Planetary Classification Proposal

Kevin Conner
(C)2009 Ignoring the IAU's politically motivated and unscientific classification of planets (which only applies to our solar system), I've decided to make my own proposal.
I invite anyone to try to shoot holes in my proposal.
My proposal - (seriously, freely distribute this but at least give me credit if you use it) - actually gives our solar system a maximum of 10 PRIME planets, although we would come out with several "Secondary" "rogue" and "non-solar" planets.
The first step to determining planetary status is determining 'what a planet is not' rather than 'what a planet is'.

A planet is NOT:

1. Free roaming or otherwise lightly bound mass of particles/matter (nebula)
2. An active comet (as defined by the visual of icy tail, orbit, and a-symmetrical composite surface)
3. A star (a ball of gaseous particles undergoing nuclear fusion to create heat and energy)
4. An Asteroid (as defined by the a-symmetrical, rock conglomeration devoid of a core).
5. Unbound or otherwise irregular matter
6. Spacial Anomaly
7. *Open Ended Definition to be updated should other formations of stellar origin be discovered or defined.

A planet can be:

1. A satellite of any other stellar body (including a moon. This would allow for the definition: Secondary Planet, Primary Planet).
2. An unbound tightly bound mass which may or may not be symmetrical, providing it has a defined Core, through either gravitational pull or solid material (allowing for the definition of Rogue Planet)
3. A planet beyond the scope required to be heated by the nearest stellar body, or a planet orbiting a dead stellar body (allowing for the definition of Cold Planet)

Definitions unbefitting a planet

Dwarf/Giant Planets – Considering the fact that size is arbitrary, this definition is purely unscientific
Proto Planets – It may be a fact discovered later on that what we consider to be a developing planet has completed its development stage and provided life
Plutons – By the very logic of the Pluton classification, are we to call Earth (one of the smallest planet types in the universe) an Earthton?

Definitions befitting a Planet

Orbital Primary Categories

Orbital (i.e. a planet with a clear planar orbit, despite the orbital shape)
Rogue (a planet which despite personal movement, is not bound to any singular object such as an orbital or cluster planet)
Complete Rogue (a planet which isn't linked to a galaxy (let alone a solar system)
Cluster (a planet which despite personal movement or uniformity, is more of member of a group, i.e. clearly bound to multiple celestial entities, but this binding isn't as planar as an Orbital planet).

Orbital Locality Categories

Primary (a planet which orbits a solar entity within a radius in such that it directly affects the gravity/orbit of more than one other Solar Object or the Sun itself, or is in-between the lineup of other such planets fitting this description. i.e. this would be a main System Planet)
Non-Solar (a planet which falls outside of the solar definition, in that it does not directly affect one or more Solar Objects, and is not followed by a planet fitting the Primary description)
Secondary (a planet which orbits another planet - this would actually qualify Io as a planet. Current debates on Titan as well)

Orbital Nature

Stable Orbit (a planet with a stable orbit is one which repeats its orbit with predictability, regardless of the shape or length of orbit)
Instable Orbit (a planet which orbit changes erratically or otherwise routinely alters its path outside of a simple repetitive predictability. A planet which does a figure 8 would be stable, but a planet which does all sorts of shifts in speed and direction is instable)
Stable Rotation (a planet with a consistent smooth rotational speed and axis, regardless of whether or not it speeds up or slows down over an extended period of time, or flips axis)
Instable Rotation (a planet whose rotation and axis will speed up, slow down, and change position without cause, in an irrational, instable manner that causes internal damage or otherwise severe and drastic changes in conditions which cannot be compensated by the planets natural structure).

Orbital Sub Categories

Complimentary (A planet smaller in size which essentially affects only one other solar planet in a helpful, non destructive fashion, yet is incapable of being classified as a Primary Planet – i.e. the lesser of two masses locked into geosynchronous rotation or orbit)
Contrary (a planet which has a direct negative/conflicting effect on another planetary object)

Quality Categories

Living Planet (a planet which is active in one of the following ways: core, rotation, shifting plates. This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)
Dead Planet (a planet which is completely inactive in means of core, plates, rotation, etc... This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)
Dormant (a dead planet which can through minimal means be brought from a seemingly dead status, or near dead status, to a fully active status. This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)

Comments

GreenMule's picture
GreenMule 4 years 19 weeks ago
#1

Perceptions of pseudo-intellecturals made it doctrine that the World was flat. There is an absence of documentation that these educated men sent a scouting party to prove their words and print with illustrations. A little joke on the unwashed masses from the minds of political and religious idiots. Its this European style of vanity and self-esteem that allows them to assume as fact, before performing a personal exploration. Always wanting to be the first to discover things that were never lost. This is a 360 degree return to the Earth is flat mentality. Your time would be well spent in trying to remove the Space Debris circling our planet, rather than trying to make new rules of things you know nothing. There is no middle and no sides to the Universe. This solar system was created for our life-form. Who's to say there are not Squares and Triangles in the Universe, and yet we have circles? We only have someones WORD. There in lies the rub. Your information is largely true, but it is also irrelevant. D- is your grade. See you next semester.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321 4 years 19 weeks ago
#2

Not here to grade others.

Your system seems well thought out, but how many different fonts does a language need in order to convey its message?

I like that you anticipated the first response by setting the number of PRIME planets equal to the number of hand digits of the life-form for which "This solar system was created..."

KevinConner's picture
KevinConner 4 years 15 weeks ago
#3

Holy crud I was not notified I had responses!

The first response is an obvious troll; but, I will respond: People who are in the actual know regarding the IAU know that the IAU cheated on two of the discussions by manipulating the discussion periods, and lied about the vote taking. They rigged the permissible voting members so the minority european scientists had higher voting presence. Their final resolution was rewritten 3 times after the vote until they finally came up with Dwarf Planet. In order to make it valid they also stated their definition of planet only applies to this solarsystem, which is 100% unscientific and arbitrary. They are a living joke, and conducted their voting during the height of ANTI US WAR PROTESTING in Europe. They had to make this system arbitrary, because if you read their actual resolution, they "accidentally" disqualified both Jupiter and Saturn from Planet Status. They had to go back and ammend the original resolution saying "Oh wait in our solar system Juputer and Saturn are planets just because." They gave no reason of any kind for this, and were forced to devalue their own resolution due to their incompetence.

Rodger please don't think I ignored you, I honestly didn't think anyone replied. I'm sorry I don't quite understand your original comment. I only used 1 font, and bolded the appropriate headdings for better organization.

Forgive my lack of complete explanation regarding the proposal.

The number 10 has nothing to do with the number of digits on your hand, it's actually a scientific number in relationship to our solarsystem. There are 10 celestial bodies which orbit our sun that have direct gravitational pulls against each other.

Pluto has a direct gravitational pull on Uranus and Neptune when it crosses their orbital path.

Quoaor is the 10th and furthest celestial satellite from the central Solar Axis which has a gravitational effect on any other planet. Quoaor's gravitational pull directly causes warbles in Pluto orbit, and some have theorized Quoaor is the Mysterious Planet X that threw Pluto off course (it's a theory that can never be tested).

Despite their sizes, Sedna and Varuna are outside of the main beltway, and their gravitational pull is so negligible it has no apparent effect on Quoaor or any other planet within our system (providing I remember my notes correctly).

However, their classification would not be ignored, and under this system both Sedna and Varuna would still be considered Planets, just not Prime Planets.

Your theory as to why I came up with a number ten is a logical conclusion since I did not provide you with enough information. However, I now hope you see that my number of 10 was more scientific rather than number of digits on your hand, and thus this system would be easily understood and applicable to non-terrestial species (should they exist, if we ever meet them).

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.