f13.net

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html

Meh. More confirmation that self-appointed committees of "experts" are of no use to humanity. It's now a "dwarf planet", but in a signal that their finding has no scientific value for classification whatsoever, so is the asteroid Ceres.

Steven Colbert had a funny segment regarding this.

He is the man.

This just in from Pluto:

"Fuck all y'all bitches, I got your dwarf planet right here."

I am sorry I had to resort to this, but Pluto continues interfer with my plans.  I had no choice but to take punitive measures.

Colbert lost.  Planet != Dwarf Planet like Coke != Diet Coke.

Also, New Coke =! Coke.

Urk.

You keep lobbing those rocks and someday a piece of their Ivory Tower is going to bonk you on the head.  Buy a hardhat!

If they are going to "downgrade" Pluto they should swap Pluto's name with Mercury -- I mean how could the God of the Underworld and the brother of Jupiter not be a planet while some messanger dude (one of whose tasks is to lead people down to the Underworld) is ?

I don't understand why it's so hard to define what a "planet" is. Did you know that if Pluto's ice melted, there'd hardly be anything left? It's already smaller than our own moon to begin with. And if that ice melted, it'd probably have a tail too. A tail! What kind of behavior is that for a planet?

One of Pluto's "moons" (Charon) is almost the same size as the "planet" itself. And it doesn't even orbit around Pluto -- Might as well be a "planet" too.

Pluto doesn't even make consistent orbits around the Sun either -- Once every 248 years -- But in the middle of all that, it decides to sit around Neptune's backyard for a bit. It orbits Neptune for 28 years.

Then there's Xena -- Which is also making orbits around the Sun -- and get this, it's bigger than Pluto. Why doesn't anyone whine about it's status?

I think the "dwarf planet" label is a little silly though. That's a copout. Political compromise does not make for good science. The theory that it's a rogue moon of Neptune sounds more plausible.

They do. Thats how we ended up in this mess. The people who first predicted the orbits of 2003 UB313 and 2005 FY9 claimed planetary discoveries. Start throwing around definitions of Cubewanos and Plutinos to describe them based on orbit, and we still couldn't find a good reason to scientifically classify Pluto as a planet without promoting a bunch more objects to planetary status. Protectors of the "we're a planet, we're so bloody special" idea refused to add a bunch of objects to the classification "planet", and refused to let planet remain as "what the layman believes is a planet". So Pluto had to be downgraded to "piece of shit we don't care about". Fine, but don't start trying to create idiot categories that include both Gefion S-type asteroids and Plutinos.

I for one al glad Pluto is no longer a planet, it made maps of the solar system look funny.

However, I will miss seeing Planet Xena (which, considering it's not the real name of it, means Xena will probably end up some Asteroid thats 15m across

On the bright side, aren't they saying that our very own Moon is going to eventually achieve planet status?  Sure that I read that somewhere.  Just think of it - an actual planet right in our back yard and we didn't even notice it!

We'll need to come up with a better name than "Moon", however.   It strikes me as odd that all the other moons in the solar system have fancy names, while our own moon's name simply describes what it is.  It'd be like naming your kid "human".  While we're at it, "Earth" leaves something to be desired as well.

Don't forget the "sun" either.

We could always stick with ancient mythology and languages to name them: Gaia, Luna, and Helios.


[edit]

Oh yeah, you're right about the double planet thing. It's size is the same reason why astronomers are having a problem with Charon being referred to as one of Pluto's moons. The difference with our moon though is that it's actually a true satelite. Which is pretty much all that matters.

As for our moon actually being a planet, there's the impact theory, which puts forth the idea of an ancient collision between Earth and another large planetary body. As a result, the moon is the result of the debris, and we are actually living on "Earth 2.0".

Yeah, whatever I read suggested much of the same...that a Mars sized object impacted with the Earth.  Is it to be understood that our moon is then a leftover chunk of Earth 1.0?  How does that qualify the moon as a planet?  And while we're at it, doesn't our moon have its own smallish core (which in my head doesn't make sense if it is a chunk of Earth)?

I like your name suggestions, and they are probably better than what I would have come up with and much less dorky.  That's no moon...

You got me.

As for the names, I've noticed a lot of scientists already refer to the moon as "Luna" already. Sometimes Selene as well (Luna being Roman, Selene being Greek). Never heard anyone else except crazy hippies referring to the Earth as Gaia though. But just to geek out: I always thought it'd sound better in sci fi - "The Gaian homeworld", "Gaian culture", "Gaian battleship", "Gaian outpost". That's better than "earthlings" at least. Better than "Terran" too.

Man, all those other solar systems are gonna be pissed when they find out we just said they don't have any planets.

There is only one Moon, the Moon. The things orbiting other planets are satellites, though even scientists tend to call them moons, however improper.

They do tend to call them moons. What they think is improper is calling ours the "Moon". That's why they call it Luna or Selene. I swear, I hear and read them do it all the time. Those wacky scientists!

A bit of both the 'Earth 1.0' and the planetesmal that hit it.  Being a planet has nothing to do with whether it hit the Earth or not, or what happened; it has to do with what a body orbits, and the nature of that orbid.  In the case of the Moon, it is a moon because the Earth dominates the gravity relationship.  That is, the center of mass is below the Earth's surface.  This is unlike Pluto/Charon, where the center of mass is in space.  And yes, the Moon has a core although not a lot is known about it.  Per the impact theory, nearly all or all of the Moon would have been molten following the massive release of energy resulting from the strike.  As a result of this fluidity, heavier elements would sink toward the center.  Over time the Moon would cool, allowing the crust to form.  Because of its smaller size it cooled much faster than the Earth (among other reasons, smaller bodies have a higher surface area/volume ratio which more easily radiate heat).  If, and to what degree, the core is still molten is up in the air.  It's worth noting that although favored, the impact theory is not concrete.  Better study of the core could support or discredit the theory, but current ideas are that the Moon has a very small core which gives credit to the theory.

Lunatics?

What does this mean for Mickey Mouse's dog?

s/dog/dwarf dog

That's no moon...

But Pluto is still sitting there... like the girlfriend you dumped, but she hasn't moved out of your place yet.

Well, this makes room for Mondas.

Meiou Setsuna unavailable for comment.

Or, you know, English (Saxon) mythology, where the sun-god was called 'Sun' and the moon-goddess was called 'Moon'.

The English are so unoriginal.