I am not sure what to think about such decisions. On the whole, I think I like the change overall. It gives planets a more decisive definition that I tend to like. Also, it distinguishes nicely between the classical, large planets and the smaller, icy ones. Essentially it distinguishes the planets by formation type, which I also approve of. Also, I find it interesting that the asteroid ceres is now considered a planet.
What I don’t like is calling these smaller planets “plutons”. It sounds more like the name for a sub-atomic particle. Also it is very silly. Why not names reflecting the formation of each type? Why not Kuiper planets (well, that wouldn’t work for ceres I guess)? Or even a simple Rank A planets and Rank B planets. Or hell, Planetoids works great. But Plutons? Give me a frickin break.
I believe this starts a new feature here on the blog:
Lazy or Incompetent?
Was giving lower rank planets the name of “Plutons” lazy or incompetent?
(where here incompetent is defined as “couldn’t have thought of a better name if they tried.”)
My first inclination was to say lazy. But thinking about it further, I remember how things typically go in committees. And then I consider the fact that this is likely an international commission of scientists.
ReplyDeleteTaking all that into account, I'm changing my vote to incompetent. I think it is within the realm of possibility that better alternatives were proposed, perhaps even debated, but in the end "pluton" was the name that most of them hated the least. Not good enough, is all I have to say.
Planetoid would have been a fine choice, IMHO. Halfway between planet and asteroid.
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteHere's what also bothers me about "Plutons". It really seems like an attempt to "popularize" the subject. "Hey Kids, it's a pluton! Isn't that wacky and interesting!" (Cue crappy kids music). Whatever happened to have a scientific nomenclature that, you know, describes the things you are interested in naming based on what words actually fricking mean.