I'm seeing a potential major motion picture here -- The Astronomer Who Went Up A Planet But Came Down A TNO. What do you think? Anybody wanna volunteer to play Tombaugh? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Seriously, though, I'm wondering what prompted TPTB to consider reclassifying Pluto in the first place. From the discussions on this board, there is obviously no clear-cut official definition of a "planet." Was the reclassification originally proposed simply because they felt Pluto didn't "fit" with the other eight planets, rather then that it didn't meet some established objective criteria?

If the former, I think it can be dismissed on its face. Now that we're starting to detect and catalog bodies orbiting other stars, we shouldn't let the characteristics of the eight (or nine) major bodies orbiting our own star determine our universal nomenclature, should we?

So, until somebody comes up with valid arbitrary criteria for determining "planethood" that everybody can accept, things should just stay the same, shouldn't they?

Granted, some will dismiss for personal reasons any criteria which excludes Pluto, but it seems that others would probably dismiss criteria which doesn't just because of the subjective feeling that Pluto shouldn't be included . . .

Just my two cents . . .

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF