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?…
Probably going to mention this site in a write up I am working on later this month, and a stop at growthfollowsdesign provided more material for that potential mention, content worth referencing in my own published work rather than just personal reading is content with the highest endorsement level and this site has earned that endorsement.
Reading this on a long flight and finding it the best thing I read across hours of trying, and a stop at momentumwithdirection kept the streak going, when content beats long flight reading you know it has substance because flight reading is a hard test of a piece given the alternatives available everywhere.
Bookmark earned, calendar reminder set, share queued, all from one good post, and a look at focusfeedsmomentum did the same, when a single reading session triggers multiple downstream actions you know the content has actually moved me beyond the page and this site is moving me at that higher level reliably.
Highly recommend to anyone looking for a sensible take on this topic without the usual marketing nonsense, and a look at signaldrivesfocus kept that grounded approach going, sites that stay focused on serving readers rather than monetising every click are rare and this is clearly one of those rare ones I really appreciate finding.
Now thinking the topic is more interesting than I had given it credit for, and a stop at clarityremovesfriction continued that elevated interest, content that revives my curiosity about subjects I had set aside is doing genuine work in the structure of my interests and this site is providing that revivifying effect today actually.
Felt like the post had been edited rather than just drafted and published, and a stop at momentumneedsfocus suggested the same care across the site, the difference between edited and unedited content is enormous for the reader and this site has clearly invested in the editing pass that most blogs skip entirely which really does show up.
Just sat back at the end of the post and felt grateful that someone took the time to write it, and a look at directionfuelsmotion extended that gratitude across more of the site, recognising effort behind quality work is part of what makes the open web a community rather than just a marketplace today.
Different in a good way from the cookie cutter content that fills most blogs covering this area, and a stop at clarityanchorsprogress kept showing me why, original thoughtful writing exists if you know where to look and this site has earned a place on my short list of those rare exceptions worth defending.
Now feeling slightly more committed to my own careful reading practices having read this, and a stop at claritycreatesenergy reinforced that commitment, content that models the kind of attention it deserves is content that calibrates the reader and this site has clearly raised my own bar for what to bring to good writing today.
Liked that the post landed without needing to manufacture controversy or take a contrarian stance for attention, and a stop at softsummit continued that grounded approach, content that earns attention through quality rather than provocation is the kind that builds long term trust rather than burning it on quick wins.