Finally some guy that makes sense on how to characterize the planets and get back Pluto into the company and the other ones as they are found and not do stupid things with nonsense like clear its orbit when it stops making meaningful sense vs what your eyes and measurements up cclose tell you the object is;
http://www.science20.com/robert_inve...et_nine-164598
(still the guy can use a haircut lol)
(eg riduclous current things like not calling a planet an object larger than earth, say 1.5 times, but at 150 bil km distance or an object like the proposed planet 10x earth if it was at 600 bil km)
Calling them all planets in general if they are in hydrostratic equilibrium but using also other qualifiers to characterize them and not see objects like Vesta or Earth or Mercury or Sedna similarly, seems a reasonable choice.
Something like
with further subdivisions referring to size (like sub dwarf etc for the smaller ones).
Last edited by masque de Z; 01-31-2016 at 10:59 AM.