With the IAU vote coming up tomorrow, and after more than 17 pages of discussion on this topic, I thought it might be fun to see what the vote would be here. I've setup three questions here to see where people lie on this.

The first question is to see what people's favorite definition is. the original definition is the one proposed by the IAU's Planet Definition committee. see http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/...resolution.html for the text if you haven't already read it. This would also include the changes from August 22, which removes the term "pluton" from the definition, and clarifies the barycenter issue by stating that the system's barycenter must be outside either object for the majority of the orbital period. the alternative definition, whose text can be seen at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0608...w_proposal.html, was proposed by Julio A. Fernandez. This would demote Pluto to a "dwarf planet", a body that has relaxed to a eqilibrium shape but has not cleared out its orbit of "competing" objects. The others are fairly self-explanatory. The alternative reading of the Fernandez et al. definition would allow the largest satellites to be planets, adding 16 new planets (though 3 others could be added, like Iapetus, Mimas, and Miranda). The demote Earth one is more of a joke defintion, but highlights the fact that Jupiter and Earth really shouldn't be classified as the same type of object.

The other two questions are more up or down questions. Basically, if you were allowed to vote for the two proposed resolutions, how would you vote? Yea or nea?

Since this is a rather time sensitive question, I am leaving this topic open until Saturday at 11:59pm MST.

Thanks to Jason for putting this poll up.

My choice of "none of the above" goes as follows:

"Planet" is a popular term and not a scientific one. There should be no attempt to provide a formal definition. Astronomers can use the popular term if they choose to, just as pastry chefs can use the word "dessert" without having a formal definition.

The functional goals concerned with nomenclature can be addressed by resolving to provide a number to any object, regardless of size, etc., discovered from now on (this is already convention).

A separate convention should determine which objects receive names in addition to numbers. I would propose that any object which is among the twenty-largest objects orbiting the Sun -- as is known at the time of the object's discovery -- should receive a name. In addition, any object that is of significant interest so as to be researched extensively should receive a name for ease in referring to it.

It's not the convention for planets. Hence the current situation.

I think it's possible that Brown caused this problem himself to some degree. If he'd suggested a name for 2003 UB313 that was compatible with the naming of previous KBOs, it seems likely to me that the IAU would have just accepted it. Presumably he wanted to know if he'd discovered a planet, though, and I can't say I blame him.

Also, are you suggesting that we quit giving names to asteroids?

The backlog of unnamed asteroids is so large now (and unless the pace of finding new asteroids slackens any time soon, is very unlikely ever to be filled) that effectively asteroids are only named when they become "interesting".

Two good points. I would say, yes, give numbers to new discoveries no matter the size or status. Ganymede has a number, and no one ever uses it. It doesn't hurt anything. If they find an Earth-sized KBO, they can give it a number that no one will use once it has a proper name. We don't have to worry about running out of numbers.

Yes, I think we should stop giving names to objects that will practically never be referred to by name. If some tiny asteroid turns out to be pure copper, then by all means give it a name when it's clear that it will be written about extensively.

Are you referring to the jovian moon or the asteroid with a slightly different spelling?

The final text of the resolution that will be voted on tomorrow is out:

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ost&p=65348

Basically the same as the Fernandez et al. defintion except it explicitly states that a planet must orbit the sun. They also seem to focus only on our solar system, and would deal with other solar systems seperately. Needless to say, I do not support this.

I'm pretty sure that the thing that gets Ganymed the most attention is the similarity of its name to that of the 9th-largest body in the solar system.

Thank you Jason for this great poll.

I have voted For 10 planets. No to 8 and no to 12.

feel free to read my new thread: "Fight for Pluto"
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=3106

Its time to stand up and be counted !

ken