Nah, the other option was to add a bunch of planets, including Ceres right between Mars and Jupiter. If you wanted to keep things as close to what they were before, removing Pluto was the more conservative option.
There could be many options. My favorite is a reclassification. Terrestrial planets(first 4), gas planets (next 4) and drwarf planets (numerous). Though mercury could fit into the dwarf planet category which is fine with me. The current classification was made specifically to demote pluto with rules that particularly apply to it so that mercury would not fit into it. It was to keep the “planet” category special and to not have too many(keep it traditional). Seems a bit geocentric and less scientific.
Nah, the other option was to add a bunch of planets, including Ceres right between Mars and Jupiter. If you wanted to keep things as close to what they were before, removing Pluto was the more conservative option.
There could be many options. My favorite is a reclassification. Terrestrial planets(first 4), gas planets (next 4) and drwarf planets (numerous). Though mercury could fit into the dwarf planet category which is fine with me. The current classification was made specifically to demote pluto with rules that particularly apply to it so that mercury would not fit into it. It was to keep the “planet” category special and to not have too many(keep it traditional). Seems a bit geocentric and less scientific.
I totally agree. It felt like it was an arbitrary ruling to keep the number of memorable celestial bodies low.
I actually like the idea of PMOs being defined as planets but it also sounds like there’s too much disagreement for any resolutions on this topic.
Who said the goal was to keep things as they were?
There’s no reason not to add Ceres, or even the Moon, really.