A few weeks ago, I was discussing my astronomy class with a friend, when he interrupted to tell me his summation of the subject: “Spoiler Alert,” he told me. “Pluto isn’t a planet after all.”
It wasn’t as thrilling as the end of the Sixth Sense, but I told him that may not be entirely true.
After our discussion of the International Astronomical Union’s definition of a planet (you can read the full ruling here), I think we can define Pluto as a planet simply because our definition of a planet is incredibly inadequate.
As is stated in Resolution 5A, our definition of a planet is defined by our own existence on Earth, as if to say that Earth is almost an entirely different category separate from other “planets.” Using a term like “celestial,” for instance, is a misinformed way of establishing distinctions within our solar system. We should be working towards one overarching definition, one that includes Earth as a like-body to the other planets of our solar system.
However, aside from our definition of a planet, we must also consider the lack of judgment in categorizing Pluto as a “Dwarf Planet.” For if the term “planet” is used in its new categorization, how can we say that it is NOT a planet?
Maybe, we need to change the name “dwarf planet.” Or maybe, we need to stricken the rules behind all shapes in space. But, one thing is for sure – changes must be made to the 2006 ruling.
joshkip 