Yes, I think Ceres and all the other spherical KBOs should be considered planets too. It's okay to call them dwarf planets since they do not gravitationally dominate their orbits. However, it makes no sense to say, as the IAU definition does, that dwarf planets are not planets at all! This is one reason the IAU definition didn't fix anything; it only further confused matters and took attention away from the discovery of the new planets Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.

It should be noted that the IAUâ(TM)s controversial demotion of Pluto is very likely not the last word on the subject and in fact represents only one interpretation in an ongoing debate. Only four percent of the IAU voted on this, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASAâ(TM)s New Horizons mission to Pluto. Stern and like-minded scientists favor a broader planet definition that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body in orbit around a star. The spherical part is important because objects become spherical when they attain a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning they are large enough for their own gravity to pull them into a round shape. This is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects. Pluto meets this criterion and is therefore a planet.

The IAU definition, adopted by only four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, makes absolutely no sense, even for our solar system. That is why it was rejected by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto. Here are the two main reasons the definition is useless: 1) It defines a dwarf planet as not being a planet at all. That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear. It is also inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. 2) It defines objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is one that begs to be overturned and is basically unusable. A far better planet definition, which Stern and many like-minded scientists support, is that a planet is a non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star. The spheroidal part is crucial because when an object reaches a certain size, it is pulled by its own gravity into a round shape. This is a characteristic of planets and not of shapeless, inert asteroids, comets, and Kuiper Belt Objects. By this definition, our solar system has 13 planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. Kudos to the Illinois legislature for not blindly accepting the decree of a tiny group because that group calls itself an "authority," and recognizing that there is another side to this very much ongoing debate.

The "scientific establishment" never reached such a conclusion. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the resolution that demoted Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was rejected by hundreds of professional astronomers in a petition led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto. This debate is far from over.

This discovery changes nothing regarding Pluto's status. Mike "Pluto is dead" Brown is wrong in his non sequitur argument when he says "this is the last chance that Pluto had." Many in the astronomy community still consider Pluto a planet. There is hardly consensus otherwise, as Brown wants people to think. Eris being larger does nothing to negate the argument that Pluto is the solar system's ninth planet and Eris its tenth planet. Why the tenth planet cannot be larger than the ninth, in Brown's view, is beyond understanding. How can the status of another object, rather than its own characteristics, define what Pluto is? The truth is astronomers remain very divided on this issue, and the debate is not over.