Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"


"Brett Paul Dunbar" <brett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FV$OyfDNgSdIFwSw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <PYKdnToYLvdOlenVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, K_h
<KHolmes@xxxxxxxxx> writes
The IAU's definition of a planet is extremely flawed for a number of
reasons. For some examples, the IAU definition:



* defines a planet as "nearly round" suggesting that only nearly spherical
bodies qualify as planets. But Saturn is over 12% oblate and so it is not
clear if it qualifies as a planet.

It does, the nearly round is hydrostatic equilibrium so it is round modulo
any distortions caused by spin.


Well, then, the IAU definition should say that. It says nothing about
modulo spin distortions.



* defines a planet as having "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"
which would exclude Jupiter type planets in other solar systems. For
example, consider a solar system with a 6 solar-mass star orbited by a 25
Jupiter mass brown dwarf (at 20AU from the star) and one Jupiter mass
planet
at each LaGrange point L4 and L5. Neither Jupiter mass planet would have
"cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" and so they would not qualify
as
planets.

That is an actual potential ambiguity, at the moment we don't know of any
such bodies if we find one then we will have to decide. This is true of
most possible definitions. How you might classify a giant Trojan can await
actually discovering one.


Definitions should be generic enough to cover the kinds of cases that exist
in nature. With trillions of solar systems in the Milky Way galaxy alone,
there have to be configurations like this. The defintion of a planet should
be generic enough to cover whatever nature can produce.



* requires that a Kuiper belt world with the same size and mass as the
Earth
is not a planet. A world with 70 percent the mass of the Earth may very
well reside within the Kuiper belt.

The minimum size for orbit clearing depends on distance from the primary;
and this is a problem why?


An Earth sized world in the Kuiper belt is a planet under any reasonable
definition. If / when and Earth sized world if found orbiting another star,
at 30 AU say, it will almost certainly be called a planet.



* defines a dwarf planet as not being a planet and this contradicts
English
usage. In English, an adjective like "dwarf" modifies a noun like
"planet".
What the IAU has done is like defining a woman to be a young female and
then
claiming that there are old women.

In English the noun with the modifier often denotes a subset, it can also
denote a disjoint set. A few examples: In Alpine Skiing the Slalom Giant
Slalom and Supergiant Slalom are three distinct events and there is no
overlap between the types of courses used. Moles, Golden Moles and
Marsupial Moles are three quite distinct, if superficially similar, groups
of burrowing mammals again they are entirely disjoint sets and are not
closely related.


On something as fundamental as defining planets, the usual rules of English
should be obeyed. The IAU defintion does not follow the usual rules and
that is bad.



* defines a planet in such a way that it only applies to Earth's solar
system. This is bad; a definition should be applicable throughout nature.
Claiming one definition for Earth's solar system, and another definition
for
the rest of the universe, implies there is something special about Earth's
solar system and that is a violation of the Copernican principle.

We have a lot more information about the solar system than about any other
system, we can actually resolve individual objects that are too small to
be planets in the solar system, with one exception this is not true of any
exoplanetary system, so for the moment we don't need to worry about the
lower limit of planetary size outside the solar system.

Never put off to tomorrow what you can do today. The IAU's bad defintion
should be cleared up as soon as possible.


* has intrinsic ambiguity in its phrase "cleared the neighborhood around
its
orbit". There is no way to know how much clearing is necessary.

* fails to specify what kind of orbit a planet must take. It is unclear
if
a world, with the same size and mass as the Earth, traveling on a
hyperbolic
orbit around the sun qualifies as a planet.

A hyperbola isn't actually an orbit, as it isn't closed so no that would
not have cleared its orbit. Orbits are either elliptical or circular and
repeat. Parabolas and hyperbolas do not repeat.

No, they are hyperbolic orbits. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbits
and do a search for "hyperbolic orbit". Also check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory



A star is a celestial body that sustains, has sustained, or is capable of
sustaining nuclear fusion.



A brown dwarf is a star that is only capable of fusing deuterium and/or
lithium even if neither is present.



A celestial body that has its barycenter continuously inside the body of
another celestial body is a satellite of that celestial body.



A planetary body is a celestial body that has sufficient mass for its self
gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic
equilibrium, is nearly spherical or nearly spheroidal in shape, and is not
a
star.



A planet is a planetary body that is not the satellite of another
planetary
body.

That would include a bunch of small spherical bodies which are too small,
such as Ceres. Planet are large and should dominate their region of space.




A moon is a satellite of a planet.

Wrong, a fair number of non-planets have moons for example Dactyl is a
moon of the Asteroid Ida. Not acceptable for that reason.

Once astronomers settle on decent definitions, this won't be a problem.
Under the definitions I proposed, only planets would have moons and Dactyl
would be a satellite that is not a moon.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the above definitions, there is the option of having additional
definitions that divide planets and moons into further categories:



Giant planet: Diameter >= 30,000 Km.
Midsize planet: 30,000 Km > Diameter >= 3,000 Km.
Dwarf planet: 3,000 Km > Diameter

Giant moon: Maximum width >= 3,000 Km.
Midsize moon: 3,000 Km > Maximum width >= 300 Km.
Dwarf moon: 300 Km > Maximum width



Primary planet: Giant or midsize planet
Secondary planet: dwarf planet

Primary moon: Giant or midsize moon
Secondary moon: dwarf moon



A classification scheme like this should satisfy the anti-Pluto people
since
only 8 planets in the solar system qualify as primary planets. It also
prevents the number of primary planets from growing too large; which
seemed
to be a big concern for the IAU.


It doesn't use any fundamental characteristic to define a Planet, diameter
is an arbitrary number while orbit clearing is a dynamic process which
produces a clear natural gap. Diameter depends a lot on composition,
Mercury has a smaller diameter than Ganymede but is almost twice the mass.
Icy bodies also achieve hydrostatic equilibrium at a lower mass than rocky
bodies.

Yes, those numbers were arbitrary and I should have used "Equatorial
Diameter" instead of "Diameter" for the planets. The phrase "orbit
clearing" is ambiguous and that is one of the problems with the IAU's
definition.



There is my 2 cents on the planet definition problem and one possible way
to
fix it.


There are fewer problems with the IAU definition than with yours. Orbit
clearing is a straightforward and significant orbital dynamic process.

No, the IAU definition has all the problems I mentioned but the definitions
I provided do not have any of them. Orbit clearing is too ambiguous to be
worthy of scientific nomenclature.

K


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Griffin on Loss of U.S. Space Leadership
    ... There are hotels in high inclination orbits for spectacular views of Earth, and vehicle assembly hangars in low inclination for departure to points beyond Earth orbit. ... There are huge radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon, protected from the incessant radio noise of our industrial planet, and at the poles are research facilities and tourist spots, using the water ice hidden in the craters there. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: TJ atoms push themselves?
    ... a moon around a planet can put motion in the planet ... if you controled te orbit patern of the moon. ... The planet and moon orbit each other as they obit a comon low point. ... You can controle the direction and speed of that planet having full ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: TJ atoms push themselves?
    ... a moon around a planet can put motion in the planet ... if you controled te orbit patern of the moon. ... The planet and moon orbit each other as they obit a comon low point. ... You can controle the direction and speed of that planet having full ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Baby-proofing a solar system
    ... you are really serious on keeping the locals from breaking orbit. ... planet is threatened before acting is an invitation for disaster. ... If you are going to empty the area of space debris, ... Wouldn't your planet's modest moon be an essential influence on its ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: OT Poll: Does our solar system have 8 or 9 or 10 known planets?
    ... defintion of planet, I would suggest any body that has sufficient mass ... to force itself to be spherical and orbits the sun as its primary orbit ... the Moon was orbiting Earth. ... primary orbit is around the Sun. ...
    (talk.origins)