What I recall is the definition of a planet was changed to displace Pluto

Am I mistaken??

Seriously, this is not science. Astronomers should stop wasting their time on the issue as I guess most of them already did.

How sad and simply ironic
Our views are far from platonic
As milk becomes curds
The meaning of words
May well be described as Plutonic

David

The continents were named in antiquity as really big chunks of land defined by natural barriers (oceans and/or mountains) with culturally distinct populations resulting in an exclusive club regardless of the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Maybe its time to say "yup" and define Pluto (Europe) as a planet (continent) because this is an exclusive club defined by history. Then Ceres (India) is dwarf planet/big asteroid (sub-continent) again for traditional reasons. And finally Sedna, Eris, (et al.) out in the Kupier Belt and the asteroids in the Asteroid Belt (Greenland, Madagascar, New Guinea, New Zealand, Newfoundland and Britain) are KBOs/Plutoids or asteroids (islands).

A planet – is a planet, that – nobody can change.

In this respect I will say, things are what they looks like.

I enjoy to define things for my own sake, and believe it's a good things in order to keep a certain order in my head – and thereby understanding.

I prefer to view IAU's decision as a positiv thing – allthough I disagree with their decision – simply because it has created a debate … and coursed me to get a better definition on the 'planet' term.

My final decision in defining the term planet is: "A spheric object free in space".

"Free in space": If a spheric objekt is in permanent contact to another object – I will call it a ball.

"Spheric object": It has just come clear to me that a 'spherical object' is the very first visible sign of 'order' in the univers … of natures marvellous ability to create order in kaos.

And yes, if an electron/proton/neotron or any other subatomic particles is believed og known to be spherical they are also planets – atomical planets.

Consequently I view:

'Stars' as planets – lightplanets or 'Galaxy planets'.

The next in the order … please notice the allready used term of astronomers "extrasolar planets". For me I would call them starplanets or in our case – sunplanets. Subtitles could be as allready used "giant plantets" – "dwarfplanet", and other terms refering to their substance.

For planets not circling around a particular object, is for me "wild planets"

If an object clearly have obtained a spherical shape, but then by colision have lost this spherical shape, it is a "damaged planet".

Then Moons: "Moonplanets".

'None spherical' objects cirkling another object, is for me a satelite, regardless its size.

I realise that the basic foundation for my planet definition, is the ''spherical shape", whitch I consider no more or less than marvellous. And, in reallity sufficient for me, in the defining characteristic of a planet – provided it is 'free in space'.

In reallity, I do not care that much about what the IAU decide, as long as it works for them as a working model – or means of communication. Yet, it disturbes me somehow, since it has such a greath impact to a whole lot of human comprehensions – including the world of writings – symbolism etc. Yet, I really would welcome this new way of defining our solar system, if it made som sense to me – but it doesn't, it seems only to add confusion in our common comprehension of our solarsystem, not to mention our definition of universal objects.

Also – remember: It only takes an idiot to confuse and complicate – about anything. But a genious, to make complicated things clear and understandable.

In general, I beleive that in the mass of astronomers, there are a whole bunch of genious people – do I or we have hope for a better and revised definition of the term planet?

Harry

On the other hand, if we can locate Pluto as existing within a Bode's Law orbital zone, mainly beyond and therefore larger than Neptune's, and are sure that it is the largest body in that zone, I feel that it has the right to be a planet – because

The largest body should be the dominant collector of dust and rocks etc. in that zone. That being so, as it collects, it will grow and that means that eventually it could qualify as a planet under to-days thoughtless, shortsighted, meaningless criteria.

David

I still support the notion that only one thing qualifies what is a planet. “2. It has sufficient mass so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape“. Moon and Titan and many others are planets.

Yes, classifying, reclassifying, and subclassifying objects in science is a normal and essential process–IF that reclassifying, etc. is based on sound reasoning and makes actual sense. The IAU reclassification does not do either. Resorting to derogatory personal attacks against those who, for solid logical reasons, reject the IAU decision, is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and does nothing to promote your position.

It must be a REALLY slow day on the global warming, (AHEM!) climate change front.

I personally like the story. 'Ian' (get it right, where did you go to school anyway, California?) and the rest of the UT staff do a great job of getting us excellent articles on astronomy.

This is no news article. It is simply a rehashing of old whiners who can't let go of their baby blankets.

Classifying and reclassifying and subclassifying not only planets but ALL objects found and studied in science is a normal and essential process if science is to progress and advance.

If you can't seem to handle that fact because of abnormal psychological reasons, then perhaps science isn't your bag.

Try a subject where everything always stays the same like…..NOTHING.

The largest body in a Bode orbital area should be the planet. The fact that Pluto's orbit is excentric and some of it is inside Neptune's more regular orbit, I feel, should not effect it's status.

Seven of our planets have moons, so the big one is a planet and the small one is a moon. Of course moons may be required to orbit their planet in order to be entitled to the name. So far so good and that all makes sense to me anyway.

If we find objects orbiting Pluto, and we have Pluto the major object in what could be agreed upon as 'being within a Bode orbital path', what then?

And as for a classification criteria being 'able to keep its orbital zone clear of rubbish', or words to that effect, and knowing that Pluto has the largest orbital area to sweep, I think that is grossly unfair.
So if our beloved planet earth was suddenly placed in Pluto's position, would we then have to demote it to an 'earthitide, or, 'teratoid; just because she too wouldn't have the gravity mass to keep that vast area tidy? Oooooooooooh!

David

We are now sending one Extinction level KBO EXPRESS to your gravity well.

Adios Earthlings.