Archives - Astronomy: Page 23
Author: paul carson (Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:40 pm)
Title: 3 New Planets?
In the hope of ending years of arguing, a committee of astronomers and historians has proposed a new definition of the word “planet” that could expand the family of planets from 9 to 12 and leave textbooks and charts in thousands of classrooms out of date or take out Pluto as one of the members of the group of nine planets.
Among the chosen few within the solar system would be not only Pluto, whose status has been challenged in recent years, but also Ceres, the largest asteroid; 2003 UB313, nicknamed Xena, an object discovered by Dr. Brown in 2005 orbiting far beyond Pluto in the outer solar system; and even Pluto’s largest moon, Charon.
In addition, at least a dozen more solar system objects are waiting in the wings for more data to see if they fit the new definition of planethood, which is that an object be massive enough that gravity has formed it into a sphere and that it circles a star and not some other planet.
The definition, they said, would apply both inside and outside the solar system.
The new definition was to be announced today in Prague, where some 2,500 astronomers are meeting in the triannual assembly of the International Astronomical Union. It is the work of the group’s Planet Definition Committee, whose chairman is Owen Gingerich, a Harvard astronomer. In a statement, Dr. Gingerich said this might not be the last word on what a planet is. “Science is an active enterprise,” he said, “constantly bringing new surprises.”
_________________
grow and be kind
I think the new definition of a planet is too broad for any categorical meaning. We have lived with our 9-planet solar system for too long to change now. We still have astronomers who debate about whether Pluto is a planet, and now they want to deem Charon one too? It's simply ridiculous. I think it looks more like an opportunity to reprint every book, poster, pamphlet, and other informative source ever made just for profit. Will anyone take these new "planets" seriously? I doubt that I will. Asteroids were given that classification because of their composition. To say that one of them is a planet because it happens to be the largest one we know of is worthless. What do 2500 astronomers talk about when they gather together? Certainly not important things like a new propulsion system to carry us off this planet someday. No no, they would rather waste our time by changing definitions and adding boring, meaningless planets to the list of things people don't want to know.
I agree. Planets are special. We shouldn'tgoing around naming every spherical discovery we find. Its funny we spend billions yet we still can't be decissive about what are planets.