Dear Dr. Babooner,
I work with a group of astronomers who comb deep space for evidence of planets that are not part of any solar system. I work a lot. Since I’m the only unmarried member of the team it’s assumed I can stay late every night and through weekends!
Here’s the good part – we’ve been finding a lot of planets lately and our research has made the news, which is good for our morale. But when I read these articles I feel uneasy about some of the things my colleagues say.
They’ve taken to calling these unaffiliated bodies “Lonely Planets”, simply because they are not orbiting a star. Planets don’t have feelings, so why would a scientist talk this way? I understand that it’s important to describe scientific research in terms that are accessible to laypersons, but why must we assume being unattached is the same thing as being lonely?
Even if planets DID have feelings, couldn’t it be that some of these planets are satisfied with their status? One of these planets might even be glad he isn’t in the thrall of some stupid shiny star, especially if that star is always so far away and out of reach that the planet doesn’t get any warmth from her at all. The close-in planets, the ones that push to the front, think she’s so HOT. Fine. Let them all snuggle close and act like she’s the center of their universe if that’s what they want to do. It’s not that great, you know, orbiting and orbiting and orbiting. Anyway, the closer you are, the faster the run-around you get. And it never stops.
I’d prefer to think of the so-called “Lonely Planets” as Free Planets! Free to go from place to place around the universe, visiting different galaxies if they want. Free Planets are independent spirits, not easy to corral, and they don’t need to have a star to orbit just because some other planets do.
But if a star came along, especially if she was very bright and wanted to have only one planet and not a whole string of them stretched out over millions and millions of miles – well, that kind of orbital relationship might be worth the risk of allowing yourself to be captured by a little gravity.
Dr. Babooner, how do I tactfully indicate to my colleagues that I disagree with the term “Lonely Planet” without seeming like a geek who is hopelessly fixated on his own social status? My objections are purely scientific, and to be seen as emotional on this matter would be humiliating.
Sincerely,
Gas Giant
I told Gas Giant he should not use terminology that makes him uncomfortable, and since “Lonely Planet” isn’t a scientific name, he should feel no guilt about refusing to say it. Furthermore, he should pick a name he likes and start using that exclusively to refer to these “Lonely Planets”, and perhaps as he gains credibility his name choice will too. But it would help if the new name had some appeal for those who have accepted “Lonely Planet”, so I proposed that he call them “Orbisons”, after Roy Orbison, who sang “Only the Lonely.”
But that’s just one opinion. What do YOU think, Dr. Babooner?











