wrong definition
change the definition
I have already put on display how two "planets" do not have fully cleared orbits, just like Pluto. Pluto fits all other requirements set by the AIU, but not even our own "planet" fits the definition. you could say that the only reason that the meteor hit earth in prehistoric times was because it was actively clearing it's path, but Pluto has been hit by meteors too. So maybe it too is just clearing it's path.
Listed below are the current requirements of being a planet, decided by the AIU in 2006
- the celestial body must have enough mass to be nearly round
- the celestial body must orbit around a star
- the celestial body must have "cleared it's orbit" meaning it has either absorbed or pushed away all other objects in it's orbit.
Is the sun a planet?
You may notice a gaping loophole in that definition. It does not directly state that the star the celestial body orbits has to be live. A t the center of our galaxy (which the sun orbits) there is a supermassive blackhole. The aforementioned blackhole is a giant dead star. Does that make the sun a planet, or the definition wrong? It has a clear orbit, and is round. the same definition that made Pluto not a planet, made the Sun a planet.