![]()
El baile de los planetas (II)
Seguimos con la discusión sobre qué es y qué no es un planeta…
Mientas tanto, una propuesta alternativa adquiere más y más fuerza. La votación será este mismo jueves.
Propuesta alternativa, que traduciré a lo largo de la mañana (cortesía de Javier Licandro):
New proposal for Resolution 5: Definition of a Planet
(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) is by far the largest object in its local population [1], (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) does not produce energy by any nuclear fusion mechanism [3].
(2) According to point (1) the eight classical planets discovered before 1900, which move in nearly circular orbits close to the ecliptic plane are the only planets of our Solar System. All the other objects in orbit around the Sun are smaller than Mercury. We recognize that there are objects that fulfill the criteria (b) and (c) but not criterion (a). Those objects are defined as «dwarf» planets. Ceres as well as Pluto and several other large Trans-Neptunian objects belong to this category. In contrast to the planets, these objects typically have highly inclined orbits and/or large eccentricities.
(3) All the other natural objects orbiting the Sun that do not fulfill any of the previous criteria shall be referred to collectively as “Small Solar System Bodies”.[4]
PD: Traducción de la propuesta alternativa.
Un planeta es un objeto celeste que:
a) es el de mayor objeto de la población local,
b) contiene suficiente masa como para que su fuerza de gravedad sea dominante, de manera que se encuentre en equilibrio hidrostático,
c) no produce energía a partir de reacciones nucleares de fusión.
ENLACES:
Planetas: preguntas y respuestas de la IAU
Más en:
El baile de los planetas
El baile de los planetas (II)
El baile de los planetas (III)
¿Qué es un planeta?…

A piece that reads like it was written for me without claiming to be written for me, and a look at actionfuelsmomentum produced the same fit, when the writer audience match clicks naturally without being engineered through demographic targeting you know the writing is solid and this site has that natural fit consistently for me.
Granted I am giving this site more credit than I usually give new finds, and a look at signalclarifiesdirection continued earning that credit, the calibration of how much trust to extend after limited exposure is something I do carefully and this site has earned more trust on shorter exposure than most due to consistent quality across.
Now recognising the editorial wisdom of letting some questions remain open at the end, and a look at businessrelationshiphub continued that intellectual honesty, content that does not force closure on contested questions is content that respects the limits of knowledge and this site has clearly developed the maturity to know when to leave space.