- Image via Wikipedia
So is Pluto a planet or isn’t it? I don’t recall having much of an opinion when Pluto was first axed from the planetary roster, but now I think the International Astronomical Union may have been unfair to the little guy. We should be adding planets to our Solar System, not subtracting them — you call that progress? To create a whole new category of “dwarf planets,” which aren’t really planets although they behave pretty much like planets, seems like splitting hairs. Why not keep the definition of a planet simple, as Mark Sykes of the Planetary Science Institute proposes: If an object is big enough for its own gravity to squeeze it into a rounded shape, then call it a planet.
I like John Scalzi’s proposal: Create different categories of planets. Terrestrial planets, gaseous planets and icy planets all take into account the bodies in our Solar System, and we can just add more categories if we need to. Besides, categorization is always fun, and gives the kiddies something new to learn in school.
Well, maybe I still don’t care all that much. But I do love the term “Pluto hugger.” So that’s what side I come down on, the side of the Pluto huggers.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=00886dc5-da02-44d6-b3f8-589a9bd4689e)
Regardless, we’ll be there soon — only 2082 more days!
shannon.turlington AT gmail.com 
I’m an unabashed Pluto hugger, and yes, Pluto is a planet. I actually had the opportunity to meet Sykes at the Great Planet Debate last year at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, Maryland, and he is funny, brilliant, talented, and very approachable. In his debate with Neil de Grasse Tyson, when asked about the usefulness of keeping the term planet broad, he responded “that’s why God invented subcategories.”
Pluto did not stop being a planet because 424 astronomers made a controversial decision and adopted a vague, unusable planet definition. The requirement that an object “clear its orbit” was concocted specifically to exclude Pluto and keep the number of planets in our solar system low. The IAU definition makes no sense in stating that dwarf planets are not planets at all, a departure from the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to this definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another location is essentially useless.
The IAU should take responsibility for the highly flawed definition adopted by only four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in 2006. However, the IAU should not be viewed as the sole authority on the definition of planet. Many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU. Should they not have a say in this matter? Something does not become fact simply because a tiny group that calls itself an authority says so. It is significant that hundreds of planetary scientists led by New Horizons Principal Investgator Alan Stern immediately signed a formal petition opposing the IAU definition.
There are other venues through which a planet definition can be determined, such as last year’s Great Planet Debate at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. Audio and video proceedings from this far more balanced conference, which I was fortunate to attend, can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ . You can also read more about this issue on my blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com .
Laurel, thanks for sharing your knowledge on this matter. You have made a believer out of me. Pluto huggers unite!
Your completely right!! I am standing up for pluto the entire way!!!!
Pingback: But we just have to get over it – thats science… « Blog, by Shannon