Slashdot Log In
Makemake Becomes the Newest Dwarf Planet
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:52 PM
from the this-one's-a-kuiper dept.
from the this-one's-a-kuiper dept.
Kligat writes "The Kuiper belt object formerly known as (136472) 2005 FY9 has been rechristened Makemake and classified as a dwarf planet and plutoid by the International Astronomical Union, according to the United States Geological Survey. The reclassification occurs just a month after the latter category was created. The object was referred to by the team of discoverers by the codename Easterbunny, and the name Makemake comes from the creation deity of Easter Island, in accordance with IAU rules on naming Kuiper belt objects."
Related Stories
[+]
IAU Classifies Pluto & Eris As "Plutoids" 192 comments
Kligat writes "The International Astronomical Union has decided that Pluto and Eris should be classified as "plutoids," alongside their 2006 classification as dwarf planets. Under the definition, the self-gravity of a plutoid is enough for it to achieve a near-spherical shape, but not enough for it to clear its orbit of its rocky neighbors, and the plutoid orbits the Sun beyond Neptune."
Reader FiReaNGeL links to a
similar story at e! Science News.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I miss... (Score:5, Funny)
Me too... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Me too... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Goofy was a dog.
Pluto was a dog.
Goofy was Mickey's friend.
Pluto was Mickey's pet.
Does anyone else see anything unusual about that little triangle?
Re:Me too... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing more unusual than a human keeping a chimpanzee as a pet.
Cartoon relationships become easier when you assume that bipedal, clothes-wearing, english-speaking characters are a different "species" than their feral cousins.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still there, it's just got less planety goodness.
Well... (Score:2)
Re:I miss... (Score:5, Funny)
I miss Pluto.
Don't worry, if you keep training, your aim will eventually improve.
Parent
Whatwhat? (Score:5, Funny)
$ make dwarf_planet
make: *** No rule to make target `dwarf_planet'. Stop.
Alright, well, that doesn't help at all. Maybe this [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whatwhat? (Score:5, Funny)
it failed, there for it was the one that comes with SUN.
Parent
Re:Whatwhat? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know, it seems an eminently sensible way to name gods. We could have Killkill for the bringer of death, or Badbad for the source of evil, or Hichic for the god of wine... this has possibilities.
Parent
About Venus... (Score:5, Funny)
So, are you suggesting that Venus, or Aphrodite, be renamed Fuckfuck?
Parent
Re:About Venus... (Score:4, Funny)
Funny, I thought it was pronounced Viagra.
So, if we rename Mars Warwar, and Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars, we could have some really interesting war stories.
Parent
Re:Whatwhat? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
plutoid... I like it (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus, plutoid has a good ring to it.
Re:plutoid... I like it (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:plutoid... I like it (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. Even if it was decided to keep Pluto as a 'planet', we would still have to come up with a new name for the eight large objects that orbit our Sun in a manner unlike anything else in the solar system (specifically, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune).
There is little room for sentiment in science. Things are what they are, and if it is discovered that something is being called something it shouldn't be, it has to be changed. Some people just don't get that.
The good news is that in this case, it isn't likely to happen again. Apart from the distinction between terrestrial and gaseous, the definition for planet seems pretty solid (I do expect the term 'exoplanet' to be absorbed into the definition of planet in the long term, though. Either that or we'll be extinct and it won't matter what anything is called anymore :-).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got to say, I think the compromise struck is a pretty good one. Pluto being a planet with similar objects not being a planet was not really scientific.
I don't really care whether there are 8 or 150 planets in the Solar System. The current compromise is not scientific. Here are the problems: a) the definition doesn't define a crucial term, b) it doesn't apply to other star systems, and c) any dynamics-based definition of planet cannot extend easily to other star systems (observation is difficult, systems can easily have different dynamics structure).
Re:plutoid... I like it (Score:4, Interesting)
The current definition of 'planet' is specifically restricted to describing objects within our solar system. Your latter two points are thus irrelevant and your first does not carry enough weight on it's own to be convincing. Hence your argument is refuted.
Once we have a better understanding of the dynamics of other star systems, we can think about a more inclusive definition. For now, we shouldn't worry about them because, as you said, observation is difficult and any conclusions we make now are subject to change.
In our own star system, the only system we can observe directly and thus the only system we can have any real knowledge of, Pluto is not, and never was, a planet. Get over it.
Parent
Re:plutoid... I like it (Score:4, Insightful)
Our observations of the Solar System and of the bodies orbiting other suns, if we are to be quite strict about it, would lead to the following three classes.
1: Stars
2: Gas Giants
3: Rubble
Parent
Re:plutoid... I like it (Score:5, Informative)
The current definition of 'planet' is specifically restricted to describing objects within our solar system. Your latter two points are thus irrelevant and your first does not carry enough weight on it's own to be convincing. Hence your argument is refuted.
I'm aware of the way they defined it. You apparently are not.
The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies, except satellites, in our Solar System [my emphasis - khallow] be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
This statement says nothing about planets about other star systems. In particular, it doesn't say that there can't be planets in other star systems. And note that the key distinction between "planet" and "dwarf planet" is an undefined characteristic, "cleared the neighborhoor around its orbit". So we have a definition that is ill-defined, works only for 1 star system out of tens of billions, and makes a distinction based on hard to observe dynamics that would only make sense for a portion of these star systems.
Pluto is not, and never was, a planet. Get over it.
I see we're revising history now. Pluto was indeed a planet from roughly the time of its discover until it was reclassified in 2006.
Parent
I think it's stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
The definition has no scientific usefullness. I have no problem with creating taxonomies purely for local use, but they should at least tell you something about the objects you are classifying. Plutinos, cubiwanos, twotinos, are all usefull categorizations of objects by their orbits in the Kuiper belt, which is likely correlated to their orgins. Dwarf planet is a usefull categorization of things bigger than an asteroid, but smaller than a planet.
Plutinoid is just stupid - all the dwarf planets except Ceres. Yes, I know that Ceres has different orgins and makeup than the large KBOs, but there is an awful lot of variation between those as well. If we wanted a more specific definition than dwarf planet then we should have waited until we knew more about them so we could make one that has some meaning.
Parent
Depends. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does it matter? Well, think back a few days to the recent news on the DNA analysis of birds. Turns out, the definition based on appearances is completely wrong. What was it, kestrels are genetically closer to hummingbirds than any other bird of prey? And the DNA variation between any two lineages within a species has next to zero correspondence to morphology. In other words, looking at something from the outside tells you bugger all. So, naturally, looking at the outside of an object orbiting the sun is the perfect way to tell what it is. It's only a method every other discipline has now ruled to be faulty, after all.
Parent
Except these have no DNA (Score:4, Interesting)
Except:
1. Even for birds, there are classifications which are useful even if they don't reflect the DNA. E.g., a "bird of prey" or "flightless bird" are still useful categories, no matter to whom the individual species are related.
Basically a category is just a way to say "all these have property X", no matter what X is or in what other categories they also belong. Grouping them by DNA is just _one_ of the many possible groupings. It's useful, no doubt, but it's not the only useful one. It doesn't make all others faulty. No, even the ones based on looking from the outside. Sorry.
I fail to see why the same can't apply to planets. We already have such categories as being in the right band to have liquid water too, for example. It tells you bugger all about its interior, but it does tell you that the exterior _could_ support Earth-like life. It's a useful category. Even if it's based on where it happens to be.
2. These have no DNA so to speak. They're chunks of rock and ice.
And a lot of other stuff is pretty much based on how big they are and where they are. E.g., whether it has one core or no core or multiple cores, is pretty much just an issue of how big it is. If gravity was high enough, it pulled the heavy stuff towards the centre. If not, not.
Parent
But... (Score:4, Funny)
Shouldn't it be named Module::Build?
Leader of the discovery team wrote a blog entry (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Leader of the discovery team wrote a blog entry (Score:5, Informative)
It's supposed to be pronounced "maki-maki," Hawaiian-style as he calls it.
That is definitely not Hawaiian style. (This rant is directed at him, not you.)
In Hawaiian, and many other languages in the Polynesian family, vowels have one main pronunciation. Es are pronounced with an "ay" sound, so the correct "Hawaiian-style" pronunciation would be closer to maKAY-maKAY. In fact, vowels are generally pronounced longer than English, so an even better transcription might be muhKEH-muhKEH.
Also, Hawaiian and Rapanui have common roots, but like all languages, they evolved. "Make" means death or defeat in Hawaiian; "makemake" can mean defeat or desire or wish.
Parent
Re:Leader of the discovery team wrote a blog entry (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Leader of the discovery team wrote a blog entry (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe you're frustrated because of Mars rover operators naming minor landforms around their landing probes things like "lollipop," but these are just placeholder names until they think up better ones.
Parent
mkay (Score:2)
greatgreat
Rupert (Score:3, Funny)
We need one of these objects to be named 'Rupert' in honour of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
You insenitive clods! (Score:4, Funny)
Don't call them "Dwarf planets" They prefer the term "Gravitationally Challenged"!!!!
I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)
The International Asteroid Registry
"Forget stars... name a cold, hard rock after your ex."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Easter Island creation deity. [wikipedia.org]
Nice coincidence... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Geez... (Score:3, Informative)
That "makemake" is from Japanese or some other language... and that the guy who named it wasn't really just a complete loser.
Do we need to start telling people to RTFS (Read the Fucking Summary) as well as the usual RTFA now?
C/P directly from the Summary:
"The object was referred to by the team of discoverers by the codename Easterbunny, and the name Makemake comes from the creation deity of Easter Island, in accordance with IAU rules on naming Kuiper belt objects."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
- Object "juiper_belt_object" not found! [damn it!]
root@Universe# sudo make Kuiper_Belt_Object_136472_2005_FY9
**Output omitted**
**FATAL ERROR! Universe OS GCC cannot make executables! [Double damn it!]
root@Universe#_
Shit! In the interest of time, I would just reload the whole universe from scratch rather than hunt down that demon!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why can't they just leave shit alone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why can't they just leave shit alone? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no particular scientific benefit in calling something either a planetoid or a dwarf planet. It's all a matter of opinion it seems to me. So I understand the annoyance.
Parent
Re:Why can't they just leave shit alone? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with the principle of dogma vs. science, but I don't think this is the best example. It doesn't do well for credibility if you keep changing your mind based on unstable definitions and pretend it to be news each time you've tweaked one of them.
It's not "changing your mind", it's discovering new information. The discovery of Pluto was an accident (due to an error in calculation, a much bigger planet was predicted in that location, but it wasn't there), and because Kuiper Belt Objects were unknown at that time, Pluto got planetary status, although it was immediately obvious that it was a very abnormal planet.
Eventually it became clear that Pluto had to be a Kuiper Belt Object. As long as it was the only big one, that wasn't much of a problem, but eventually, astronomers discovered KBOs that were as big as or even bigger than Pluto, and a choice had to be made. Leaving Pluto a planet while denying that status to other large KBOs would be silly and unscientific, so either all large KBOs would become planets, resulting in dozens or hundreds of extra planets in our solar system, most of which would share similar irregular orbits, or accept that KBOs are different from regular planets, and give them their own class. That's what happened. Maybe they should have demoted Pluto earlier, but it was unavoidable, and by the time it happened, it was long overdue.
Not that this wasn't the first time planets had been demoted. In the 19th century, Ceres and a couple of other asteroids were also considered planets, but eventually astronomers decided that since they shared a similar orbit with lots of smaller asteroids, they had to be a different class of objects from the regular planets. Ceres and the others didn't have planetary status for as long as Pluto did, but that was due to Pluto accidentally being discovered way before we technically should be able to do so.
Parent
Science instead of dogma, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no "mistake" to be made in choosing between two essentially arbitrary definitions which have no basis in external reality. Nothing has changed about Pluto. Nothing of substance has changed of our understanding of Pluto. (It is not like our understanding of biology, where new DNA evidence comes to light and two organisms we had previously assumed to be related becaused they looked similar turn out to have no recent common ancestry.)
The only thing which has changed is our arbitrary definitions.
There is a great hue and cry that one way to arbitrarily define things is not merely customary but that it is Correct and that all other forms are Unscientific. That, my friend, is dogma in its purest form.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Life is change. You should probably try to get used to that idea if you have any hopes for happiness.
Happiness makes me unhappy!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good thing, too. Otherwise it could've started a recursion that would've filled the universe with dwarf planets and they would've come crashing down on us.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's Goofy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makemake_(dwarf_planet) [wikipedia.org]
Makemake,[5] pronounced /maËkimaËki/,[6] formally designated 136472 Makemake, is a very large Kuiper belt object, and one of the two largest among the population in the classical KBO orbits. Initially known as (136472) 2005 FY9, it was discovered on March 31, 2005 by the team led by Michael Brown. Makemake is now officially classified as a dwarf planet and plutoid.[5][7][8]
Prior to making it public, the discovery team referred to it by the codena