Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Re-write the text books - we have twelve, count 'em twelve, planets: and a chance to name new ones!

astrojax69

23:51 / 16.08.06

something calling itself the international astronomy union (cosmic bodies need representation too) has decided for us all there are, in fact, twelve planets, and pluto and smaller distant planets of its [new] ilk are technically 'plutons', a class of planet distinct from 'classic' planets.

two more plutons, plus ceres, in the space between mars and jupiter, are the additions.

seems 'planets' are big enough that their gravity makes them spherical. and they orbit a star, but aren't one. we may be in for a dozen more...

reactions? i rekkun there should be a pool of names for the next ones they find, submitted by 'lithers... what would you call one?

me? i'd go for mithril. always loved that word, a sheeny impenetrable mesh, imagine that world... (no craters, for one!)

lekvar

01:07 / 17.08.06

I know it's awful Eurocentric of me, but I like the Greek Myths naming scheme we've used until recently. Mostly because I know the greek myths so the names are, to me, evocative. Sedna isn't as resonant. Beyond that, I look forward to learning about our new* Solar neighbors.

*new in that we choose to acknowledge them now.

lekvar

01:19 / 17.08.06

Note to self: RTFA.

OK, so Sedna didn't make the cut but Charon and Ceres did?

02:52 / 17.08.06

I actually kind of like Xena. It could mean foreigner, or hospitality, both of which have pleasant connotations for a distant planet/pluton. I think, anyway. I'd vote to keep it unless something else really awesome came up. I'd switch for something like Psyche, but I think we have a moon named that somewhere...

astrojax69

05:06 / 18.08.06

i had a wonderful rottweiler called psyche. she is dearly missed.

lekvar

18:59 / 18.08.06

Apparently the distinction that's being drawn is this: the object has to be round and not be orbiting another non-solar object. Yet again, it's the motion, not the size. Charon is included in the 12 because it does not actually orbit Pluto, Pluto and Charon orbit a point outside of Pluto's plaintary mass (called the"barycenter"). This is important because Earth's moon would otherwise count as a planet. And it may yet.

Dead Megatron

19:02 / 18.08.06

I think we should move away from Greek-Roman mythology and move to other mythologies. Hinduis, for instance: 30 million plus names to choose from.

Planet Ganesh. How does that sound?

astrojax69

23:52 / 24.08.06

all right, all right, so there's only eight

but i was right but anyway but. we still have to re-write the text books (though a sturdy black marker and a pair of scissors would probably do!)

funny, last night i was at a talk by dava sobel, who wrote 'the planets' (and 'longitude' and 'gallileo's daughter'). timing.

Kiltartan Cross

17:28 / 25.08.06

Personally, I think we'd be better off treating the gas giants as a different category ("big gassy things"), and grouping all the planets, big asteroids, major moons and random outer-system lumps of rock together into another ("medium sized solid things"), leaving all the rest of the junk ("small chunks of rock and ice") as a third class.

Add Your Reply