Why the Word 'Planet' Will Never Be Defined 141
eldavojohn writes "What makes a planet a planet? Slashdot covered the great debate about whether or not Pluto qualified and Space.com now has up an article explaining why we'll never have the term 'planet' defined to a point that everyone can agree on. Divisions in the scientific community currently stand over whether or not it has to be in orbit around a star, the dynamics of the body in question and apparently the country you come from plays a part in it too. Some feel the United States is the dominant deciding factor on the definition but the IAU has not turned to democratizing the definition yet." From the article: "In the broadest terms, a planet could be thought of as anything from an 800-kilometer-wide (500-mile-wide) round rock orbiting a dead star to a colossal gas ball floating alone in space."
Background info (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. Thanks for not going the "MOD PARENT UP" route.
I got one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Respectfully, Sir, your definition is full of floating sh*t.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Define "Moon".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
STB
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll refine the metric at a screening later. For now, let the standard be "Star Wars cast member X gets a bad feeling about it.".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Breifly excited! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Fools!
Re: (Score:2)
democratic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets see now.. democratically deciding a definition? hmm...
At any rate, the USA being the dominant deciding factor might make some sense seeing how they also invest a lot into the actual science part of this, but if the IAU did turn to democratize the decision, then the USA can't be the deciding factor seeing how they are a mere 4% of the world population....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:democratic? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, all definitions are democratically decided even if no one votes on them.
If tomorrow everyone on the earth decided to call what we use to call the color blue as the color red... Then tomorrow the sky would be red.
If tomorrow everyone decided that a yard (or meter or what have you) is not 3 feet but now four and we adjusted all our documentation and measurement tools to reflect this then it would be so.
Heck... We could even call the Antarctic hot and the Sahara cold as long as we all agreed that the term hot meant one would "burn" to death of hypothermia and you would "freeze" to death of heat exhaustion.
Really... Definitions themselves do not imply or detail facts.
Calling something a moon or a planet does not change its behavior or physical properties, but it does change how we as humans relate to said objects and property behaviors.
Of course we don't go around changing things willy nilly because it is hard to get everyone to agree all at the same time. Although... Come to think of it... Since we are not all speaking English on this world of ours, we might not be really agreeing as much as we think.
Sometimes terms in other languages used for the same object or property, doesn't have the same exact meaning as another languages word for the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough.
But if you disagree with the everyone else in the world, then you risk them defining you as insane.
Although, without insanity, life would be very boring.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems they do that anyway.
Lobbying, more like (Score:2)
If you want the moon to be a planet, and greased the right palms, you could probably swing it.
I thought "gas ball floating in space" was... (Score:3, Funny)
Captain Planet (Score:1, Funny)
Well, according to UrbanDictionary.com a planet is (Score:3, Funny)
Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't see what's so hard about that ...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
#undef PLANET
Someone's gotta say it. (Score:2, Funny)
Not quite a planet.
These KBOs
Are goofy, dammit.
Burma Shave.
Original Meaning (Score:5, Insightful)
In ancient times, Grecian astronomers noted how certain lights moved across the sky in relation to the other stars. These objects were believed to orbit the Earth, which was considered to be stationary. The "wandering" lights were called planets, a Greek term meaning "wanderer".
****
Why not just stick to this original definition? If it "wanders" among the stationary celestial lights and casts light visible to the naked eye, it's a planet.
Everything else can be labeled SAO "speculative astronomical object."
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Your definition of planet includes commets, which the Greeks didn't count as planets. To answer your question, the problem with the original definition is it doesn't let people claim they discovered a planet. That's the whole reason silly things like Pluto are counted as planets, because finding another KBO isn't going to make your name go down in
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly (Score:1)
That's it! From another classical source: "Earth is a class M spherob".
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? First, everything in the sky "wanders," perhaps not at a rate comparable to the motion of the planets, but for whatever arbitrary set of objects you call "stationary celestial lights" everything else moves.
Second, your definition would rename everything we think of as a planet to non-planet, and rename stars, galaxies, and other objects p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> could exclude Uranus and Neptune because they are not visible with the naked
Technically Uranus is visible to the naked eye (I could have added "brown" in there somewhere, but mercifully chose not to). It's just that it moves so slowly no ancient culture discovered it.
Planet Classes (Score:4, Informative)
Quite right. They're all planets but of different classes. We could list up all the types of planets we know about and assign alphabetic class numbers to them. An Earth-type planet could be, "Class M [wikipedia.org]". I know, wild, original idea...
Defer to Marvin (Score:5, Funny)
Why is this so hard? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.2dplay.com/orbit/orbit.swf [2dplay.com]
Basically, you can have an item in a multi-star system -- is it in a stable orbit around one of them, or is it just doing a few loop-de-loops on its way through? Can it orbit 2, 3,
Re: (Score:2)
So if you knock it out of orbit (somehow...) it changes into "not a planet"?
A sibling post raised a similar point, so we're both arguing that where it happens to be shouldn't affect the definition. It defies our (well, my at least) intuitive understanding of the word to determine a body's identity by where it happens to be.
But you're on the right track, I think. What if we determined it based on something more essential, like how it was formed? So
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get the problem? First, start off with the idea that a planet must be orbiting a star... similar to how moons are defined as orbiting a planet
And I do stress technically. In Chemistry, physics and even lowely IT humans use specialized jargon and words with precise definitions. It's like a network protocol, if you going to exchange information about something it would be nice to have
Simpler definitions... (Score:1)
Here's my suggestion...
satellite = thing
planet = thing+
star = thing ++
comet/asteroid = thing-
spacedust = thing--
Re: (Score:1)
star(Sun) = satellite
Earth = satellite
Moon = satellite
a
Appeal the decision (Score:2, Funny)
Unfortunately, as we do not have the minimum 9 planets required to qualify as a class A solar system, we will have to wait for a trial date with a municipal court first.
What's wrong with this definition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Earth only has a "more-or-less circular orbit" right now, but it's not always that way [nasa.gov], so we wouldn't be on a planet anymore.
I'm not sure what you mean by "orbital path isn't shared," but that would seem to discount binary planets, among other things.
Planet Definition (Score:2, Funny)
It doesn't matter now (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why define it? (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, the whole point of category words like "planet" is so that I can point at an object and say, "That's a planet," and you immediately have some basic information about it, because we agree on what "planet" means. But if we're scientists, studying it (or deciding whether to study it), then we need a whole lot more info. Gas giant? Small, terrestrial rock? Iceball? Distance from star? Eccentricity of orbit? Etc. "Planet" doesn't tell you any of that.
Ultimately, the main reason to specify an "official" definition of "planet" is for the sake of deciding whether and how we want to encourage space travel, exploration, astronomy, and related sciences. To give an extreme example, if the definition of "planet" included any solid body primarily orbiting a star, there'd be millions of planets in every star system, and saying that NASA's going to go explore a planet would be meaningless. The public wouldn't care and wouldn't go out of its way to support it.
At the other extreme, limiting the planets to rocky or gaseous bodies at least the size of Mercury, orbiting a star, and having a very low orbital eccentricity, means that when you discover a body that only misses ONE of those criteria, the definition seems arbitrary and people will just ignore it. Imagine if we find a trans-Neptunian object that's the size of Mars, and is a rocky, terrestrial body like Mars, but merely has an eccentric orbit? Very few laypeople would accept that that's not a planet, mostly because laypeople's perception of a stellar body is based on its physical characteristics, not its orbital ones. If Earth was somehow flung out into space, orbiting nothing, it'd stop being a planet? (Well, we'd all be dead, but that's another issue.)
Re:Why define it? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is, why do we need a precise, "official" definition of "planet"?
Yes, exactly. The word "planet", as used today, describes a specific collection of bodies in our own solar system. It was devised by ancient astronomers to describe the lights in the sky that didn't follow the normal pattern of stars. Stars go in circles, planets go back and forth. The word has taken on a new meaning as our understanding of celestial bodies has grown, but now it's generally used to indicate that one of the collection of 9 specific bodies. Just as "sun" is used to indicate our star specifically, "planets" indicate specific bodies orbiting our sun.
If we really need a more general definition that's more scientific than "largish body that orbits a star," for the sake of scientific accuracy, then come up with a new term. Take the word "far" for example. It's a general-use word, not a scientific one. We might use it when talking about scientific issues, like, "the nearest star to the sun is far away," but it doesn't have scientific accuracy. This doesn't mean that we need to define "far" as "greater than 1 light-year" and then try to force people to stop claiming that someplace on earth is "far". It means that, if you want a precise scientific term to indicate "greater than 1 light-year away", you need to come up with a new word which isn't "far".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek had this figured out... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's already a helpful classification guide [wikipedia.org] to help them get started.
This is NOT a science issue (Score:4, Insightful)
What qualifies as meat? Does seafood count as meat? Not for Catholics.
What qualifies as a person? What about in utero? Maybe for manslaughter, but why not count that time for age restrictions?
What qualifies as blue? Is cyan blue enough? It depends on what you're using the category for.
Anyone who's tried to work on standardize terminology (eg, specialized thesauri, or even just a controlled vocabulary) will know that it is a long, exhasting process that takes years in some cases, and even then, is likely to change.
Planets are not a classical category [wikipedia.org], and will be subject to prototype effects [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Language is as exact as needed for everyday interaction. But some disciplines decided that they need a less flexible (and in some respects less effective) but more rigid medium and so they decided to define the terms they use normatively. That's why we have logic, algebra and other formalisms. In jurisprudence and the humanities/arts it works different, but they nonetheless deviate from everyday language.
Now we have to decide whether the term "
That's why we should switch to newspeak (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The basic premise behind classical categories is in any case nonsensical, so is isn't clear what benefit there would be if planets fell into any of them.
Physics has been steadily eroding the Aristotlian world view for centuries now, and the categories died with Einstein's unified description of space and time. Aristotle was an acute observer of the human condition, and his world view accurately captures a vast amount of folk-epi
Yeah, sure. (Score:1, Interesting)
And the fact that it's bleeding obvious to any European, (or unbiased American) that we have EIGHT planets, while it's (mostly) Americans who seem to be violently opposed to the idea of Pluto not being a planet is a mere coincidence.
Definition by negation (Score:2)
Piece of cake.
definition (Score:2)
Uranus (Score:1)
Intellectual Property (Score:2)
A scientific definition may be hard to come by, however when the time comes a legal one sure won't be.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem (Score:4, Informative)
gas ball? (Score:1)
IAU messed up the process (Score:2)
I learned this from someone who was actually at the conference... and I was quite frankly appalled at they way they h
Richard Feynman on Definitions (Score:3, Insightful)
"You can know the name of a bird (or a planet) in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird (or planet)... So let's look at the bird ( or planet) and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."
The point here is that scientific knowledge (whether it be social, biological, or physical) is about explaining how things work (understanding processes) or why they are the way they are (understanding variation). Debate over essentialist categories like "planet," "species," "nation-state," etc. are, as one other person in this discussion has already mentioned, problems of language.
Interestingly, Wittgenstein [wikipedia.org] might have a thing or two regarding this topic as well, especially in later work [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia gives me 5 names in 4 languages for the Malachite Kingfisher [wikipedia.org]:
English: Malachite Kingfisher
Latin: Alcedo cristata
Afrikaans: Kuifkopvisvange
Haven't seen enough of them to define.. (Score:1)
I like the new definition (Score:2)
We can have other terms to describe bodies that don't relate to their surroundings, but it's a nice, concise way to describe a body as a part of a solar system.
What happened to classes of planets? (Score:1)
Why the annoyinf consistency? (Score:2)
Anything larger than (some arbitrary size larger than Pluto but smaller than Mercury). All objects identified as planets prior to 1950 shall still be considered to be planets, even if they do not otherwise fit this definition.
That's the easy way of saying that Pluto shouldn't be a planet, but will be considered one anyway. I don't understand all the fuss. It's not like Pluto will have its feelings hurt or have a party one way or the other. Since I see more support for leaving
What's wrong with the IAU definition? (Score:2)
Most people seem to trip up on the last part. I think the idea is that an object shouldn't have any "rivals" in its orbit, for lack of a better word. I was browsing some astronomy sites a few months ago and found a good page on Sedna which had a discussion of what should be considered a planet. This is before the recent reclassifications but I think it illustrates what the IAU was thi
Because (Score:2)
The term "planet" will never be officially defined because no one besides some obsessive-compulsive grammar nazis cares whether some dead rock floating through outer space should be called "planet" or "planetoid".
Not a flamebait nor a troll, but the simple truth. Real scientists have better things to do than play around with semantics, and no one cares what the armchair astronomists say.
Re: (Score:2)
I told you so. (Score:2)
Critical mass (Score:2)
To help us navigate the goofily drawn line between planet and dog, perhaps it would be "civil" of us to just create the abstract notion of a "union of particles orbiting the sun". We could then define Pluto as one of those, and leave the religious issue of which such unions should be marryable to the word "planet" to the respective scientific faiths to sort out. I'm sure that with an appropriate number of masses it will all work out divinely.
Classifications are always arbitrary (Score:2)
When I was in high school, there were three: animal, vegetable, and protista, it being felt that single-celled organisms really weren't typical animals. It may shock some--it certainly shocked cellular biologists when I was in grad school--to know that circa 1940-1950 there was serious consideration given to the concept that protozoan
Definition should be (Score:2)
Here's what the definition should be;
Planet: Any planetary body that has an atmosphere that orbits that may or may not a star. If they exist, this could include rogue planets.
Moon: Any planetary body that orbits a planet is considered a moon with one exception of similar asteroids as Phobos or Deimos.
Asteroids, Comets, Etc: Any planetary body floating anywhere that do not have an atmosphere and primary made minerals of nearby other asteroids. Phobos and Deimos
Surface Gravity? (Score:2)
Horseshit (Score:2)
However a definition that makes a "Dwarf Planet" not a planet, and anything not orbiting our sun not a planet (despite the scientific community having talked and of
Re:VERY IMPORTANT (Score:4, Informative)
Layne
Well, we did, mostly (Score:2)
We should be able to come up with something similar for a planet. It might cause problems for Pluto, but we could certainly define it as anything orbiting a star that is not itself a star or black hole and is a coherent body at least as large as <insert arbitrary size>.
Re: (Score:2)