Okay, astronomers, you’ve had your fun. We’ve all had our good laugh. Hardy har har!
Now, it’s time to bring Pluto back. We can and must restore it to a full-fledged planet with all the rights and privileges that come with planet status.
Did we drop Saturn because of its rings or density? Did we just relegate Uranus’s rank as a gaseous giant because of it’s odd rotational axis and potentially embarrassing pronunciation? No.
So Pluto has it’s eccentric orbit and doesn’t “sweep” enough debris from it’s orbit. Can you sweep enough debris from your orbit? I think not. So maybe Eris is larger than Pluto. Pluto still has multiple moons. Earth can’t say that.
And so, IAU, enough is enough, bring our beloved Pluto back. The joke is over.
This is a fun comment, but it contains far more truth than many people might know. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.
We have also discovered many exoplanet systems with gas giant planets larger than Jupiter that have elliptical orbits. According to the IAU defintion, these would not be considered planets!
Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity–a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned.