Vote on the IAU draft resolution "Definition of a Planet"

[CraigD]

Debate over the IAU draft proposal for a definition of “planet” is intense and evenly divided. Space.com’s straw poll of astronomers came up 6 for, 7 against, 0 undecided. Hypography’s own thread, 8012, has had much debate and “creative” alternative proposals.

 

Let’s have our own up/down vote on the IAU draft resolution!

 

Instead of next week, when the IAU votes on the draft, lets close our poll Saturday morning, after a mere 36 hours. If we approve the current draft, we’re done. Otherwise, lets draft and vote on our own alternative proposals.

 

If the astronomy community is going to undergo a schism over this, let’s start now!

[Turtle]

[quote=CraigD

Let’s have our own up/down vote on the IAU draft resolution!

I have been following the debate & I vote Yes to adopt the resolution. In 6 or 10 years if new discoveries warrant it, a new resolution can be drafted. To the telescopes ladies & gentlmen! To the telescopes!:hihi: :)

[Jay-qu]

Nows the time you might be able to find a new object that has escaped definition of a planet :)

 

I vote no, but not on all counts, I like the idea of having classes of planets, dwarfs, plutons etc otherwise if becomes to hard to draw clear lines with 'its either a planet or not' this gives some lee-way

[Turtle]

I voted no. A system that accords Charon the status of planet, yet rejects our beautiful Selene is intrinsically flawed.

I am here reminded of Winston's signature quote of Korzybski, "the map is NOT the territory."

:hihi:

[Tormod]

I'm all for it! :)

[Guest jamongo]

I voted "No".

 

I would think the earth and moon would qualify as a dual planet system before little Pluto.:shrug:

 

Of course I, like so many others grew up with,

"My very energetic mother just served us nine pizzas.":hihi:

[Tormod]

Just checking the time settings...

[TheBigDog]

I voted yes, but I was tempted to vote no so I could see how my golfing standard would hold up against other methods.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

36 hours have passed (though it’s difficult to tell from the thread, due to the regrettable 8048). The vote to accept the IAU draft resolution defining a planet is tied at 6 for, 6 against, 1 undecided.

 

:rose: Humm… Your humble pollster hadn’t anticipated a tie. Let’s leave the poll open for an additional 48 hours, and see if it can be broken. With over a thousand active voting members, the IAU’s not likely to have this problem when they take their vote.

 

Hypographers who haven’t voted, please do. Those who have, please feel free to argue for you position. If anyone has changed their mind since voting, post a “change vote from A to B” message, and we’ll adjust the tally accordingly.

[cwes99_03]

I voted no, because I think we as a group can come up with a more concrete definition of a planet than the weak proposal that only concentrates on a few objects instead of a general definition.

And what is with all this stuff about dwarfs and plutons. NONSENSE! That is a categorization of a planet and is unnecessary, we just want to say whether something is or isn't a planet.

 

Maybe we could set an upper bound on a planet as well. What is the line between a brown dwarf star and a gas giant planet?

 

If it is all well and good I have decided to post the points of the resolution.

 

(1) 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) shape1, and (:) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.2

 

(2) We distinguish between the eight classical planets discovered before 1900, which move in nearly circular orbits close to the ecliptic plane, and other planetary objects in orbit around the Sun. All of these other objects are smaller than Mercury. We recognize that Ceres is a planet by the above scientific definition. For historical reasons, one may choose to distinguish Ceres from the classical planets by referring to it as a "dwarf planet."3

 

(3) We recognize Pluto to be a planet by the above scientific definition, as are one or more recently discovered large Trans-Neptunian Objects. In contrast to the classical planets, these objects typically have highly inclined orbits with large eccentricities and orbital periods in excess of 200 years. We designate this category of planetary objects, of which Pluto is the prototype, as a new class that we call "plutons".

 

(4) All non-planet objects orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".4

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1 This generally applies to objects with mass above 5 x 1020 kg and diameter greater than 800 km. An IAU process will be established to evaluate planet candidates near this boundary.

 

2 For two or more objects comprising a multiple object system, the primary object is designated a planet if it independently satisfies the conditions above. A secondary object satisfying these conditions is also designated a planet if the system barycentre resides outside the primary. Secondary objects not satisfying these criteria are "satellites". Under this definition, Pluto's companion Charon is a planet, making Pluto-Charon a double planet.

 

3 If Pallas, Vesta, and/or Hygeia are found to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, they are also planets, and may be referred to as "dwarf planets".

 

4 This class currently includes most of the Solar System asteroids, near-Earth objects (NEOs), Mars-, Jupiter- and Neptune-Trojan asteroids, most Centaurs, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), and comets. In the new nomenclature the concept "minor planet" is not used.

[Eclogite]

I voted no. A system that accords Charon the status of planet, yet rejects our beautiful Selene is intrinsically flawed.

And plutons!:D For me a pluton is, and shall always be, a deep seated igneous intrusion.

I don't have a problem with Ceres. It was called a planet upon its discovery.

I'm happy enough with UB313, and Sedna when it probably follows.

But satellites! Regardless of where the barycentre is!!!:)

And dwarf planets? Shouldn't that be diameterically challenged planets?

[cwes99_03]

Have any of you seen the latest news, at least according to the register?

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/23/planet_status/

 

This sounds like the definition is being made worse not better.

[C1ay]

No, I think the definition is still pretty vague and the word pluton is already used for something else, plutonic igneous rock like granite. Science can do better and should do better.

[cwes99_03]

No, I think the definition is still pretty vague and the word pluton is already used for something else, plutonic igneous rock like granite. Science can do better and should do better.

Was that No, directed at my question or the poll's question, C1ay?

[C1ay]

The poll's question, I disagree with their definition of planet.

[cwes99_03]

Yah, me too, but then the post i just placed they are making additions to it and they are actually making it worse.

[cwes99_03]

IT'S NOT OVER YET!

 

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9890-astronomers-plot-to-overturn-planet-definition.html

 

How long do you think it will take until a majority are satisfied with the definition.