Actually, there are real scientific implications. First, it makes no sense to have a "definition" imposed mostly by people who don't study planets at all, an act that was largely politically motivated. At issue is the IAU definition's complete exclusion of geophysics in favor of a dynamical definition. What happens if we discover a Mars-sized object in the Kuiper Belt? We could end up with two identical objects classed differently just because of their locations. It does not make sense to define an object solely by where it is while ignoring what it is. Even Earth wouldn't clear its orbit if put in Pluto's position; this was calculated by Dr. Hal Levison. The IAU definition is inherently biased against planets further from their parent stars because these have progressively larger orbits to clear.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-28 06:33 pm (UTC)