[X] My Assistant

[MizarKey]

One of many articles regarding the upcoming conference...

Experts meet to decide Pluto fate

[volcanopele]

I must say that I disagree. As reductionists, it is our job to categorize. Finding a workable definition
for a planet has only become necessary, and painful, because we have made so many fundamental
discoveries in our solar system and others since 1992 (the year the first KBO and the
first pulsar planets were detected). It's not about culture. It's about good science.

But we also shouldn't present the solar system as a neat and tidy place when it isn't. The discoveries since 1992 have allowed us to appreciate the complexity of not just our solar system, but other solar systems as well. From other solar systems, we have found large planets that don't following neat and tidy orbits, some have high eccentricities for example. We have found stars with two accretion disks at different inclinations. In our own solar system, we have found icy dwarf bodies that follow a miriad of orbits and have various shapes, and there maybe some the approach the size of the terrestrial planets.

The solar system (and other systems) are not neat and tidy places and we shouldn't pretend that it is. Listen, I understand we need a system for categorization. It allows us to more easily make sense of our world or the worlds around us. I understand that. But the amount of press this has gotten and the amount of breath and time spent on this is not worth it. Pluto is still Pluto whether it is a planet or a TNO, or any icy dwarf, or a dog.

Setting arbitrary definitions also makes the word less useful for scientific purposes. A TNO at 4000 km probably didn't form fundimentally any different from a 2000 km wide body (or a 1900 km wide body). As long as we make it clear to the public what the words value is (for classification purposes and for nomenclature purposes), I think we can come to an understanding. But if we treat it as if objects that are planets are some exclusive group or club and those that are just moons or minor planets are inferior and aren't worth our time in terms of exploration purposes (just because they are not planets), then we have a problem.

Okay, I'm sorry about the rant...

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

But we also shouldn't present the solar system as a neat and tidy place when it isn't. The discoveries since 1992 have allowed us to appreciate the complexity of not just our solar system, but other solar systems as well.

Jason, I think you and everyone else are missing Alan's point. No one is trying to obscure the fact that our "solar system [isn't] a neat and tidy place." Quite the contrary. Taxonomies and classification systems are very useful in science, especially in astronomy. Discerning hierarchical relationships, ipso facto, can lead to scientific discoveries.

[JRehling]

[...]

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

I quite agree -- my question would be: why take the old, problematic term "planet" and try to shoehorn it into a nice, logical taxonomic system? It is precisely because the term is in the popular lingo that it's ill-suited for such a role. To me, trying to tinker with the popular term "planet", changing it, in order to get a useful taxonomy would be like trying to come up with a geological definition of "hill" as opposed to "mountain". Because there once seemed to be a sharp divide between planets and asteroids, the usefulness of the term was unquestioned. Now that the divide is known not to be sharp, the question is: why mold the term instead of working aroundit? People still have their nonscientific words for mountains and hills, and it doesn't hurt geology.

What many people who have a sentimental attachment to the term "planet" lose sight of is the fact that the term originated in ancient times to describe the appearance of certain "wandering stars." There was absolutely no scientific need for it. Therefore, despite the very long usage of "planet" and what it has come to stand for, I don't have any particular qualms about redefining it, for example, to take into account our rapidly growing base of knowledge about Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt objects. And hey, if Alan Stern et al. ever find the hypothesized population of Vulcanoids, then I have no sentimental attachment in reclassifying Mercury, as well.

This post has been edited by AlexBlackwell: Aug 15 2006, 09:06 PM

[JRehling]

[...]