PLANETS

ITT Space News.

Did you know that the IAU is moving to change the definition of a planet and the IAU has proposed adding the following astral bodies to the list of Planets increasing its number from 9 to 12.

the following celestial objects that are to be named planets are
-Ceres. (the former asteroid/Former former planet)
-Charon (plutos moon will now be known as its twin planet...( this is due to the center of gravity for both planets is in the space between them... where as on earth+moon the center of gravity is in the earth...)
-Xena (that bitch is cold... and also now a planet)

>>3
They would not be considered planets in >>2's definition, because they don't directly orbit the sun; they orbit eachother, and the combination of both orbits the sun. This is different than the earth-moon system for example, because in this case the center of gravity is well within the earth, so the earth cannot be said to orbit the moon.

The problem with >>2's definition is that "immediate vicinity" doesn't make any sense; for bodies to stay in vicinity, they need to orbit eachother (like earth-moon or pluto-charon), because bodies in different orbits move around eachother all the time. Any old asteroid in either belt could be considered a planet this way.

If you can better define what you mean by "immediate vicinity", I'd like this definition better, because in the new IAU definition, upwards of 20 stellar bodies could be considered planets. They'll likely end up introducing subsets like "major planets" and "minor planets", and the whole thing ends up far more confusing than it should be.