What is a Planet? - the Current Debate

A current debate that is being conducted by astronomers is to bring to a clear and precise definition exactly what constitutes a celestial object as being a planet. This debate has been fueled by the recent scientific divide as to whether Pluto should be considered as being a planet or as nothing more than a very large asteroid. According to the American Heritage Dictionary "A planet is a non-luminous celestial body illuminated by the light from a Star, such as the Sun, around which it revolves." Now if one is to employ this definition then one can reasonably stipulate that all of the celestial bodies that we now refer to as Moon's are indeed themselves planets along with Asteroids because these heavenly bodies all exactly meets the criteria of the currently observed definition of a celestial object being a planet.

Another topic that is related to the same planetary subject is that if the Moon's and the Asteroids are not considered as being planets then likewise can a mass of gases such as Jupiter and Saturn be considered as being planets. These two gas giants do meet the criteria of being non-luminous and revolving around a Star that is the standard that denotes a heavenly body as being a planet but unlike what is now referred to as being planets, Moon's, Asteroids and even Comets, celestial bodies of this like are compressed gases that are being held together by physical forces that have not as of yet been clearly defined where as the others are rock masses that have or does not have an atmosphere surrounding it. Although not mentioned in the American Heritage Dictionary definition of what a planet is many of said scientific persuasion also use the shape and the size of a celestial object to hail it as being underneath the planetary label and when shape and size are added to the defined criteria then by form Asteroids are eliminated from the definition of being a planet as their shapes and sizes do not meet the accepted standards.

It has been mentioned the accepted standards but what are the accepted standards for celestial bodies and who defines them? Humans of a astronomers persuasion by observation have deduced that heavenly bodies such as Stars, objects now referred to as being Planets and objects now referred to as being the Moon's of planets are circular or slightly oval in shape containing a mass that is large in diameter and has a rock or molten core but is this shape and mass the consistent throughout the immenseness of the universe and how many universes are there actually roaming within the confines of infinity? Astronomy like all present day scientific disciplines see through a very short telescopic lens and then propose as being fact those observations that are being viewed under the limitations of shortsightedness and under this dim canvas it is very appropriate that they are in debate as to what a planet is because they are much too quick to throw out as being fact and a precise definition things that have not had the amount of research and investigation to prove or disprove it.

Can a human being, a bird and a goat each be considered as being a planet? Using the current criteria for what a planet is, yes all of these entities can be considered as being planets because they each are non-luminous and they each revolves around a Star and receives illumination from that star and each have shape and mass and made of soil matter and likewise can an airplane, a spacecraft, and a ping pong ball be considered as being planets? The answer to this should be no because an airplane, a spacecraft, and a pin pong ball are not natural heavenly bodies and so by saying we have also declared that a planet must also meet the criteria of being a natural heavenly entity, so let us see what the now conjectured definition of a planet is. A planet is a non-luminous celestial body that revolves around a star that contains shape and mass and is natural to the cosmos. Even yet the term planet should either be deprecated or redefined so that it may adequately reflect our current level of understanding about celestial bodies otherwise to continue this debate without a solid platform is to scientifically venture forward into the round robin.