Pluto now a "plutoid"

Got a question on astronomy that you'd wanted to ask? Ask your questions here and see if the old timers can give you some good answers.
Post Reply
User avatar
starfinder
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: River Valley / Tanglin Road
Contact:

Pluto now a "plutoid"

Post by starfinder »

Here's new news on the demotion/promotion saga of poor Pluto:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7449735.stm

There is now a new class of objects.

Extracts:
In a statement released on Tuesday, the IAU further explained the plutoid definition as celestial bodies that "have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared [their orbits of debris].

"The two known and named plutoids are Pluto and Eris. It is expected that more plutoids will be named as science progresses and new discoveries are made."

The plutoids will also need to have a minimum brightness.

Ceres will not be considered a plutoid because of its position in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.



[Add: Here is the IAU press release: http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0804/ ]
User avatar
Airconvent
Super Moderator
Posts: 5804
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:49 pm
Location: United Federation of the Planets

Post by Airconvent »

Goodness Gracious! [smilie=bsod.gif]
The Boldly Go Where No Meade Has Gone Before
Captain, RSS Enterprise NCC1701R
United Federation of the Planets
User avatar
starfinder
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: River Valley / Tanglin Road
Contact:

Post by starfinder »

Airconvent wrote:Goodness Gracious!

Ya, this has become all very confusing.

I think what it means is that dwarf planets which are further than Neptune are plutoids. However, it seems that there is a further qualifier that a dwarf planet also has to have a brightness which is "an absolute magnitude brighter than H = +1" to be called a "plutoid".

Gosh. What a mess. That's what happens when committees decide matters.

Actually, why bother with "planets"? No no no... I propose that this term be scrapped altogether as being too simplistic. Instead:

Mercury and Mars, since they are rocky objects with a semi-major axis less than that of Jupiter and which are of similar size, should be a new class of objects called: "marcuroids".

Venus and Earth, on the other hand, since they share an orbital region between the marcuroids Mercury and Mars, and are of similar size and have atmospheres, should be known as representatives of the objects known as "earvesoids".

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, being gas giants orbiting between the marcuroids and the plutoids, ought to properly be given the dignity of having its own new classification called "unejusatoids".


Now, lets turn to fruits:

Oranges, lemons and grapefruits certainly cannot be called "fruits" as that is too flimsy a word. They are "citroids".

Apples and pears likewise soon won't be found in the "fruits" section of the supermarket, since "fruits" will be abolished. Look in the "pomenoids" area, next to where the citroids are kept.

Let's see... vegetables... Hmmm... let's consult the IAU. They will certainly have a field day.
User avatar
zackae
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:34 pm

Post by zackae »

rofl sarcasm to the max.
Post Reply