Four Nerds

When is a planet not a planet? That's the question that astronomers are asking themselves this week. Last Friday, astronomers at the California Institute of Technology announced the discovery of a tenth planet in orbit around the sun. The planet, called 2003 UB313, is approximately 3 times the distance from the Earth as Pluto. It's also larger than Pluto, perhaps even up to twice as big.

But not all scientists are convinced. The existence of the planet is not in dispute. Rather, the problem is that not every one in the scientific community has settled on what constitutes a planet.

The debate has gone on for years. There is a group of frozen objects beyond Neptune called the Kuiper Belt. The detractors say that this new "planet" is simply a large Kuiper object. Many of these have also claimed that Pluto isn't a planet either.

Some of the reasons include the size of the objects. Most Kuiper Belt objects are small, like the objects in the asteroid belt. Pluto, in fact, is smaller than the Moon.

The other major reason is the orbital plane. Most of the solar system's planets circle the sun along the same plane, give or take a few degrees.
Pluto's orbit is 17% off of the standard elliptical plane, which has prompted scientists to claim that it's not a true planet.

You see, the planets were formed from the big swirling mass of gasses that formed the Sun. Like a big whirlpool is space. That's why most of the planets all orbit in roughly the same plane. Pluto's eccentric orbit suggests that it was captured by the Sun's gravity, and originated from either outside the solar system, or was a moon that escaped Neptune's gravity.

2003 UB313, on the other hand, has an orbital plane that is a whopping 45% of the standard. That's the reason they just discovered it, because up until now, no one was looking for planets on that plane. So, scientists are now suggesting that, like Pluto, it shouldn't be counted as a planet.

Well, as a geek, I am chiming in. I have a certain expertise after all, having watched Star Wars over 500 times. Here's the deal: Pluto has always been a planet. The whole world, except for a bunch of whiny astronomers, has accepted that. So, a planet it stays.

Since it's the smallest planet, it's going to be the standard for what defines a planet. Since it's got a weird orbit, orbital arguments don't count. (It actually crosses Neptune's orbit sometimes, temporarily making it the eighth planet.) I don't care if the planet has a square orbit, it doesn't matter. Stop with the semantics, you anal retentive, nitpicking geeks.

I'm writing all this because it's a stupid argument, and scientists are wasting time and energy on a semantic debate. I read a quote from one scientist who actually said "To just call them planets does an injustice to the big guys in the solar system." Are you kidding me? The planets are being slighted?

Last time I checked, Uranus didn't give a shit. Jupiter couldn't be reached for comment.

You're looking for order in outer freakin' space. Last time I checked, it's a pretty random place. We're gonna keep discovering new planets across the galaxy. And the more we learn about them, the less and less they'll fit into your narrow little vision.

So, here are the new rules for planethood.

1- It must orbit a star.
2- It must be at least as big as Pluto.
3- It cannot be man made. (Sorry, Death Star.)

End of story.