Is Pluto A Planet?

This may not be as important as the question asked in the last post, but the issue has been getting a lot of coverage lately. From The Washington Post:

Hoping to end the agonizing over whether Pluto is really a planet, an international committee of astronomers has come up with a new definition that would save the tiny body's place in the sun's family.

Under the long-awaited proposal, Pluto would remain in the pantheon of planets by becoming the prototype of a new subcategory of small, outer solar system objects dubbed "plutons" -- planets, but distinct from the eight larger "classical" planets closer to the sun.Recent discoveries of objects in the outer reaches of our solar system have called into question what should and should not be considered a "planet." After two years of deliberations by the world's astronomical community, a committee of seven astronomers, writers and historians is proposing a new definition of the word "planet," and a newly defined planet category, "pluton," to the International Astronomical Union (IAU).

The changes would require astronomy textbooks to be rewritten and every schoolchild to be taught a new vision of the solar system, because three other orbs would get promoted to planet status, as well -- expanding the total from the traditional nine to 12.

I don't like this solution, because astronomers are bound to find dozens of these "plutons" in the coming years as our ability to see deeper into space increases, which would mean that all these new bodies would have to be called planets.

I think the best thing to do is just keep calling Pluto a planet, and -- unless some huge, dark gas giant is found orbiting the sun way beyond Pluto -- keep the number of planets at nine.

At left is a photo of Pluto with its moon Charon. Under the new proposal, Charon would also be considered a planet, and that just ain't right.