Planetary debate has bloggers' heads spinning
A debate about the precise definition of a planet may sound like a snoozefest to the average person, but in the blogosphere, it is anything but. Requirements for planetary status may not be the sort of political scandal that typically works bloggers into a frenzy, but a proposal by the International Astronomical Union announced this week certainly has people talking.
The proposal, which would reserve the status for objects with enough mass that gravity overpowers all other forces, making the object round, and that it orbits a star, not another planet. This definition would mean Pluto, whose status has been questioned for years, would retain its place in the list of known planets. However, Pluto isn't the only object in the solar system that fits these criteria. The IAU acknowledges three others, and some star-gazing bloggers say the actual number of would-be planets could easily mushroom into between 50 and 100, once more data is collected.
While the IAU would like to come up with a scientific method of defining a planet, there are some sticky issues surrounding any definition they settle on. For one, Pluto has a significant number of sentimental supporters. Second, and more importantly, virtually any strict definition will change the number of planets in our solar system, instantly outdating countless textbooks and reference materials. And if the current proposal is approved, the number of planets will likely continue to increase as more information about the scores of objects known to exist in the Kiuper Belt comes in over the years.
Blog community response:
"I think the IAU is screwing this up pretty badly. I prefer a definition that keeps the number small, and that guarantees it will be really big news if a new planet is found. My favorite definition takes Pluto off the list and leaves us with eight planets. ("The dominant member of its part of the solar system" would be the criterion.) Oh, one other little detail. They're wanting to call Pluto-like objects plutons. Apparently this is pissing off the geologists because they already use that word for something else."
--unofischal on LiveJournal
"I am not an IAU member, I took no part in drafting the resolution, and I get no vote. If I were to vote, however, I would have to decide that while the definition itself is viable the extra non-scientific beauracratic barrage attached to the resolution would doom it for me."
--Michael E. Brown, California Institute of Technology
"The astronomers are going to figure this out, and hopefully declassify Pluto as a planet, since we know its geology and orbiting history do not match any of the other 8 planets."
--Joeschmo's Gears and Grounds
"I don't know about you, but I'm all for bending the rules a bit to prevent this demotion of Pluto. We need more heroes who hide out on the edges, gently nudging the bigger and more flamboyant characters back into line. More examples of being identifiable only through action. More models of emulation without outright imitation."
--habiblog
"The only way to keep Pluto in is to create a definition that instantly makes a 12 planet system with 12 others up for consideration...and there's probably several hundred more that we haven't found yet. Lame."
--laoldar on LiveJournal