What's In A Name?

That which we call a Planet, by any other word would still orbit the Sun.

However, it does seem that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) takes things a little more seriously. There is a major divide surrounding a new proposed definition for "Planet", which if approved, would add 3 new objects to our solar systems roster.

The part of 'IAU Resolution 5 for the GA-XXVI' that defines a planet says:
"A planet is a celestial body that:
a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydro-static equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and
b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet. "

It has been long wondered whether or not Pluto should be considered a planet. It's small size and highly eccentric orbit have long placed it on the fence between ball of ice and planet. It seems that the convention and emotional attachments of considering it the 9th planet have gone on for so long that the IAU would rather add more planets to the list than remove Pluto and keep the rest. These would-be "planets" would include Pluto, Pluto's moon Charon, Ceres the largest known asteroid, and 2003 UB313 a temporary name for an object often referred to as Xena, supplementing the 8 traditional planets. This definition also opens the doors for several more objects to be placed on a watch-list for induction.

I think that our own attachment to Pluto is silly and that if we are going to be politically correct and take it upon ourselves to solve this discrepancy we really should push Pluto out of the elite clique of Planets. It is after all, extremely far away, to the point that it is unlikely we will get up-close photographs or information from its icy surface. At its closest distance it's still about 2.67 billion miles from earth. A long, cold road, with very few service stations along the way. It is like hiking for a month through the woods to see your average, perhaps even below average, pine tree. What do we expect of interest from this "planet"? It is simply a ball of ice in a somewhat binary state with another ball of ice.

It seems absurd that we would change the rules to allow this snowball to still be a planet, while allowing other indistinguishable objects to slide in to our text books on astronomy as "planets". With this lack of data we possess on such objects that would eventually be considered "planets" it really seems quite foolish.

I can live with only 8 planets. I survived with the political incorrectness of having 9, and I don't foresee many lives ending because we'll have 12, 15, 55 or 600.

I do think that the convention of more planets we know very little about is silly, considering their lack of qualities similar to what we currently classify as planets.

If you found this useful please pass it on!
Please comment!
Educate yourself and others!

Recommend this:

• digg
• reddit
• del.icio.us