We have to keep the astrologers guessing...
So tomorrow we will all know how many planets we have (for now) in the solar system.
One of the first things I noticed when I heard about this (other than the fact that the word planet won't mean much anymore, which isn't inherently a bad thing), was that they were going to call any Pluto-like planet (with a high angle of orbit from normal, highly eccentric orbit, and period of more than 200 Julian years) a pluton. Now, as a geologist, I kind of resent the theft of my special geology word. A pluton is (loosely) a large underground igneous intrusion (they tend to have a composition similar to granite, and are extremely common and geologically important). The Sierra Nevada range is a large example of a pluton (known as a batholith). Other geologists are also upset about this. Another problem with the word pluton is that it also refers to the planet Pluto in some other languages. That is pretty confusing.
Luckily, as of the most recent information I've seen, the word has lost out, in favor of the phrase "Plutonian objects". (Go here for an amusing take on this development.)
The fact that it was the lack of "pluton" in MS Word's spellcheck that caused astronomers to gloss over it is utterly hilarious. I can't count the number of words I've had to add to spellcheck due to my discipline. And I can't believe that the word "planetesimal" is in spellcheck, either. (btw, it isn't; I just checked)
Using Word to indicate scientific importance. That's a new one, and not one I would have expected from a bunch of astronomers.
I personally don't want Pluto to be a planet. It can be the coolest double-iceteroid around, but I'd like planets to have some kind of specialness to them. Earth and the other classical planets have so much complexity to them that I'd like to single them out.
I'd really like the definition of a planet to incorporate some of its history rather than strict spatial and mass factors. For instance, there are extrasolar-system planets out there that aren't in a solar system and have systems of their own around them. Those should really have a different classification than Earth, since the history must be radically different (all solar system objects accreted from the same cloud of gas and dust as the Sun, so if a planet is at the center of the system it must have had a more similar history to stars than to our conventional planets).
One of the first things I noticed when I heard about this (other than the fact that the word planet won't mean much anymore, which isn't inherently a bad thing), was that they were going to call any Pluto-like planet (with a high angle of orbit from normal, highly eccentric orbit, and period of more than 200 Julian years) a pluton. Now, as a geologist, I kind of resent the theft of my special geology word. A pluton is (loosely) a large underground igneous intrusion (they tend to have a composition similar to granite, and are extremely common and geologically important). The Sierra Nevada range is a large example of a pluton (known as a batholith). Other geologists are also upset about this. Another problem with the word pluton is that it also refers to the planet Pluto in some other languages. That is pretty confusing.
Luckily, as of the most recent information I've seen, the word has lost out, in favor of the phrase "Plutonian objects". (Go here for an amusing take on this development.)
The fact that it was the lack of "pluton" in MS Word's spellcheck that caused astronomers to gloss over it is utterly hilarious. I can't count the number of words I've had to add to spellcheck due to my discipline. And I can't believe that the word "planetesimal" is in spellcheck, either. (btw, it isn't; I just checked)
Using Word to indicate scientific importance. That's a new one, and not one I would have expected from a bunch of astronomers.
I personally don't want Pluto to be a planet. It can be the coolest double-iceteroid around, but I'd like planets to have some kind of specialness to them. Earth and the other classical planets have so much complexity to them that I'd like to single them out.
I'd really like the definition of a planet to incorporate some of its history rather than strict spatial and mass factors. For instance, there are extrasolar-system planets out there that aren't in a solar system and have systems of their own around them. Those should really have a different classification than Earth, since the history must be radically different (all solar system objects accreted from the same cloud of gas and dust as the Sun, so if a planet is at the center of the system it must have had a more similar history to stars than to our conventional planets).