Sad Little Pluto

Point taken, I have no problem using "minor planet" or even a "dwarf planet", its the apparent haphazard way they are definied I dont like. A bunch of us in the pub would have come up with a better set of defining rules.

Like what?

Seriously, I can't see a better set of rules than those that are there at the moment. If you want Pluto as a planet, then be prepared to have 100 or more planets in the solar system (which would devalue what it means to be a planet). If you don't want 100 or more planets in the solar system, then I don't see how you can define a planet in such a way that Pluto ends up being included.

That is a kinda comfortable notion we have all grown up with, the knowledge of Earth's place in the line of Nine from the Sun. [...] Now new planets like Sedna etc expanding our solar system address seems fine, but demoting such an established and physiologically and psychologically embraced planet like Pluto is not.

The problem with that is this - if you include Sedna (and Pluto and 2003UB313), you will probably end up including a hundred or more. And I prefer to be one of eight in a line from the sun, than to be one of a hundred in a line from the sun...

Either demote Pluto, or demote Earth (and the other seven).

The fact of the matter is that the solar system is totally dominated by the sun and eight (and only eight) other objects. Those eight, IMNSHO, deserve a category of their own. Pluto just doesn't cut the mustard, and I think we've kinda known that for a couple of decades now.

(Even the meter is not scientific--it is based on the size of the earth..a random size caused by collisions in the early solar system.It is even based on an INACCURATE size of the Earth.)

Was based... Its now the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second. In effect this is the same as stating that the speed of light is 299792458 m/s; since c is constant the meter is defined based on that.

But its a unit of measure and as such the important thing is that its consistent.

That is merely a refinement of the way the original length is measured.
It does not change the origin of that length one jot.

Note how they lost a golden opportunity to redefine the meter with reference to the speed of light.

The tiniest tweak in the length of the meter and the speed of light could have been measured as EXACTLY 300 million meters per second.

The tiniest tweak in the length of the meter and the speed of light could have been measured as EXACTLY 300 million meters per second.

It wouldn't be a meter then.

Anyway then you'll just complain about the definition of a second not being based on a real round number.

A meter is what we wish it to be. Just as a planet is what we wish it to be.
Mother nature couldn't care less about our silly definitions.