> “One of the biggest flaws with the IAU definition is that you can have the same object in two different orbits,” says Kornfeld. “In one, it’s considered a planet, and in the other, it’s not considered a planet.”
No, there is no flaw in this, and moreover there is nothing new in this. This is how it has always been, it is not something invented recently.
In the Solar System, there are 3 Mercury-sized satellites and other 3 Moon-sized satellites, besides the Moon. If they had not been in their orbits as satellites, they might have very well been planets. Therefore the old definition of "planet" also depended on the orbit of the body, not only on the size and shape of the body.
Most of those satellites are bigger than Pluto. Triton, the biggest satellite of Neptune, had been in the distant past another planet with an orbit close to Pluto, but it was captured by Neptune and it has become a satellite. Otherwise it would have remained a "dwarf planet", orbiting close to Pluto. So Triton was demoted from "planet" to "satellite", by Nature, not by a human organization.
The current definition of "planets" and "dwarf planets" is fine.
If anything, there are too few planet classes, not too many. A more useful classification is into big planets, medium planets and small or dwarf planets, where the Solar system has 4 big planets, 4 medium planets, and a lot of small planets.
The big planets, i.e. which are big enough to retain the volatile chemical elements, like hydrogen and noble gases, not only the refractory elements, have a very different chemical composition from the medium planets, and this difference will also exist in any other stellar system that has condensed from gases like those at the origin of the Solar System, with more oxygen than carbon (there exists the possibility of stellar systems with a different chemical composition than the Solar System, formed by condensing from gas mixtures with more carbon than oxygen).
There’s the Vulcan planet classification system where Earth is a Class M world, but I guess that won’t be adopted until 2154.
> The current definition of "planets" and "dwarf planets" is fine.
It’s serviceable, but is it ideal?
What’s the scientific advantage in categorising “planets” and “dwarf planets” as two separate categories, compared to unifying them into a single category (possibly while retaining the distinction as two different subtypes of “planet”)?
Which system would be more scientifically useful? Which would be more parsimonious?
I‘m seeing this classification for the first time, but it sounds very reasonable and feels like it should have been like that. Is it your idea or is there any story behind it?
We already have the terms "rocky planet" and "gas giant" that pretty much cover it. The only thing missing is an official IAU decision which, well, would have even less effect than the Pluto thing I'm guessing, since it would just be introducing a sub-division in the category.
Oh, right. It does exist, it is very accurate, but the names sound like LOTR party:
- a gang of dwarfs
- some rocky ones
- and gas giants
- and one star to rule them all
Many people use it, but it is not something codified formally by an international organization, like in the IAU definitions of "planet" and "dwarf planet".
Since the Moon's orbit is always concave towards the Sun, one could even argue that the Moon is a planet, not a satellite, it just happens to have an orbit that is closely coupled to that of another planet, Earth.
As I understand it, in fact, there was discussion about defining systems like Earth-Moon as double planets, but that didn't make it into the final definition.
I have heard people argue that we are in fact in a kind of binary planetary system. No other planet has such a large satellite relative to its size, until you get to the likes of Pluto etc.
The Earth is closer but I don't think there's any good argument to say it's actually a binary system. Notably the Earth-Moon barycenter stays inside the Earth, and the Sun-Jupiter barycenter doesn't stay inside the Sun. But barycenters are too easy to get outside of objects anyway.
As I understand it, one suggested "double planet" definition was that the barycenter would have to be outside both objects. Earth-Moon doesn't (quite) satisfy that condition, but for example, Pluto-Charon does.
>the Moon's orbit is always concave towards the Sun
Huh?
Here’s a visualisation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBcxuM-qXec
The Sun's gravitational pull on the Moon is always stronger than the Earth's. (Do the math and see--on average the Sun's pull is more than twice as strong as the Earth's.) So the net acceleration of the Moon is always towards the Sun, never towards the Earth.
What I don't get in this is why is it wrong to leave off the "dwarf" adjective? We drop adjectives all the time once the specific subject is identified.