Scientific Planetary Classification Discussion

[Kevin]

Ok after getting into a minor debate/argument with some nimrod on the startrek forums, I've decided I won't get help there.

What am I doing? Well I write sci fi, emphasis on SCIENCE less on Fiction.

The science I don't 100% understand, I only casually gloss over. I like to pride myself on keeping as much science in my books as Jules Verne and H.D. Wells had in theirs.

So, that brings me to the purpose of this post. All of you should remember my rant on the IAU (still on the front page of this category under "Friday Rant"). You all know that I consider the IAU to be very arbitrary and a joke to the scientific community. Those who don't, well you know now.

Let's leave it at that, please no debates on the IAU, I've got enough fodder against to qualify for the destructive power of an Atom Bomb.


Instead of arguing, I want help in creating a far more consistent, far less arbitrary, far more scientific formulaic definition of PLANET!

WHAT IS A PLANET!

Now the biggest problem the IAU apparently has, is they can't seem to come to terms with the idea that Planets are literally some of the most common celestial bodies in the universe. Therefore, instead of "declassifying" arbitrarily, I want to create a class system.

Star Trek's class system was more or less arbitrary from what we saw on screen. So I want something far more accurate, without being exclusive.

Things such as "degrees of rotation" are arbitrary decisions, and not actual class structures.


Therefore, I want to apply the same method to classification as is done in the animal world. Taking largely common aspects, and thusly working our way through a scientific classification tree. By scientific I mean quantifiable boundaries (like how some insects are separated by number of legs, etc..).


Like all trees, we need to decide which branches are on what level. i.e. which should be considered master aspects (the root classification), leading down to minor aspects.



This is what I've got so far:


Orbital (i.e. a planet with a clear planar orbit, despite the orbital shape)
Rogue (a planet which despite personal movement, is not bound to any singular object such as an orbital or cluster planet)
Complete Rogue (a planet which isn't linked to a galaxy (let alone a solar system) - or should the rogues also be a sub-class to orbital and cluster?)
Cluster (a planet which despite personal movement or uniformity, is more of member of a group, i.e. clearly bound to multiple celestial entities, but this binding isn't as planar as an Orbital planet).

Solar (a planet which orbits a solar entity within a radius in such that it directly affects the gravity/orbit of more than one other Solar Object or the Sun itself. i.e. this would be a main System Planet)
Non-Solar (a planet which falls outside of the solar definition)
Planetary (a planet which orbits another planet - this would actually qualify Io as a planet. Current debates on Titan as well)
Complimentary (a planet which says nice things about you. haha ok just kidding. A planet which essentially affects only one other solar planet, but in a non destructive fashion - sub category maybe?)
Contrary (a planet which has a direct negative/conflicting effect on another planetary object - a sub category maybe?)


Living Planet (a planet which is active in one of the following ways: core, rotation, shifting plates. This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)
Dead Planet (a planet which is completely inactive in means of core, plates, rotation, etc... This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)
Dormant (a dead planet which can through minimal means be brought from a seemingly dead status, or near dead status, to a fully active status. This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)


Nature:
Stable Orbit (a planet with a stable orbit is one which repeats its orbit with predictability, regardless of the shape or length of orbit)
Instable Orbit (a planet which orbit changes erratically or otherwise routinely alters its path outside of a simple repetitive predictability. A planet which does a figure 8 would be stable, but a planet which does all sorts of shifts in speed and direction is instable)
Stable Rotation (a planet with a consistent smooth rotational speed and axis, regardless of whether or not it speeds up or slows down over an extended period of time, or flips axis)
Instable Rotation (a planet whose rotation and axis will speed up, slow down, and change position without cause, in an irrational, instable manner that causes internal damage or otherwise severe and drastic changes in conditions which cannot be compensated by the planets natural structure).

I'm sure some of you have ideas on what to add, modify, or organize these classifications. I am interested in hearing and listening yours.

PS: yes, should I publish my books (which I plan on doing in the next year or more), I will give you dedications ;D

^_^

[Tetsu Deinonychus]

[Kevin]

[cmoon]

I guess coming from Biology, I don't worry too much about this. Pluto is still there, whether it is a small planet or a large planetoid.

In biology, as we see advances (especially in genetics) some of the much cherished terminology and sometimes whole concepts fall away. Reality has not changed, but the way we describe that reality has become more sophisticated and accurate. This is the way science is in general--getting 'pissed' is sort of silly.

Case in point, if you are right on the cusp of modern biological thought, you understand that the whole species concept is broken and probably should be thrown out, but the resulting cognitive dissonance in the public mindset could be profound indeed!

[Kevin]

Much of the sciences labeling concept has been undergoing more scientifically guided changes the past few years.

The problem with the IAU is their changes are all based on political drive than anything else.

Even so, I'm mainly doing this for my own sci-fi series so join in and help, mr science teacher ^_^

Seriously, this can be fun if you join in


What would you suggest for the "Tree" breakdown? What should each tier be named? And yes I will convert them all to latin references.

[Jeffbert]

Ok, I found a site that says WHY Pluto's status was downgraded, & gives the CURRENT definition of 'planet,' but not the older definition that allowed Pluto the staus of planet:



I will also state that besides the change in definition, the only certainty recognised by science is UNCERTAINTY. As new facts become known (by way of advances in instruments), old theories must be re-examined & perhaps modified or even discarded.

Still, I would want to know the previous definition of 'planet' & why a new definition was adopted before deciding about Pluto's status.

[Kevin]

Yeah jeffbert seriously I don't wanna turn this into a discussion of why the IAU did what they did. It was political. They wound up treating a lot of petition signers like trash to do it too. They tabled several measures supported by the majority of the IAU members and voted a hard line with their countries' anti-war protests against America.


I want to limit this discussion entirely to generating a new definition. Forget the IAU's voting members. They're a bunch of punks.

[Tetsu Deinonychus]

I like the term "Satellite Planet" over "Planetary Planet", for Io and Titan.

I mean "Planetary Planet" sounds kinda redundant, where as "Satellite Planet" refers more to revolving around another planet.

Plus, you could also use it to refer to the Mainland Planet that it revolves around.

For Example:

"Io is a satellite planet of Jupiter."

"Titan is a satellite planet of Saturn."

[Kevin]

Alright ok first discussion of this thread.

Ok, do not take this as dismissal, however, I do want you to understand an objection. I am undecided on this issue:

I agree with your statement - Planetary Planet is ridiculous. OK you are right there. (point for you)

However, I disagree with arbitrary use of the word satellite.

Satellite means anything that is around a central body. The Earth is a satellite. One major complaint I have about the IAU is their arbitrary use of the word Satellite in definitions. I want to avoid this at all costs.

Is there any possible way I can convince you of using another term rather than Satellite? There must be some other more "specific" term than just satellite. Something that everyone will understand in relation to a category identification?

[Tetsu Deinonychus]

Hmm... perhaps "Secondary Planet" or "Subplanet"?

I think "Subplanet" might be a better term when refering to it's relation to it's mainland planet.

For Example:

"Io is a subplanet of Jupiter."

I don't think your hypothetical future colonists would object anymore than someone who lives in the "suburbs" would object to their towns supposed relation to the Urban areas.



But, for basic classification, maybe "Secondary Planet" would be better.

For Example:

"Titan is a secondary planet orbiting Saturn."

But, really my use of the term "Satellite Planet" was inspired by the term "Satellite Nation" meaning a small country under control of a larger country. I felt it was an apt comparison to a planet orbiting a larger one.

[Kevin]

Ah, secondary, that is a more acceptable term. Let's see what latin comes up with --
Alterius (is basically secondary)
Stella errans (is planet)


Tetsu Deinonychus, yes, and under normal circumstances I wouldn't have been ummmhow can I say -- put off but not as strongly as that -- alerted. That's it, I wouldn't have been as alerted to the term Satellite Planet if Satellite wasn't already used very liberally throughout astrophysical terms.

Almost everything is a Satellite in astrophysics.

Something of this importance really should be more unique than that, don't you agree? I was just hoping for a more unique and descriptive term.


I do very much like your Secondary Planet term. What's more is if there is such a thing as Tertiary planet (a planet orbiting a planet orbiting a planet), then this term - Secondary is even MORE perfect as we can then use the term Tertiary !:D

[Kevin]

ok so I decided our big problem is "Defining Planetary Qualities" when we should define what ISN'T a planet.

So here it is.

A planet IS NOT:

1. Free roaming or otherwise lightly bound mass of particles/matter (nebula).
2. An active comet (as defined by the visual of icy tail, orbit, and a-symmetrical composite surface).
3. A Star
4. An Asteroid (as defined by the a symmetrical, rock conglomeration devoid of a core).
5. Unbound or otherwise irregular matter
6. Spacial Anomaly
7. Open Ended Definition to be updated should other formations of stellar origin be discovered or defined.


A planet can be:

1. A satellite of any other stellar body (including a moon. This would allow for the definition: Lunar Planet, Stellar Planet).
2. An unbound tightly bound mass which may or may not be symmetrical, providing it has a defined Core (allowing for the definition of Rogue Planet).
3. A planet beyond the scope required to be heated by the nearest stellar body, or a planet orbiting a dead stellar body (allowing for the definition of Cold Planet).


Definitions unbefitting a planet:

Dwarf/Giant Planets - Considering the fact that size is arbitrary, this definition is purely un-scientific and anyone who uses these terms should be shot.

[Rock's Sunglasses]

Here are a few connections I saw between items on your original list, which might lead to more organization with a little more discussion--essentially, drawing lines between terms the best I can with words.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a writer of this genre or the board's scientific authority. In my own current writing, the closest thing to science is surreal parody based on a bizarre era for the practice, something I never try to pass off as anything else. In that, I aim to miss, but I know how irksome it is when a writer aims to hit and misses--that is why I'm here!

1. "Orbital" and "Rogue" are terms that might exist at opposite ends of a spectrum of stability of orbit. Unless I'm making an error here, the planet with the least stable "orbit" doesn't have a traceable one at all. I'm not sure, though, whether you want a spectrum anywhere.

2. Rogues cannot be solar, only non-solar. This is a connection that cannot be made in the classification system. Planetary--also can't happen. However, would you say that a rogue could be complimentary or contrary? I wasn't as clear on those definitions. Also, might a rogue (not complete) planet's galaxy count as a cluster (if so, the incomplete rogue category is obsolete)? Can a rogue planet that stays within a solar system still be called a rogue? You might want to describe the term in more depth if you still want to keep it.

3. According to my good friend Captain Obvious, a complete rogue can only exist within the rogue category.

That's all for now. If all else fails, I can always work the gun on the dwarf/giant people.

[Kevin]

I wanted a Rogue Planet to simply be a planet that has no standard orbit. There are some planets in the Kuiper Belt which do not have an orbit at all, they just sort of float, unattached, but are still within the boundaries of our solar system.

Obviously it'd be a rare occurrence to have a solar rogue planet, but I don't want to discount them.

But the basic premise is there are planets with orbits and planets without orbits. So it isn't so much an opposite sides of the spectrum thing as it is just they either have an orbit or don't.

I wonder though if I should include a rotational and stationary definition for planets - since some planets might not actually rotate.