Welcome to Gaia! ::

Lots of debate lately about the new decision upon the definition of planet. The main issue being that Pluto is no longer considered a planet by the new definition, but is put into a new catagory called dwarf planets. Dwarf planets include Charon, the body that Pluto share's it orbit with, Ceres & Xena (2003 UB313). The two definitions that were being debated were 1: A planet is any body not considered a satelite that is large enough to maintain a generally round shape. (Thanks to gravity, when a planet reaches a certain mass all surrounding matter trying to force itself to the centermost point of the gravity well makes it generally spherical.) and 2: A planet is large enough to maintain a round shape and is the dominant body in it's orbit.

The decided upon definition -
(1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. (Meaning it is the dominant body in it's orbit)

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3] orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as “Small Solar System Bodies”.

[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

[2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories.

[3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

I, for one, agree with the final definition. What does everyone here think?

For more information check here-
Wiki 2006 Redefinition

I don't really believe that Pluto is a planet, but I'm wondering why it is so important how we classify some of these masses in space. Whether it is a planet, moon, asteroid, etc. does not determine how well it will be studied.

yes it may be to small to be classified as a actual planet, and no it doesnt have any gasious content surounding it.... but i dont think it is much like a comet as fantasier_xp meantioned cause it doesnt have a tail of debree like many larger comets do, but unlike the majority of all dwarf planets pluto has 3 moons circling it constantly...personaly i belive it is classified as a dwarf planet dispite the multiple moons circling it.

Yes, i suppose Pluto does fit those definitions. Its orbit is kind of funny. But not in a "ha ha" sot of way ninja

Did you even bother to read the first post? I mean, really. You didn't even make a point there. stare

this isnt really a debate. debates have to do mostly to do with morallity, stats, and opinions. planets and dwarf planets have definite qualities, meaning there isnt any real debate over the issue. pluto shares more of the caracteristics of a dwarf planet than those of an actual planet, end of discussion

I dont see why sientists are arguing over something as meaningless as wether or not pluto is a planet. Its a tiny cold rock kajillions of miles away that no one cares about...so they need to stop arguing about it cus it serves no purpose whatsoever.

There are many many things in our solar system that are not planets. It's size isn't the only thing that keeps it from being a planet.