MTU (7) said:
I, for one, still count Pluto as a planet – as well as the other ice dwarf planets including Eris and Ceres.
Trying to be brief here, for the sake of other commenters:
As far as the IAU are concerned, you don’t matter.
As far as casual conversation is concerned, the IAU technical definition doesn’t matter.
I fully expect the dreadful, current IAU definition will one day be revised and replaced with a better alternative.
You have yet to demonstrate that there is anything wrong with the IAU definition, despite the many many occasions on which you have railed against it.
Sure, you have tried, but your arguments are all weak, and you have yet to address even one of my criticisms of your arguments, except (effectively) to say “but it’s still a planet”.
Your suggested alternative has bigger flaws than the present IAU definition and is in no way superior, to whit:
1. It contains exactly the same logical flaws and need for pragmatism as the IAU definition (so is not superior from a logical viewpoint, despite your claim to the contrary).
2. It fails to recognise the huge disparity in the level of knowledge between our solar system and all other planetary bodies elsewhere in the galaxy.
3. It fails to recognise that our solar system contains a clear and natural discontinuity between the eight bodies (not counting the sun) that are obviously unique and bodies like Ceres and Pluto that are – as far as anyone can tell – simply the largest examples of classes of similar objects. It was Pluto’s obvious lack of uniqueness that sparked the need to define the term “planet” in the first place.
The sooner that happens, the better. (Don’t get me started!)
Well, this time it was you who invaded Poland.*
* Yes, it’s a reference to Fawlty Towers.
