A few years ago I wrote about how the Hubble Space Telescope had discovered so many galaxies, there were surely enough to name just one after little old me.
So far, no one has e-mailed me the co-ordinates to the Zinchuk galaxy. I'm still waiting.
In the meantime, in recent weeks scientists have been telling us there are also enough planets in our Milky Way galaxy for me and you, and all your friends and family, to have a planet named after each one of us.
Slate.com reported on Jan. 7 that there may be 100 billion planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone, of which 17 billion are thought to be the size of Earth.
The National Post noted, "The scientists determined that at least 50 per cent of stars have an Earth-sized or larger planet in close orbit and that practically all stars have planets."
Since we're running at around seven billion people on our planet right now, there are probably enough planets for one to be named after every single person who has ever lived on Earth, going back to the dawn of time. Online computational engine Wolfram Alpha figures there have been approximately 106.5 billion people in that time frame, so that seems about right.
A few years ago some geniuses thought they would make a buck by selling real estate on the moon. Who cares about a few moon rocks, when you have your own planet, third rock from some other sun?
The question is, when selecting the planet for which you will anoint your name, do you get to be picky? Can you say, "Oh, I want a small one, fast and close to its star like Mercury?" Or should you be seeking one that makes Jupiter look tiny? These should be reserved for those who drive jacked-up 4x4s with balls hanging from their hitch.
Maybe you could hope for a "Goldilocks" zone planet - one that's not-to-hot, but not-too-cold, and possibly capable of sustaining liquid water? From what we've found on Earth, wherever there's water, there's life, so maybe the same will apply to your planet too?
Do you want a blue planet or a red one? A rock or perhaps a gas giant? Maybe one made primarily out of carbon, i.e. diamond? Better yet, tell your wife you got her a diamond that is simply out of this world!
Then one must consider location. What neighbourhood of the galaxy is appealing? The high-paced galactic core, or the more suburban-like radial arms? Do you like high density or low density?
Some people might take issue with having a black hole nearby. They just suck the life and light out of any party. And once invited over, they never, ever leave. Those black holes tend to give you an uncomfortable hug and never seem to let go.
With all these interesting things to consider, why is it then that the astronomers keep coming up with such awful names? For instance, they're 99.9 per cent sure they've found a Jupiter-sized planet orbiting the solar-type star KIC 12735740. They then named it PH2 b. Wired.com noted it is the second confirmed planet to be found by Planethunters.org, therefore it makes sense that PH (Planet Hunters) is in there, but why not just call it "Planet Hunters' Planet?"
The team leader of Planet Hunters is Michele Beleu of Yale University. Surely she'd like a planet named Michelle. After all, the Beatles, wrote a love ballad which stated, "Michelle, ma belle, these words that go together well." If the Beatles can name a song after Michelle, then astronomers can similarly name a planet.
If they did, then my wife gets a planet named after her too! See, we all win.
So let's send those astronomers down to vital statistics and tell them to get hopping. There are a lot of names they can start using, including a whole star cluster of John Smiths.
As for planet Zinchuk, I'd like a rocky one in the Goldilocks zone, please. Maybe some single-celled organisms need naming, too.
Brian Zinchuk is editor of Pipeline News. He can be reached at brian.zinchuk@sasktel.net
