Plutoid

[blobrana]

"The International Astronomical Union has decided on the term "plutoid" as a name for dwarf planets like Pluto."

Read more (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25097567/)

Hum,
Erisoids would have been better....imho.

[blobrana]

"Almost two years after the International Astronomical Union (IAU) General Assembly introduced the category of dwarf planets, the IAU, as promised, has decided on a name for transneptunian dwarf planets similar to Pluto. "

Read more (http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0804/)

[ElectricFetus]

Well... it is a improvement over "Dwarf Planet" :m:

[draqon]

I thought it was called planetoid

[D H]

My first reaction: Yech. Just plain yech.

My second reaction: Yech. This does not help address the controversy of whether or not Pluto is a planet on one hand and what the heck will we call all of those not-yet-discovered planet-like bodies beyond Neptune on the other. I understand the mathematical rationale behind the original reclassification. Declaring that a planet is something that has cleared its path of orbiting flotsam and jetsam makes a certain amount of sense. Couple that with a several order of magnitude jump between the amount of junk in Mars' orbit and the amount of junk in the declassified planets' orbits, it made sense.

My third reaction: OK, so the name 'dwarf planet' was not the best choice. Plutoid is better? Please. In short, yech.

My fourth reaction: What about Ceres? Just a big asteroid again? I guess I'm OK with that.

My fifth reaction: Yech, again. This new definition is too solar system-specific. The simple definition, a planet is some object that has pulled itself into a more-or-less spherical shape via gravity, is very extensible to other star systems. Even the new/old definition is extensible. With this definition, no other star system can have a plutoid unless we name the outermost gas giant in each star system Neptune. Even if we do do that (YECH!), or even if the word "Neptune" is changed to "outermost gas giant" (yech, again), this new and disimproved definition doesn't help.

My sixth reaction: YECH. Grow the f*** up. It seems that whichever group catches the other group sleeping at the IAU meetings is sliding stuff under the table.

I think the time has come to outfit the dynamicists, the observationists, and all those other astronomical pedants with gloves, throw them in a cage, and ring the bell. The winner gets to choose a meaningful name. If the audience boos at the name, they go back in the cage with Big George. Who knows -- it might even make for good TV.

[ElectricFetus]

Why can't the astronomers simply have a name write in contest?

[blobrana]

There is no controversy in the scientific community about Pluto being a planet or not. The AUI has ruled that it was not.
The terms such as, Small solar system body, dwarf planet, and now plutoid, (and perhaps Kuiper belt object), all can still be applied to the Pluto/Charon system.
Ceres is still a Small solar system body (SSSB), or dwarf planet; But it is not a Plutoid.
The term asteroid is now technically defunct; however is still widely used.

[ElectricFetus]

There is no controversy in the scientific community about Pluto being a planet or not. The AUI has ruled that it was not.
The terms such as, Small solar system body, dwarf planet, and now plutoid, (and perhaps Kuiper belt object), all can still be applied to the Pluto/Charon system.
Ceres is still a Small solar system body (SSSB), or dwarf planet; But it is not a Plutoid.
The term asteroid is now technically defunct; however is still widely used.

1. Just because the AUI classified something as such does not mean their is consensus among astronomers over it.
2. The name dwarf planet sucks, its a uninspiring bald name! Choose a better name, preferable a single word that fair to non-English speakers.

I would have gone with (by how many criteria they match for planet)
1 = Asteroid
2 = Planetoid
3 = Planet

These being the "simple name", long names like "Small Solar System Body" can still be considered acceptable, and with all the subclasses inside each class as well.

[blobrana]

1. Just because the AUI classified something as such does not mean their is consensus among astronomers over it.

Indeed,
But the AUI acts like a referee, or umpire in cricket.
You can disagree, or appeal a case, but once they give a decision it has to be pretty much accepted by all the members.

And yes, i agree the term dwarf planet sucks - but i accept it.

BTW, i should correct myself and clarify that SSSBs and the term dwarf planet or Plutoid are mutually exclusive. ie Ceres by being a dwarf planet is not referred to being a SSSB.
(oh well, we can all be human)

[draqon]

SSSB: Small Solar System Body

[ElectricFetus]

Indeed,
But the AUI acts like a referee, or umpire in cricket.
You can disagree, or appeal a case, but once they give a decision it has to be pretty much accepted by all the members.

Does it? Have you ever seen what they do to some referee on international soccer game?

And yes, i agree the term dwarf planet sucks - but i accept it.
Why? then IAU can change it decision at any time (does not even need to be a general assembly meeting!) it high time we petition the geeks!

BTW, I should correct myself and clarify that SSSBs and the term dwarf planet or Plutoid are mutually exclusive. ie Ceres by being a dwarf planet is not referred to being a SSSB.
(oh well, we can all be human)

I'm aware of that, Astroid or Small Solar System Bodies, see the difference? And don't give me that "its not official" crap, a snake in English is a snake, it true name is serpentes, I don't care, I'm just using the common name, the IAU should allow common names because few are going to say "Small Solar System Bodies" ever!