Talk:IAU definition of planet/Archive 1

I Just Want to Post My Subjective Idea
I, just like everyone else read this new definition of a planet and had somewhat of a reaction against it becuase it wasn't what I wanted. I know we all have our varying opinions. And I said further up on this page and I am no IAU by any means. But, does anyone like my idea? (just for kicks):

(1) There is a problem with Pluto being a planet becuase scientists might like to call it simply a KBO. Just like Ceres was a planet for fourty years, and then an Asteroid. (2) The new definion proposes 12 planets now. And maybe as much as 53 later. Many peoplke don't like 12, much less 53. (3) My personal idea: Classifications: (partially adapted from Mike Brown's website, www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ ) Let's have differnt names for the same thing: (4) We see this pattern in our solar systems of "fours". Four terristrial planets, and asteriod belt; the largest four asteriods were once considered planets, four gas-giants, and our ever-growing Kuiper-Edgeworth belt family. (5) My suggestion:  Let's have sixteen planets.

How, You Might Ask?

Four terrestial planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars (all very similar in composition) Four Asteroid-belt planets: Ceres, Juno, Pallas and Vesta (all very similar in composition) Four Gas-giants: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune (all very similar in composition) Four Trans-Neptunian planets: UB313, Pluto, and whatever two come to be the next larest. (all very similar in compositon)

There, sixteen planets. A Nice, even number, not too many, but also not eight. For the asteriod belt and trans-Neptunian, just take the largest four and call them planets. It may not be likely that we'll discover KBO's bigger than UB313 and Pluto, since we haven't discovered them in all this time, (famous last words of course), call it the: Largest Four resultion, saying what ever four are the largest at the time, they will be called offical planets unless something larger is discovered, then bumping down the smallest one of the current largest four, and agree to do that

Why?

Becuase then classifications are the easiest, Pluto remains a planet, UB313 becomes a planet, and everybody wins, including teh nineteenth century astronomers who wanted to call the four largest Asteroids planets.

What do people think of my idea???

Keep in mind I just wrote this out of wishful thinking and I'm not trying to rebuttle any proposition made that hasn't been voted on yet for the moment. In fact, I like the new proposition. I just wanted to share my idea. Omnibus Progression 23:53 PST 16 August 2006.


 * Yours is too arbitrary. It also cuts out many objects that may be out there that are the size of or nearly the size of pluto. And how about other star systems? 24.76.102.248 08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well we all have our comments, questions, and complaints, but please keep in mind that the IAU is the official place where they name celestial bodies. If you don't like it (for any reason), just ignore it. Also, we are not all professional asteronmers (unless if you were an ameteur astronomer) so please don't be very cross. Alastor Moody (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the IAU will get such a heated reaction against their draft they'll be back to the drawing board before going home. They went wrong in one fundamental area: the implied minimum size of a body meriting the label "planet". They forgot the availability of words like "planetoid", "planetesimal", "planetule" and "planetkin". They are trying to dissociate a word from all its built-up definition and make it mean what they want. But as it is, in the end, just a matter of what people "want" for the word, they will be overuled in the court of private opinion. Yes-- private, as in individual astronomers... Here's my definition: "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 hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet, and (c) has a diameter of 3,500 kilometers or more." Yes, condition (c) is pretty much arbitary, but word-labels like "planet" are always arbitrary anyway. It's a word, not a datapoint. JDG 13:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to be arbitrary though once you pass (b), since we can still fall back on dynamics to further qualify matters. So instead of a minimum size, a mass sufficient to make a significant mark on the dynamical evolution of the orbit of other objects.  Are the discussions at the IAU behind closed doors?  It would be interesting to know what they have dropped on the floor and why.  mdf 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sub-brown dwarf
Since the IAU is now redefining the term "planet", I wonder if they may reclassify Jupiter as a sub-brown dwarf. Alastor Moody (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the Talk page deletions
Clyde, with all due respect, please reclaim your head from the wave of anti-OR fanaticism sweeping Wikipedia and leave people's innocent and interesting Talk page contributions alone. I've been here far longer than you, and many's the time such Talk page discussion, however far afield it roamed, ended up helping the article by deeply defining the real issues for the editors, who were then in a position not just to collect sourced material but to collect good sourced material... Plus, your harsh deletions could easily alienate new contributors, as perhaps Omnibus is. We want people to feel they are taken seriously, not summarily deleted. JDG 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not choose sides in this confrontation, but I do wish to say the following: as a scientist closely concerned to the article's subject, I try to keep it as good and readable as possible. This also goes for talk pages. I will exert all of Wikipedia's options to prevent this article degrading over childish behaviour, if that should be impeding. Nick Mks 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You will notice that we are tussling over Talk page material, which is a whole `nother beast than the article itself. I don't know if user Omnibus would have a lot of solid, sourced material for the article, but what if he is getting his feet wet by participating in Talk? To summarily throw out his words is almost like saying "Get lost!". It just shouldn't be done... You say "...I try to keep it as good and readable as possible. This also goes for talk pages." I would take issue with that. Neither you nor Cyde, Admin or not, has the right to alienate good faith editors outside of article space. JDG 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't get into what you intend by saying that I don't have the right to do things I didn't do, but everybody does have the right (and obligation) to follow WP:REFACTOR. Nick Mks 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are authorized to refactor under Talk_page_guidelines, and none of the comments deleted by Cyde fall under the behavior described there. So if you're keen to make the same deletions Cyde did, you'll be just as in the wrong. JDG 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that I'm keen to make the same deletions Cyde did, knowing that my first sentence was I will not choose sides in this confrontation? Nick Mks 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with JDG. I'm not a big fan of superfluous talk page comments like predictions and personal views, but many times these comments provide insight into alternative points-of-view or open a discussion about the clarity of something in the article. If a comment is outright out-of-place, say so POLITELY with an assumption of good faith. Summarily deleting a comment is rude and counterproductive to increasing the pool of contributors. --Elliskev 16:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Un-necessary pain
This redefinition is going to cause main to millions of schoolchildren everywhere as they have to learn tons of new planets in addition to the traditional nine.


 * If there's too many small new planets to learn, then the children will be taught the primary 8 and only a few important smaller planets. How many schoolchildren learn to name all the moons in the solar system? User:mustang6172

This also reminds me of when they wanted to redefine Great Lake to include Lake Champlaign (a mere fraction the size of Lake Erie) so the people of New Hampshire could get Federal funding for whatever they wanted. 172.137.205.222 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Xena is applying for federal funding? 24.76.102.248 08:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well maybe it could be frusterating to schoolchildren, but the IAU is the official place where they name celestial bodies. When they decide something and say yes to whatever they're thinking, its official and we must accept it. And also believe it or not, I'm a middle-school student and I don't care about the "pain" cause I know a lot of other kupier-belt, Oort cloud, asteriods, and extrasolar planets objects, but I'm no astronomer or a Super-genius. Alastor Moody (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is so stupid
There are 9 planets damn it

Soon there could be over 50 if this definition goes though. Althought I hope this one doesn't becuase it will needlessly inflate teh number as most astronmers think that there are more objects taht are the size of 2003 UB 313 or bigger. Æon Insane Ward 05:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kids shouldn't be taught anything but the large planets anyways, teaching them Pluto over Xena (and many others that may be out there) is pointless. More emphasis is needed on the classifications of planets and sections of the solar system; the inner rocks, the asteroid belt, the gas giants, and the kuiper belt objects and ejected kuiper belt objects. 24.76.102.248 08:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you can't say that minors should know about minor planets cause Wikipedia dosen't say anything about age. The IAU name celestial bodies and why is it so maddening all over just because of the redefinition of the term "planet(s)"? Actually, I a kid myself and know many kupier-belt objects and asteriods. Alastor Moody (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaningless Effort
Personally, I feel that the effort to come up with a definition of planet is meaningless, because the term itself is worthless. Why do we feel the need to use a term that includes both Jupiter and the Earth, while excluding objects such as the Moon or Ganymede? Earth has a lot more in common with the Moon and Ganymede than it does with Jupiter, and yet we group it with Jupiter just because they both orbit the Sun! If the Moon were somehow to be flung out of orbit around the Earth and took up orbit around the Sun, it would "become" a planet, and yet nothing changed except its address! A new terminology needs to be adopted that's based on the composition and mass alone, not where it happens to be located. And, as Cyde mentioned above, the Moon will "become" a planet anyways in about 40 million years by this new definition! Nik42 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the issue. -- Cyde Weys 19:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Cyde Weys ... the issue *is* the essence and foundation of the article after all. This is a place to come to agreements and since the "definition" of planet is the essence of the article, it seems that the topic should be be discussed without censorship and limiting the nature of the discussion. If you are interested in regulating a discussion page based on your narrow definition of appropriateness, I suggest you will have more fun in, perhaps, the "Passion of the Christ" forum or one about Nazis or 9/11 -- lots of tasty pure unbridled opinion there for you to rue. (Saudade7 (unsigned in) 140.233.91.79 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't alter the fact that you are wrong. It is hardly "censorship" to request that people keep discussions on topic.
 * You seem to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia talk pages are chatrooms; they are not, they are places for discussing articles. Therefore it is utterly pointless for us to discuss matters like whether we think the IAU's definition of a planet is meaningful or not, because we cannot put our opinions of such matters into the article, per WP:NOR. Therefore any discussions on such matters that take place here are off-topic, because the topic here is the text of the article. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 23:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I have a huge investment in this issue, but I'll quickly note that in your reference WP:NOR. It actually says "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages." So while the original poster "might" have been regarded in poor taste, there's no *rule* (at least in your reference) that he should necessarily stop. Mucus 02:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the word "planet" does not have, and never has had, a precise scientific definition, why should any scientific body take it upon itself to tell the rest of the world what it may and may not call a planet? By all means let them tell us about its mass, orbit etc., but if they feel the need for a term to act as a shorthand for a particular set of attributes, let them come up with a term of their own, rather than hijacking an existing word and imposing their own definition upon it. Vilĉjo 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the word "planet" has never had a precise scientific definition is exactly why this proposal/effort is so important. Dionyseus 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, but that looks like an assertion that, in order to have any value or meaning whatsoever, everything must be definable in precisely scientific terms. That is a perception that I would profoundly disagree with. If it is thought necessary, for scientific purposes, to have a recognised term which defines a specific set of measurable attributes, that is fine. What is not fine is to take an existing term, whose significance is "cultural" rather than narrowly "scientific", and say that only the "scientific" meaning can have any validity from now on. Vilĉjo 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to all the alternate "cultural" definitions you would like. For wikipedia's purposes, however, "scientific consensus" is important; whether we have a 9-planet, 8-planet, or 12-planet system is dependent upon scientific consensus, and that consensus is currently dependent upon an agreed-upon definition of the term "planet." Bustter 02:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Science already redefined it three times by adding Neptune, Uranus, Pluto to the historically known planets. Or would you like to take those back? You are free not to use the astronomical definition for planet if you don't want to (and I'm sure some won't), but you'd look pretty silly in the long run. Science has a long history of usurping words and giving them technical definitions (e.g. gravity, momentum, toad, rose, etc.). Most of these definitions come close to the lay understanding of the term, but discrepancies are unavoidable when science discovers new facts not known in the past. Or do you have some other plan for why Xena (which is larger than Pluto) should not be a planet? Dragons flight 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why Xena and not Quaror, Sedna, Ixion or any of the other KBOs out there ? Why Charon when Pluto has two other moons (albeit tiny ones) ? Why is this being done now anyway ? Why not wait until 2015 when the New Horizons probe arrives at Pluto and more is learned about Pluto and its moons ? 03:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please understand that a DEFINITION of planet is needed. Which objects qualify inside that definition may, and will, change with time. They are not just saying "X, Y and Z are planets, A, B and C aren't"; they are saying "objects with this and that characteristics are planets, objects with other characteristics are other things." If it is discovered that the Pluto-Charon system does not qualify as a double planet, it won't be a double planet anymore. There is no problem with that, as long as the decision is not arbitrary. Pmbarros 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, please try to avoid stating unnecessary comments and being off-topic. And also, please bare in mind that the IAU is official for naming celestial objects. WP:NOR. Alastor Moody (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion did take into account historical/cultural conceptions of a planet. We're talking about an artificial classification system. The article should reflect that. The originating comment is not off-topic. It is evidence that the article is missing a mjor section. I wish everyone would stop this bashing, WP:AGF, and start acting like they value other editors contributions. --Elliskev 17:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Owen Gingerich, the Chair of the Planet Definition Committee says: "'In July we had vigorous discussions of both the scientific and the cultural/historical issues, and on the second morning several members admitted that they had not slept well, worrying that we would not be able to reach a consensus. But by the end of a long day, the miracle had happened: we had reached a unanimous agreement.'"
 * --Elliskev 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Titius-Bode/"Tyler Granger" Periodicity Claims
These claims of a newly discovered periodic distribution of planets (analogous to that predicted by the Titius-Bode law), which (ahem) just so happens to be in perfect accord with the IAU's likely redefinition, are obviously the work of a recent hoaxster. Neither Google nor Wikipedia, much less any authoritative source, yields any independent verification, and it seems fair to call this a prank and delete it forthwith. Check the Titius-Bode law page for even more egregious misinformation, which should likewise be deleted. ChXu 01:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello anon user. While I admire your dedication to truth, there are several rules involved, particularly WP:NOT. I would imagine that 1 Ceres.com is your page. I'm not sure how I feel about your opinions from a mathematical sense, it doesn't seem right, but it might be true. There does appear to be some credence to your claims. Alas, Wikipedia isn't as interested in Truth, as it is in Verifiability. I'm not here to say that the claim is false, but I'm saying that it isn't verifiable. When 1ceres.com gets reviewed by a major journal or website, it will go in, even if unproven, because Verifiabiliy is more important to Wikipedia than truth.
 * On a seperate note, reverting a revert, especially without reasoning, is considered bad form. McKay 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that PlanetCeres is trolling multiple articles and talk pages with his periodicity theory. Check his contributions and those of anonymous IP 71.215.54.11 for details. Nick Mks 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)