- Related Stories
-
New planet discovered in Milky Way
January 25, 2006
Committee proposes new definition of "planet" that expands family of planets from 9 to 12 and solidifies Pluto's status.
The New York Times
Images: Three new planets?
The story "Pluto dodges a bullet" published August 16, 2006 at 9:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.




Seriously though, if you want to include common sense, it can't be one man, it'll have to be 9. Or 15. Or more. There will be a meeting. Make that meetings. And debates. They'll be on the international stage. They end up where we are now.
You were right at the beginning. We need more rules and more exclusions. Something like:
- A planet is xyz.
- A planetoid is abc.
- If something meets abc & xyz, its still a planetoid.
Perhaps, like you, I'm thinking too simply...
- Just measure it!
- by zaznet August 20, 2006 4:04 AM PDT
- It sounds like they didn't look at our solar system when they made the definition. You can measure many things, but they just say "oh, it's round so it must be a planet." How about it's actual mass? It takes very little mass to turn an object into a sphere if it has enough time and is not acted upon by outside forces.
- Reply to this comment
-
(3 Comments)By using Pluto as a base, you can firmly establish limits on the definition of a planet. We clearly do not need to call all objects in a solar system planets. How much light from our sun reaches the planet? What is the mass of the planet? What are the characteristics of it's orbit? You measure everything you can, then set that as the cut off point for a planet.
This is a classification system. It is like the difference between a rock, pebble or grain of sand. What is the difference between a puddle, a pond or a lake? For the most part this really should be about size and other qualities that can be readily measured.