If you were in the IAU how would you vote?

Question

Currently it is up for debate that Pluto should be reinstated to a planet status and that "planet" should be anything that is "round" and "revolves around the sun." This would definition would also cause an increase to the number of planets in our solar system and possible increases in the future. Do you agree with this proposal?

I appologize...Pluto has always been a "planet," but the choice to change that has been in debate for the last year...

Answer 1

Yes and no...

I think there should be some sort of compositional criteria as well... does it have a crust mantle and core? Is it a gas giant? Does the word "planet" even deserve to exist?

I say get rid of "planet" and reclassify celestial bodies as "terrestrials" and "jovians." I like the "round" criteria because that indicates a cetain mass/density to pull the body into a sphercal shape... but extremely dense things that's smaller than moons shouldn't be classified as planets.

Good question!

Answer 2

The definition makes sense, but I think there's a lot of bad points about it in practice.

The number of planets are only increasing to 12 right now, but that could soon increase to 24, maybe even over 50. Eventually, you'll have hundreds of planets.

That will eliminate most of the mystique of other planets. The average person will be much less interested, even if memorizing hundreds of planets were even feasible. The end result will be that the average person will know even less about their solar system than they do now.

As much as I'd hate to demote Pluto, I would have supported that over the new definition.

Answer 3

personally, i feel that the current system of classifying the bodies in the solar system is too simple and needs change. the solar system is more complex. my personal feeling is that pluto does not have the orbital and physical characteristics that fit the pattern set by the major bodies in the solar system. hundreds of other bodies with orbital and physical characteristics similar to pluto are now known to exist and should be considered as a group and different from the major bodies in the solar system. the major bodies in the solar system should also be differentiated and possibly put into three groups.

the international astronomical union apparently does not plan to stop calling pluto a planet, but pluto will be the prototype of a new group of bodies called "plutons". the international astronomical union plans to publish its definition of planet in early september 2006. depending on how they decide to define planet, the solar system may then have at least 12 planets and possibly as many as 23, 39, or even 53 planets.

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html
http://www.iau.org/NAMING_PLANETS_AND_SEDNA.239.0.html

Answer 4

I think they are talking quite sensibly. May be round ness of the object should be dropped. but the condition that it is revolving around a star and not any other planet, is quite logical. In fact pluto's moon does not revolve around a point within pluto but around a point which is between the two.

I support the new definition

Answer 5

Pluto was never "de-classified" as a planet..
I would leave things at the current 9 planets...

Answer 6

it is a matter of semantics

whether you call pluto or anything else a planet, doesn't change what it is, just its name

for 99.99999% of people, it won't make any difference what the IAU decides to name things

it is hard to believe anyone would vote about such a thing

Answer 7

Sounds good to me. I'm for keeping Pluto as a planet. Clyde Tombaugh would be happy too.

Answer 8

I would have voted to limit the size of the planet to size of mercury. Below that we can call it derbies or residuals or waste

Answer 9

pluto is a planet..it doesnt have to be reinstated...to be reinstated it must have been deleted at some point...which it has NOT been