The astronomical community had to come up with some definition for what makes something a planet. So why should Pluto be one, just because we've always thought it is? It isn't enormous (it's smaller than the Moon), it isn't in the plane of the other planets, and there are larger bodies than Pluto further out.
The definition you're referring to would expand our solar system's planets to a pretty large number, bringing in as "planets" a lot of big rocks that nobody intuitively thinks of as planets. Reaching hydrostatic equilibrium is a good criterion--it's something solid you can use as a definition--but bodies don't have to be what people consider planet-size to reach it. Seems to me that way of doing it causes more problems than it solves.
Discussion on:
Message 14 of 1
IBM Sponsored Resources
Resources from our Sponsor
- Oracle Exadata vs IBM: Netezza Compared
- Forrester TEI Report
- CIA Whitepaper
- Harnessing the Power of Advanced Analytics
- Tapping into Unleashed Business Potential with Advanced Analytics
- Unlock Analytic Performance with Revolution R for Enterprise and IBM: Netezza Data Warehouse Appliance
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
