have names, despite the fact that very few are important, let alone controlling. But they're still human beings, just not household names.

[*Aqua*]

36 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

But it's completely arbitrary.

Every definition is arbitrary. For example:
Why using Pi instead of Tau?
Why using meter instead of inch?
etc.

The answer is: because someone said so.

 

36 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Why not make Dwarf and Minor Planets taxons one level below Planets, along with Major Planets. The 8 that control their area still get a distinction, a big one, but the others are still recognized as Planets, but not Major Planets.

This is a play on words. It doesn't matter if you have two categories named 'planets' & 'dwarf planets' or 'major planets' & 'minor planets'. Dwarf planets are the next smaller kind of celestials after planets.

[Bill Phil]

49 minutes ago, *Aqua* said:

Every definition is arbitrary. For example:
Why using Pi instead of Tau?
Why using meter instead of inch?
etc.

The answer is: because someone said so.

 

This is a play on words. It doesn't matter if you have two categories named 'planets' & 'dwarf planets' or 'major planets' & 'minor planets'. Dwarf planets are the next smaller kind of celestials after planets.

Tau is the circumference divided by the radius. Pi is the circumference divided by the diameter. Both work in the equations. In fact, Tau is a bit better, since Tau is exactly the value of one revolution in radians, 2Pi.

Someone said so isn't a good enough reason. Tradition is a better reason then that is. But not necessarily a good one, either.

How is it a play on words? The 8(9?) major planets get their "specialty", and the rest of the planets get to be planets. Everyone wins.

There should be two criterion for a planet:

1. it's not a star or brown dwarf

2. it's in hydrostatic equillibrium

Why? Because a broad category, like planets, should have very few criterion. Three is still few, but only one distinguishes it from anything else, the others are redundant.

A major planet would then add the "clearing the neighborhood", and dwarf planets would be those planets that haven't done that.

Heh, what's funny, is that looking at the IAU definitions for a dwarf planet, there are technically none, since very single one is a satellite. But of the Sun. So..... that's strange. I know what they mean. Satellite is a term for "moon," but still, it's a bit too vague.

Also, no exoplanet is officially a planet. They don't orbit the Sun.

And if you don't like having Jupiter in the same category as Ceres, then you shouldn't like having Tardigrades in the same category as Elephants. They're both in the Kingdom Animalia!

[m4v]

This discussion is silly.

[Bill Phil]

31 minutes ago, m4v said:

This discussion is silly.

Exactly. The entire point of both sides is silly!

[More Boosters]

It should be called Sneaky Beaky Cheeki Breeki

[cantab]

5 hours ago, m4v said:

This discussion is silly.

More to the point, it's off-topic.

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Tau is the circumference divided by the radius. Pi is the circumference divided by the diameter. Both work in the equations. In fact, Tau is a bit better, since Tau is exactly the value of one revolution in radians, 2Pi.

Someone said so isn't a good enough reason. Tradition is a better reason then that is. But not necessarily a good one, either.

How is it a play on words? The 8(9?) major planets get their "specialty", and the rest of the planets get to be planets. Everyone wins.

There should be two criterion for a planet:

1. it's not a star or brown dwarf

2. it's in hydrostatic equillibrium

Why? Because a broad category, like planets, should have very few criterion. Three is still few, but only one distinguishes it from anything else, the others are redundant.

A major planet would then add the "clearing the neighborhood", and dwarf planets would be those planets that haven't done that.

Heh, what's funny, is that looking at the IAU definitions for a dwarf planet, there are technically none, since very single one is a satellite. But of the Sun. So..... that's strange. I know what they mean. Satellite is a term for "moon," but still, it's a bit too vague.

Also, no exoplanet is officially a planet. They don't orbit the Sun.

And if you don't like having Jupiter in the same category as Ceres, then you shouldn't like having Tardigrades in the same category as Elephants. They're both in the Kingdom Animalia!

...a object orbiting a star is never a "satellite".

[More Boosters]

Definition of planet:

Everything more massive than Pluto the general public is familiar with. But not Pluto.

Edited January 31, 2016 by More Boosters

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, More Boosters said:

Definition of planet:

Everything more massive than Pluto the general public is familiar with. But not Pluto.

You forgot Eris, which is more massive than Pluto, and the general public is relatively familiar with because it triggered the development of the term dwarf planet..

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

...a object orbiting a star is never a "satellite".

"A satellite is anything that orbits around a larger object. A natural satellite is any celestial body in space that orbits around a larger body."

-http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Satellites/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Natural-satellites

Oh, and according to wikipedia:

A natural satellite is a celestial body that orbits another celestial body of greater mass

Here's what NASA has to say (I know it's grades 5-8.... it was the only article I could find on the subject):

"A satellite is a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star."

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-a-satellite-58.html

Edited January 31, 2016 by Bill Phil

[fredinno]

57 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

"A satellite is anything that orbits around a larger object. A natural satellite is any celestial body in space that orbits around a larger body."

-http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Satellites/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Natural-satellites

Oh, and according to wikipedia:

A natural satellite is a celestial body that orbits another celestial body of greater mass

Here's what NASA has to say (I know it's grades 5-8.... it was the only article I could find on the subject):

"A satellite is a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star."

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-a-satellite-58.html

Oh, ok. My bad.

58 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

"A satellite is anything that orbits around a larger object. A natural satellite is any celestial body in space that orbits around a larger body."

-http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Satellites/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Natural-satellites

Oh, and according to wikipedia:

A natural satellite is a celestial body that orbits another celestial body of greater mass

Here's what NASA has to say (I know it's grades 5-8.... it was the only article I could find on the subject):

"A satellite is a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star."

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-a-satellite-58.html

Another thing: Dwarf planets are actually considered "Minor Planets" along with asteroids and Comets.

[Bill Phil]

4 minutes ago, fredinno said:

 

Another thing: Dwarf planets are actually considered "Minor Planets" along with asteroids and Comets.

Last I recalled Minor planets were eliminated as a category altogether, and replaced with SSSBs (Small Solar System Bodies).

[fredinno]

39 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Last I recalled Minor planets were eliminated as a category altogether, and replaced with SSSBs (Small Solar System Bodies).

Yes. you get these things confused because absolutely no one uses the second term.

[Bill Phil]

13 hours ago, fredinno said:

Yes. you get these things confused because absolutely no one uses the second term.

Well, according to the IAU, anything that isn't a planet or a dwarf planet is an SSSB. Also anything that isn't a star or a Brown Dwarf.

[Kerbol Macrosystems]

Why does everyone want to petition the US government to name things?  They don't have authority over the IAU.