How Would You Define a Planet?

It doesn't come easy asks: "The argument over the definition of a planet continues. So far, two definitions are favored but without much consensus so far: base the definition of a planet simply on an object's size. Pluto would be near the lower limit and the newly discovered Kuiper Belt objects could also qualify, giving us 10 or 11 planets so far; or define the single dominant body in its immediate neighborhood as the only qualifying object for planetary status. If no one body dominated (such as the millions of individual asteroids in the asteroid belt) then none would qualify for planetary status. In this case Pluto would be disqualified (Neptune would be the dominant body in Pluto's region of space), and the newly discovered Kuiper Belt objects would also fail to qualify. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) working group charged with pinning down the definition of a planet may vote on the proposals within the next two weeks (or they may decide to start all over again with something new). Maybe Slashdot readers can give them some help. How would you define a planet?"

Comments

Re:On the other hand

[Khyber]

Did you not read the part which I specifically said excluded the asteroids orbiting between Mars and Jupiter?? Common sense would allow for objects outside Pluto/Neptune's orbit as well, by simple rules of centripetal force. Seeing as comets do not adhere to this rule, by simply changing their orbits slightly due to gravitational forces (as well as celestial bodies outside our "belt" as you call it, when in reality it's a SPHERE instead of a belt around our solar system, [back to high-school, friend]) it's reasonable to assume that indeed our CURRENT definition is correct, since everything else you mentioned does not revolve around (as revolve means within one direction) rather than surrounds our solar system. Just as we've just recently proven our galaxy is not a spiral galaxy, but a Barred-spiral, specifically, a class Bb spiral galaxy.