Re: Why Xena Must Not Become a Planet!
- From: Margo Schulter <mschulter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Sep 2006 08:15:53 GMT
George Dishman <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Margo Schulter wrote:
Please pardon me for losing track of this thread for a while, ..
Not at all, thanks for getting back to me. I have rather
lost track myself as domestic life took over last week.
For me, over the last week since finishing my paper, it's been often
one aspect of domestic life: trying to clear my neighborhood (meaning my
flat) rather than writing about the general concept <grin>.
Anyway, what distracted me was finishing an article on planetary
definitions and typologies to which I posted a link here along with
an abstract.
Yes, it appears really comprehensive. I printed off
your full document but have only had time to get
through the first couple of paragraphs and this week
will be as bad (wife's birthday party at the weekend).
A happy birthday to her!
Also, your GAD.png is _very_ interesting, and looks quite
internally consistent. I'd love to discuss it in a new thread, maybe --
or this one, if you like.
I'd be delighted, I would like to expand it a bit into a
set of definitions and perhaps borrow some of your
citations. We have very different views so I think if
we could come to a compromise it would be quite
robust.
Yes, it would be interesting to explore possible compromises -- and also
very useful, I hope, for a mutual clarification of views.
[Some snipping of my view that Ceres and Pluto belong in the same category
as indeed "planets," albeit minor ones -- along with other minor planets
such as 243 Ida which would clearly not meet the test of either "side" in
the IAU debates]
I think that point and the next explain the IAU attitude:
My own approach, which Daniel W.E. Green interestingly advocated in a 1996 reply to
a query about Pluto, was that certainly we should regard Pluto as a planet of some
sort -- but clearly a minor planet rather than a major planet. Thus the assigning of
Minor Planet Number 134340 to Pluto seems to me quite appropriate -- but as an
occasion to celebrate the best-known of a group of hundreds of thousands of planets
in our Solar System which deserve more attention.
Historically planets were major items in the solar system,
essentially visible to the unaided eye and almost on a par
with the Moon and Sun. To suddenly create "hundreds of
thousands of planets" would utterly devalue the word. I
believe that was the key thought behind the IAU decision.
That seems to me both a fair and likely interpretation of the IAU action.
However, from my perspective, it isn't so much a question of "suddenly
creating" hundreds of thousands of planets as of recognizing that they
are already there according to a usage noted in the OED and also, for example,
a recent edition of the _Dictionary of minor planet names_ (1999), where Brian
G. Marsden writes, p. x:
"Which are my own particular favorites among names for minor planets?
Certainly, I like the ones where there is some particular `connection'
between planet and name."
Possibly one of the advantages of leaving "planet" officially undefined is that
one can follow this kind of inclusive usage without calling attention to it --
I realize that for each passage like the above, one could likely cite 50 or 100
referring to the "eight planets" (pre-1930) or "nine planets."
Anyway, we may agree that _if_ one wants to hold the line at some small number
of planets, dynamical dominance seems the best more or less consistent test
to achieve this. The price of a different approach, for those of us who choose
to take it, is more complexity -- I'm considering how I might present the Solar
System to schoolchildren, and can at least tell you that Pluto would be a planet,
but not the ninth one for a mnemonic.
Of course, advocating that "planet" (outside of official IAU contexts, where
Resolution 5A is, of course, dispositive) carry its traditionally broad and
inclusive scope doesn't mean that we can't learn from the recent controversies
and make useful categorizations.
There I disagree, the "traditional" scope beyond the last
few centuries was just seven planets. The inclusion of
Uranus is entirely valid IMHO but the extension to the
minor planets was an understandable mistake based on
Bode's Law and the addition of Pluto similarly flawed
with hindsight. The IAU has stepped in to rectify the
situation.
We certainly agree that Uranus and Neptune qualify under any proposed test,
but from my perspective the minor planets represent "a new type of planet"
which was proper both to include and to distinguish from dominant or isolated
planets. If the resolution had been available in 1801 to show Ceres as a
near-spherical shape, then the discovery of otther co-orbital bodies would
still have required recognizing the major/minor distinction -- but maybe with
more prestige for Ceres. However, I see Soter's point that roundness is indeed
a continuum -- an argument which can be used either to be more inclusive or
more exclusve as to what a "planet" is.
[Summarizing my post again: I discuss a proposal to categorize planets as
major/minor based on dynamical dominance, and macro/micro based on the
"graviglobe" test of hypostatic equilibrium.]
Again the question is how to use the test and really
the discussion revolves around names. What you call a
microplanet, I would prefer to call an asteroid.
However, in this case I think some thought also has
to be given to the point Thomas mentioned, that of
composition. I had wondered about density as a
discriminator but it doesn't work so I'd like to
hear your thoughts.
Certainly I agree that composition is vital, with the effect on the
hypostatic equilibrium as indeed one very notable illustration. I'd
emphasize that while the vast majority of asteroids would be
microplanets, I'd also find it very useful to call them asteroids
both to indicate the position of most of them in or near the
asteroid belt, and to indicate a rocky or metallic composition;
in contrast to comets as "icy microplanets," and to KBO's below
the hydrostatic equilibrium limit. Of course, "asteroids" also
include at least one macroplanet, Ceres -- as also the KBO's, with
likely scores.
Looking down the images here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_system_objects_by_mass
it is fairly clear that 511 Davida and below would fail
all but the most relaxed test of roundness while Ceres
and above would probably pass. On the other hand, compare
4 Vesta with Mimas. Vesta is nearly an order of magnitude
more massive yet visibly less round and both can be described
as near to hydrostatic equilibrium other than a major impact
crater. For icy bodies, tidal heating if they are satellites
gives them an advantage but clearly rocky bodies are at a
disadvantage compared to icy ones.
Another point here is that in recent theory 4 Vesta has often been
regarded as a differentiated body -- something less clear for the
KBO's, if I understand correctly. The way I've seen it described
is that Vesta is rather close to hypostatic equilibrium, but not
to the point where it returns to near-sphericity after a major
impact event of the kind we're discussing.
Anyway, this kind of philosophy might be summed up: "Include and classify."
Understood, mine might be "differentiate and describe",
the names and classifications should be unambiguous,
understandable, teachable and useful.
Certainly we agree at least on "understandable, teachable, and useful."
What I suspect is that almost any definition, especially when we consider
the possibilities which could arise in different stellar systems, is likely
to be subject to either ambiguity ("just how near-spherical is near-spherical?")
or notable paradox (if a minor planet larger than a major one shows up in some
stellar system but is excluded from "planethood" under a "clears its neighborhood"
prerequisite which, I would emphasize, seems totally appropriate to me as a main
typological test between dominant or isolated as opposed to belt planets).
In this kind of approach, the term "dwarf planet" seems a felicitous synonym for "minor
macroplanet" or "belt macroplanet" as long as such planets are consistently smaller (at
least in a given stellar system) than major ones, and also not too far in size from the
lower limit for hydrostatic equilibrium. A definition that might "travel better" over a
range of hypothetical systems is that a "dwarf planet" is defined as a size category for
the smallest macroplanets, with Ceres-Eris (or possibly a bit smaller, if any other
asteroids are regarded as "graviglobes") as one illustrative portion of the range. This
means, as I remark in my paper, that "dwarf planet" as a synonym for "minor macroplanet"
could be a useful "Solar System provincialism."
Again, I'd love to discuss GAD.png more -- maybe in a new thread?
Delighted, I would be keen to refine my own views either
here or by email but time pressures will be difficult at
least until the weekend. Drop me a note at the address
in this post and I'll reply from the real one - this gets
spammed of course.
Since I might be distracted a bit too for a few days, this sounds fine -- and I tend
to agree that a black hole is a basic type of object worthy of inclusion in a full
astronomical taxonomy (some black holes, but not all, are stellar remnants which thus
might fall in the category "former stars or fusors" or the like).
best regards
George
Best to you also,
Margo
.
- References:
- Why Xena Must Not Become a Planet!
- From: George Dishman
- Why Xena Must Not Become a Planet!
- Prev by Date: How do supermassive blackholes stop star formation?
- Next by Date: Re: MOND's similarity to Le Sage's Model
- Previous by thread: Why Xena Must Not Become a Planet!
- Next by thread: Wide-eyed telescope finds stars that wink (Forwarded)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
