Solar system could have over 100 planets with new criteria

The Space Reporter ^ | Kathy Fey

[Telepathic Intruder]

Planetary science is subset of the branch of science known as astronomy, not a separate one. It includes planets as well as moons and other objects down to meteors. The term is from back when ‘planet’ was a more general term than today. Really there are few astronomers who engage in this silly argument about what a planet is—it’s mostly from those see it from an armchair perspective.

[Verginius Rufus]

NASA won't tell us if Uranus self-identifies as an asteroid. Perhaps the truth would hurt Muslim sensibilities, to protect which is the primary duty of NASA.

Maybe the definition of a planet can be made to include that it must rotate on its axis at less than a 90 degree inclination. Since Uranus' inclination is 98 degrees, that would exclude it from the category of planets.

What to call it then? Perhaps Quasi-Planet.

[Paladin2]

They are government paid retards arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is Fake Svience. They need to go do some real work.

[HP8753]

Maybe Rosie O’Donnell will be a planet under the new system. ;-)

[Moonman62]

Yet it’s the armchair guys who have to point out how terrible a requirement it is that a planet has to clear its orbit.

[Paladin2]

How clean would your house be if you were to only get to clean each room every 248 years?

[Telepathic Intruder]

By the way, the article is wrong when it say Jupiter hasn't cleared its orbit of asteroids. Most asteroids have been herded into the asteroid belt by Jupiter, which is just outside Mars's orbit. The Trojan asteroids have been herded into clumps that are always at a distance from Jupiter. The only asteroids which Jupiter occasionally encounters have unstable orbits, not stable ones.

And there are those that say Neptune hasn't cleared its orbit because Pluto's orbit crosses it at one point. But Pluto has been forced by Neptune into a 3:2 orbital resonance where it never comes close to Neptune. So again, Neptune has cleared its orbit.

[Paladin2]

A ball of gas is NOT a planet. Science Fiction Literature agrees.

[Paladin2]

I find your post to be devoid of logic.

You do realize that the higher edumacation professorial set of “positions” is largely government academic/white collar welfare...,

[Moonman62]

The problem is the IAU 2006 requirement of clearing an orbit is extremely vague for scientific purposes. But I would expect nothing else from such a hasty and heavy handed effort.

[Telepathic Intruder]

What is the alternative logic then? As far as I can tell, the “dissenters” want the term ‘planet’ to mean every object they feel a sentimental connection to. The problem is that we don’t all feel the same way. Where is the science? Or should there be no definition for planet at all? Is it a ‘bad’ term? If you find my logic flawed, fist explain the correct solution.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Yes I’ll admit it’s somewhat vague and open to interpretation, sort of the way the difference between a mountain and a hill is. But it’s just a term we’re talking about, nothing else. At least it has some boundaries, and isn’t so vague that I can call my dog a planet if I want.

[Paladin2]

Review the derivation/history of the word Planet.

Whatever the government funded welfare professors want to describe needs a new moniker. Planet has too much baggage to try to coopt. Be creative and generate a new term. Otherwise they are wasting valuable resources and not advancing Science.

[Telepathic Intruder]

I know the history. The original word for ‘planet’ is a star that wanders, and does not include the Earth. But we also thought that the Earth was the center of the universe as well. But we’ve advanced somewhat since then, and so has the term for a planet. I don’t want to go back a thousand years.

[Paladin2]

Planet used to include The Moon and The Sun.

Time to saw off and create a new term to cover whatever it is that the govt funded navel gazers are using to get grants to fund their programs.

I’m suRprised that this issue Is not heavily linked to CAGW....

[Telepathic Intruder]

In the ancient Greek world, and the dark age one, there were five classes of objects in the universe. They were the Earth, the moon, the planets, the sun, and the stars. And there were five planets. Things like comets and meteors were pretty much temporary things appearing only as signs—basically the gods sending coded messages for any who could interpret them. “Planet” meant an entirely different thing then as now. It wasn’t until the 16h century that the idea of Earth being just another planet began to take hold.

[Paladin2]

I see the point being that govt funded perfessers are hell bent on redefining the term “Planet”. It seems like a lame operation to generate papers to use to milk the NSF, et. al. for funding instead of doing legitimate work.

Graduate students are not being well trained/well served by such unscientific actions.

[Telepathic Intruder]

And I see the point as only more clearly defining terms so that astronomy remains a true field of science instead of a pseudo-religion ruled by unpredictable individual sentiment and emotionalism.

[Paladin2]

So get your own, new term. Youse guys claim to be smart. Generate one and move on.

Otherwise you sre wasting society’s wealth.

[Telepathic Intruder]

You’ve yet to convince me how a change in science terminology is costing society their wealth, or how anyone is being victimized, driven from their homes, or forced into labor camps. Is there something I’m missing?