An Exoplanet By Any Other Name

I came across an ArXiv post today calling for the noble attempt to name all exoplanets using the traditional Greek/Roman system. I commend the effort but unfortunately it would fail for some reasons.
One flaw lies with the system itself. Even all characters in the Greek/Roman mythology will not suffice. There's not enough of them to match all the exoplanets--which will probably number up to thousands in the next few decades.
Another thing is that the state of affairs in human politics involved in naming things is out of whack. We can't even agree what a planet is. So i understand why IAU does not want to jump in on it.
So if you'll allow me, I'd like to suggest a fun way to name exoplanets.
Let me start by saying that I have trouble remembering names, and that I love mnemonics. Thus it only leads me to one simple idea and one simple system to go about naming exoplanets.
I think that the host stars should be given more memorable nicknames. Then the names of the exoplanets they hold will follow from that.
For example, instead of HD80606, lets call it "Bogog". Then we'll have "Bogogbee" for its exoplanet.
HD156411 b will then be called "Isgaiibee", HD16141 b will be "Igiaibee". HD190360 b will be "Ipoegobee". And it's sibling will be "Ipoegocee".
If you look closely, you'll notice a very complex multi-dimensional pattern in how I name it. I'll let you figure that out, all you geniuses!
I know that using my system makes the exoplanets sound all weird but hey, it's fun! It makes me laugh just reading those numbers.

Links:
List of Proposed Exoplanet Names

Is Pluto Truly a Planet? Exoplanets Give Insights

What do exoplanets got to do with Pluto? Everything!
Exoplanets "out there" may actually decide the fate of our poor Pluto, who has been the subject of much heated debates. As everyone knows, Pluto is no longer considered a planet by the IAU. Why? Because some folks decided that a planet must satisfy three conditions to be considered as a planet:
1) It must orbit a star
2) It must have a round shape
3) It must clear its path of any other object.
Now the third condition is where Pluto fails as a "legitimate" planet, IAU says.
But that's where the newly-discovered exoplanets enter the picture: The discovery of a pair of exoplanets named HD 45364 b & HD 45364 c, the third condition may come under question more than ever.
HD 45364 b|c actually share orbits at times! Their orbits sometimes touch and may even overlap. They don't collide because they have resonant orbits. They revolve around an orange dwarf star named HD 45364 in the constellation of Canis Major, about 110 light years from Earth. The inner planet completes three orbits around its star in the same time it takes the outer planet to complete two orbits (3:2). Therefore, the inner planet at times lies further from the star than the outer planet--just like Neptune and Pluto.
Both of HD 45364's planets are giants; the inner planet is at least 3.5 times the mass of Neptune. The outer planet is more massive, at least 2.2 times the mass of Saturn. Now if we stick with the IAU's definition, neither of these objects would be considered planets, as they do not "clear their orbits" of one another.
The IAU might have made a terrible mistake of deciding too early and hastily declaring a definition of a planet before even considering what might be "out there"--that perhaps we need more samples of other solar systems before deciding what a planet is or is not.
I remember the mantra of Murray Gell-man, about the beauty of things. Truth and Elegance often displays beauty. In my opinion, the third definition of a planet invented by IAU was not pretty. And the havoc and embarassment it wreaked upon the Astronomy community is really quite ugly.
Frankly, I don't see any problem with the number of planets ballooning to thousands if Pluto opens the floodgates to Planethood. It's the petabyte age, baby! Perhaps it's much simpler to see things in large numbers.
Personally, I am prepared with the list of planets or exoplanets numbering up to billions. I'll be long gone by the time the exocatalog even hits six figures, but it's inevitable. The night sky and outer space is a whole database waiting to be known. There's no need to be scared of numbers.
At times, simplicity can be achieved by looking at sheer numbers. But complexity arises with too little data (Talk about paradox!). So in our case, IAU decided what a planet is based on one sample: Our Solar System.
Even as the wonderful International Year of Astronomy unfolds for 2009, Pluto is truly living up to it's name as one of the alternate names of Hades, the Greek god of the Underworld. Pluto is truly having a blast.
With enough exoplanet discoveries, it would soon turn out to be such a simple thing to re-define what a planet is.
"Wanderer" is a pretty good word to begin with, don't you think so?


Links:
http://kencroswell.com/HD45364.html
http://laurele.livejournal.com/7854.html

Pluto, Plutoids and Exoplutoids

At first I was saddened when Pluto was demoted from planethood. Then I was amused by the new classification called "plutoids". I love playing with words, but plutoid sounded too funny to me. Why not have Jupiteroid, or even Earthoid? And all the debate that ensued about pluto's demotion just prompted me to call Pluto as the Great Hemorrhoid of Astronomy, because it was painful to "lose" such a planet.
However, we are given a consolation by the fact that Pluto is still a planet in some way, eventhough the IAU denies it being so. Yes, it is actually a dwarf planet, and a first in its class called "plutoids".
So let us examine the heirarchy of these 3 terms: Planet, Dwarf Planet, and Plutoid.
A planet is a round object that orbits the sun. Its large enough for its gravity to clear out the rocks and other debris within its orbital path.
A dwarf planet is also a round object that orbits the sun. But it is too small to have anough gravity to clear out debris in its path. Hence there are other objects sharing its orbital path.
A plutoid in turn, is any dwarf planet that orbits farther out than neptune (a trans-neptunian object or TNO).
Ceres is an example of a dwarf planet. It is round and it orbits the sun in the asteroid belt, along with millions of other smaller objects. Pluto and Makemake are also dwarf planets since they also share their orbital path with other objects , but they are also plutoids, as is Eris. They are plutoids because they orbit farther from the sun than the farthest planet, Neptune.
So currently, some established members of the plutoid class are Pluto, Makemake, Haumea, and Eris. But it could well grow to more than 70 in a few years time as more dwarf planets fall into the class of plutoids.
Unlearning is also part of learning. And this is what progress in Science is all about. Painful and controversial as it may have seemed, the IAU's decision to "demote" pluto was necessary to for a better classification of a bewildering array of celestial objects orbiting our sun. To a certain extent, I support the IAU on their decision (even though it still needs a little tweaking). Most often than not, collective intelligence is smarter than emotions, and I believe it will sway one final tweak to simply put dwarf planets as a subset of the broader term "planet" to settle the debate.
Now what does it hold for Exoplanetology? As it will turn out, the term plutoids would actually make it easier to categorize "extrasolar dwarf planets" that fit in place: Exoplutoids! But it will be decades AFTER planet-hunting capabilities resolve to discovering earth-like planets. Then we may actually discover exoplutoids next.