Should they reclassify what is a "moon" ?

[Robert Maxwell]

^I have no reason to believe that TrekBBS represents a better educated cross section of our society.

While I'm the first to admit the low-end of the Bell Curve is well-represented here, I don't think you've spent enough time on the Internet. The level of discourse here is far above the median, probably around the 90th percentile if I had to take a wild guess.

Consider that the vast majority of netizens can't even string together a complete sentence, and communicate almost exclusively in txt-speak, and it's not hard to come to the conclusion that people here on TBBS are smarter than average.

Being Star Trek fans is likely tangential to the intelligence issue, though. We just got lucky, but I'm sure there is some kind of feedback loop involved where a community made up mostly of bright people will tend to attract other bright people--much like a community made up of drooling idiots tends to attract more of same.

I'm not suggesting that Star Trek fans or TrekBBS members are somehow below average intelligence, only that I see very little evidence that they are of superior intelligence.

Even if we were somehow of superior intelligence, that still doesn't make us qualified to make far reaching decisions on whether or not Pluto is a planet. People who most definitely are of superior intelligence have been arguing about that one for decades.

The Pluto issue has nothing to do with intelligence. It's simply a matter of definition. What is a planet? Answer that question, and you've implicitly answered whether or not Pluto qualifies.

The scientific consensus is that, by their definition of the term "planet," Pluto isn't one.

Intelligence doesn't really figure into it.

 

[Hermiod]

^Perhaps intelligence is the wrong word - education might be better.

I'm not an astronomer, I'm not qualified to decide on what the definition of a planet is as opposed to the definition of a trans-neptunian object.

So, whether "the people" have spoken or not isn't really relevant since such decisions aren't made by a referendum.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^Perhaps intelligence is the wrong word - education might be better.

I'm not an astronomer, I'm not qualified to decide on what the definition of a planet is as opposed to the definition of a trans-neptunian object.

So, whether "the people" have spoken or not isn't really relevant since such decisions aren't made by a referendum.

You are correct. Scientists decide the scientific matters--lay people just have to deal, as much as they might whine about it.

 

[Deckerd]

But a whole load of astronomers wrote an open letter after that infamous 'reclassification' refuting the original paper. Who to believe?

 

[Talosian]

I wouldn't get too caught up in the whole planet/non-planet distinction. This is a classic case of semantics and nomenclature rather than pure science.

Right, so Pluto is too small, it's an icy Kuiper Belt object, it's plane of orbit is different than the other 8 planets, that's all well and good. But, for that matter, the rocky inner planets and the gaseous outer ones are as distinct from each other as either is to Pluto and it's more distant kin.

 

[Starbreaker]

I'm pretty sure everyone here but three people are smarter than anyone who has ever posted on YouTube.

 

[trekkiedane]

Let's come up with names for things not big enough to be moons!

Moonoid.

Moonenite.

Mini-Moon.

Moon Wannabe.

The Space Rock Formerly Known as Moon.

Satellite?

 

[iguana_tonante]

I was just looking at THIS article, detailing one of Saturn's 60 known moons.

Daphnis is only 4.3 miles across.

Should they think about reclassifying what is or isn't a moon, like they did with what constitutes a planet?

I mean, any little rock they can see with a telescope or Cassini, or any other passing spacecraft shouldn't be considered a moon if Pluto isn't considered a planet.

I think it's actually a good question. Personally, I would favor a reclassification: there must be a line between "moon" and random rocks that got caught in orbit of a planet. My suggestion would be that a natural satellite should be classified as a "moon" if it has spherical shape due to auto-gravity. It would cause a bit of ruckus since it would exclude Phobos and Deimos (satellites of Mars) and many satellites of the outer planets, but it would be for the best in my opinion. As for the name, an interesting suggestion could be "selenoid", along the lines of planetoid and asteroid (greek name plus -oid suffix), but I would be happy with just calling them "natural satellites". All moons are satellites, not all satellites are moons.

And what about Pluto ? It isn't classified a planet any more so what does that make it's moon?

If I remember correctly, Charon is still classified as a natural satellite of Pluto, but they are more actually describes as a double system, since the barycenter of the system is located in the open space between them.

^Perhaps intelligence is the wrong word - education might be better.

I'm not an astronomer, I'm not qualified to decide on what the definition of a planet is as opposed to the definition of a trans-neptunian object.

So, whether "the people" have spoken or not isn't really relevant since such decisions aren't made by a referendum.

Well, as an astronomer and a denizen of this board, I fully supported Pluto reclassification. I'm not really keen on the actual definition ("neighbourhood clearing" is too vagues), but it was pretty clear that Pluto never belonged with the big boys, both in mass and orbital parameters.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Well, a few serious replies are better than none.

Does anyone know if there is any official discussion about the moons in the scientific community?

 

[scotpens]

. . . What is a planet? Answer that question, and you've implicitly answered whether or not Pluto qualifies.

The scientific consensus is that, by their definition of the term "planet," Pluto isn't one.

IIRC, Pluto is now classified as a "dwarf planet." Or, to be politically correct, a "size-challenged planet."

And what about Pluto? It isn't classified a planet any more so what does that make it's moon?

Goofy?

 

[RoJoHen]

Let's come up with names for things not big enough to be moons!

Moonoid.

Moonenite.

Mini-Moon.

Moon Wannabe.

The Space Rock Formerly Known as Moon.

Satellite?

Only if you want to be boring.

 

[Chaos Descending]

I thought that there was only one Moon in the entire solar system.

 

[FordSVT]

I thought that there was only one Moon in the entire solar system.

You shouldn't admit things like that in public.

 

[Chaos Descending]

I thought that there was only one Moon in the entire solar system.

You shouldn't admit things like that in public.

Wow, they don't really teach much astronomy these days, do they?

Or is "Moon" the new "Kleenex"?

Hint: The things that orbit Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are called "Natural Satellites", and each one has it's own name. The Earth's "Natural Satellite" just happens to be called "The Moon", and it's the only "Moon" in the entire Universe.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I thought that there was only one Moon in the entire solar system.

You shouldn't admit things like that in public.

Wow, they don't really teach much astronomy these days, do they?

Or is "Moon" the new "Kleenex"?

Hint: The things that orbit Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are called "Natural Satellites", and each one has it's own name. The Earth's "Natural Satellite" just happens to be called "The Moon", and it's the only "Moon" in the entire Universe.

Not really. "Moon" is a perfectly acceptable synonymous of "natural satellite", both in common speech and scientific discourse. And I've never encountered anything that suggested different at any time in my academic career.

A quick and dirty search on SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System Astronomy and Astrophysics Search shows 36165 occurrences of the word "moon/moons" in scientific papers, many of which do not refer to the Earth's Moon.

Most recent examples:

• Radarclinometry of the sand seas of Africa’s Namibia and Saturn’s moon Titan
• Physical characteristics and non-keplerian orbital motion of "propeller" moons embedded in Saturn's rings
• Planetary science: The birth of Saturn's baby moons
• The Hill stability of the possible moons of extrasolar planets
• Astrometry of the Inner Uranian Moons, and the Trouble with Mab
• Packed Perturbers: Short-term Interactions Among Uranus’ Inner Moons
• Using a Statistical Accretion Model to Predict the Existence of Undetected Moons around Uranus in the Vicinity of Mab
• Dynamical effects of heavy bombardment of the regular moons of Saturn
• Interaction of Laboratory Tholin with Liquids Present in, and on, the Moons of the Outer Solar System
• Oceanic Chemical Evolution on Icy Moons
• Interaction of Saturn's magnetosphere and its moons: 2. Shape of the Enceladus plume
• Interaction of Saturn's magnetosphere and its moons: 1. Interaction between corotating plasma and standard obstacles

I guess it's one of those instances where hyper-correctness is actually wrong.

 

[Chaos Descending]

So what's the Earth's "moon" named, then? Titan? Phobos? Roy? Hildegard? Is the proper name for the "the moon" not then, "The Moon"?

Let me put it another way.

There are many different brands of "soft facial tissue". Virtually everyone in America calls all of them by the name, "kleenex", yet only one brand of them is actually named "Kleenex". I could have also used "Band-Aid"/"adhesive bandage", or "Coke"/"carbonated soft drink".

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Luna is the Latin name, if that helps.

 

[Chaos Descending]

But not the English one.

http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Page/FAQ

Q: What is a moon?
A: A solid object in orbit around a planet, dwarf planet, minor planet, or transneptunian object is called a "satellite." A natural satellite is sometimes referred to as a "moon" in popular usage. However, Earth's own satellite is called the "Moon" in both scientific and popular usage.

Q: Why doesn't the Moon have a name?
A: The Moon does, of course, have a name - the Moon. It is known by many names in various languages - Luna (Latin, Spanish, Italian, and Russian), Mond (German), Lune (French), etc. Our moon was the first known moon. When we discovered that other planets had moons, they were given different names in order to distinguish them from our moon.

 

[iguana_tonante]

So what's the Earth's "moon" named, then? Titan? Phobos? Roy? Hildegard? Is the proper name for the "the moon" not then, "The Moon"?

The Earth's moon is called Moon in English (Luna in Italian, Selini in Greek, etc). A proper name extended to a category by virtue of being the first observed. Just like Earth's soil is called, well, earth. What's wrong with that?

There are many different brands of "soft facial tissue". Virtually everyone in America calls all of them by the name, "kleenex", yet only one brand of them is actually named "Kleenex". I could have also used "Band-Aid"/"adhesive bandage", or "Coke"/"carbonated soft drink".

I see your point, but I don't see the problem. The main issue is that of trade mark infringement, but while Coke and Kleenex are brands, the Moon is not.

 

[Chaos Descending]

The Earth's moon is called Moon in English (Luna in Italian, Selini in Greek, etc). A proper name extended to a category by virtue of being the first observed. Just like Earth's soil is called, well, earth.

But what do we call the soul on Mars? It's certainly not called "earth".

I see your point, but I don't see the problem. The main issue is that of trade mark infringement, but while Coke and Kleenex are brands, the Moon is not.

I just like being difficult, pedantic, cranky, and crotchety. Is that so wrong?

And the Moon is so a brand. At least it better be! I paid a great sum of money to a dude in an alley outside a titty bar who swore that he owned the trademark, and agreed to sell it to me!