Comments on IAU definition

"My stance on this issue is a result of a decade long process. The IAU process does not appear to have spent nearly enough time while also involving the scientific community. Instead, the resolution that passed appears to be a consequence of a strong and vocal minority that succeeded in confusing enough of those in attendance to pass the resolution. Furthermore, the concept that a vote validates a scientific truth or concept is misguided. The facts or truths we discover in science come from thinking about the problem and developing a consensus through the scientific method that guides our research. Perhaps the lack of consensus really tells us that we don't know enough yet to define what a planet is."

"The concept discussed in 1c) is an interesting scientific question but is too complicated and too hard to prove to have merit in a definition such as this. For instance: can it be proven that the Earth was, in fact, responsible for clearing out it's orbit zone? I know some think this is likely but what if Jupiter or the Sun caused more clearing near the Earth that was done by the Earth. Does that make it not a planet? Another example: What if we someday find an object as big as Neptune in the distant outer reaches of the solar system? We don't think there was ever a lot of material there and such an object would have to have been ejected to such a distant locale. An object like that couldn't have cleared its own zone since there was nothing to clear. Another way to state my objection is to note that the same object, if put in a different location around the Sun, would not be categorized in the same way. This, to me, is the very epitome of a bad definition."

Add another to ZONE RULE SUCKS column. Also consistent with my beer definition generation theory.

his definition

"Rule 1: A planet must not be so large that it can support or sustain fusion reactions (can't be a star). A secondary requirement is that a planet must not contain degenerate matter (such as a core of solid neutronium that might be left over from an exploded star).

Rule 2: A planet must be large enough to have a shape determined by gravity and not the strength of its material (usually this means it is spherical)."

That's it.

Subclasses:

"Primary planet
This is a planet that is in orbit around a star. (Like the Earth.)

Secondary planet
This is a planet that is in orbit around another planet. (Like our Moon).

Wandering planet
This is a planet that is not in orbit around any particular object. This could be a planet that was once in orbit around a star but was stripped away and left to wander in the cold and dark between the stars. It may still be in an orbit around the center of a galaxy but doesn't orbit anything in particular."

Kind of like a definition that let's Io, Europa, Ganymede (Mr magnetic)Titan, and Enceladus be planets even if it lets in boring yokels like Luna. Also like the ability to address potential extrasolar planets of all stripes. Probably way too much for the folks that couldn't stomache Charon as a planet though. Just feel there really ought to be some term for planet class moons to seperate them from the common riff raf. One reason is it urks me that in school about all most people learn about moons is the number around each planet. Planet class Moons deserve as much mention as planets in terms of the sense of wonder and scientific curiosity they can engender.

Regards,
Mark