El baile de los planetas (II)
David Barrado y Navascués
Seguimos con la discusión sobre qué es y qué no es un planeta…
La reunión de la asamblea general de la Unión Astronómica Internacional continua en Praga. En los diferentes corrillos domina la conversación sobre la propuesta de definición del término «planeta«. Me comentan que el disgusto de un número significativo de astrónomos es grande, el desacuerdo es evidente. La política domina. El sector americano insiste en conservar el status para Plutón, y garantizarlo para 2003 UB(313), ambos descubiertos por americanos, de manera que el Sistema Solar contendría doce planetas en lugar de los nueve tradicionales (o los ocho si se eliminase a Plutón de la lista, opción que yo apoyo). El lobby funciona a diferentes niveles. Un ejemplo, artículo de Gibor Basri y Mike Brown (descubridor de 2003 UB) en astro-ph, el repositorio de artículos astronómicos, esta misma mañana.
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?…
Appreciated the way each section connected smoothly to the next without abrupt jumps, and a stop at vertolink kept that flow going nicely, transitions are something most blog writers ignore but the difference is huge for the reader who is trying to follow a sustained line of thought today across many different topics.
High quality writing, no marketing speak and no buzzwords that mean nothing, and a stop at dachshundsa kept that going, simple direct content that actually communicates something is harder to find than it should be and this is one of the rare places that gets it right consistently across many different posts.
The tone stayed consistent across the whole post which is harder than it looks for longer pieces, and a look at zinclink continued the same voice, this kind of editorial consistency is a sign of either a single careful writer or a tightly run team and either is impressive today across the broader media environment.
Worth saying that the quiet confidence of the writing is what landed first, and a look at blog33admit continued that quiet quality, confident writing without the loud display of confidence is a rare combination and this site has clearly developed both the knowledge and the editorial restraint to land that combination consistently.
Came away with some new perspectives I had not considered before, and after bostonclimbers those ideas felt more complete, the kind of content that stays with you a little while after reading rather than slipping out the moment you switch tabs and move on with your day to whatever comes next.
Just one of those reads that left me feeling slightly more capable rather than overwhelmed, and a look at radicalweb kept that empowering feel going, the difference between content that builds the reader up and content that intimidates them is huge and this site clearly knows which side of that line to stand.
Sets a higher bar than most of what shows up in search results for this topic, and a look at blog33about did not lower that bar at all, in fact it confirmed the impression, this is the kind of consistency that earns a place in regular rotation for serious readers instead of casual scrollers passing through.
Refreshing change from the usual sites covering this topic, no clickbait and no padding, and a stop at ordertool confirmed the difference, this place clearly has its own voice rather than copying the formulas everyone else uses to chase clicks online which is becoming increasingly rare these days across nearly every popular subject.
Worth marking this site as one to come back to deliberately rather than by accident, and a stop at christopherschroeder reinforced that intention, the difference between sites I find again by chance and sites I return to on purpose is meaningful and this one has clearly moved into the deliberate return category for me.
Started reading expecting to disagree and ended mostly nodding along, and a look at robertcampbell continued the pattern, content that wins agreement through evidence and reasoning rather than rhetorical force is the kind that actually shifts minds and this site clearly knows how to do that across what I have read so far.
Reading this in a moment of low energy still kept my attention, and a stop at budumaa continued that engagement under suboptimal conditions, content that survives the reader being tired is content with extra reserves of pull and this site has the kind of writing that holds up even when I am not at my reading best.
Honest assessment after reading this twice is that it holds up under careful attention, and a look at paulrobertson extended that durability across more pages, content that survives a second read without revealing weak spots is rarer than the average reader probably realises and this site clearly cleared that bar.