Planets. Again.

We can see that we are now not only talking about planets, there are also dwarf planets (and there used to be minor planets). So, for all you Plutonians, it is not that bad, your rock is still a dwarf planet (that is actually in resolution 6A, not 5A which is this definition). Okay, but what happened compared to the draft version, were already 12 planets were named? One thing I will complain about further down, but mainly the requirement that the object in question "has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". Now, what does that mean? I think they meant to say that there are no smaller bodies still in the vincinity of its orbit, so they are either kicked out or swept up. Ahum. Clear as a foggy venusian morning.

Though it is improbable, you might have noticed that I am not entirely happy with this definition. Good catch. Reason one why I don't like the definition: It only cares about our Solar System, nothing about planetary system in general. Why this heliocentricism? Reason two: It requires the planet to have cleaned its neighbourhood. Without elaborating what the neighbourhood is supposed to be or what cleaning means. Plus how are you supposed to know what was responsible for the cleaning (think of Mercury, maybe it was the sun?). Reason three: Even more fuzziness in the definition of dwarf planet, "An IAU process will be established", yeah, right.

Okay, but in the end it is not that bad. At least there is a definition now and once we start observing extrasolar systems we can start this discussion all over again. And maybe it became now more probable that Xena will be indeed named so, it won't be a planet anyway, only a dwarf planet. To wrap it up: Nothing really changed, the one thing that always was a bit icky (Pluto) got cleaned and we don't have to worry to get new planets every once in a while. So no need to throw away your astronomy books.

Hooray, give a hoot-o, don't pollute Pluto.