Definition of Planet to be Announced in September.

Whats wrong with the OLD definition ????
Quote:
"A nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves. In the solar system there are nine known planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto."

Where did you get this quote?

See:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/planet

In all fairness, a planet definition discussion should be based on the current definition of the International Astronomical Union, IAU:

The core of the problem is this: The International Astronomical Union (IAU), charged with categorizing objects in space, can define everything from an asteroid to a star but has no definition for a planet. Officials never needed one until new discoveries in recent years highlighted the inadequacy and a stark debate began.

An IAU statement admits to having "never officially defined what constitutes a planet." Furthermore, the IAU used "historical practice in accepting the eight planets that were known when the IAU was created and accepting Pluto as the ninth when it was discovered (in 1930) not long after the formation of the IAU."

Therefore, the definition of a planet, as stated by web dictionaries, doesn't really shed any more light on the subject...

We currently do not have a definition of a planet other than that given by a body representing public opinion (which states there are seven planets). Its not an 'old' definition, just one that has been publicly accepted over time. But is clearly not a scientific/astronomical definition.

Let's wait and see what happens by the end of the year....

Cheers

Dave

Here's a good article...

astro.berkeley.edu/~basri/defineplanet/Mercury.htm

Geologists don't go around making fools of themselves by trying to tell us at what exact height a hill becomes a mountain.

This debate is about over-defining a perfectly good "general" word, it is about language,not the planets.

"A rose by any other name...etc." Shakespeare.

The new definition will tell us NOTHING new about the planets.

When does a "big hill" become a "small mountain"?
When does a "rock" become a "boulder".

Only politically correct Californians worry about such pedantic semantic nonsense.

By the way nobody is "fat" in California any more.
They are now "horizontally challenged".

The whole debate is laughable.

Why use the word planet, asteroid or comets at all,
why not just call them rocks. :lol: