Ok after getting into a minor debate/argument with some nimrod on the startrek forums, I've decided I won't get help there.
What am I doing? Well I write sci fi, emphasis on SCIENCE less on Fiction.
The science I don't 100% understand, I only casually gloss over. I like to pride myself on keeping as much science in my books as Jules Verne and H.D. Wells had in theirs.
So, that brings me to the purpose of this post. All of you should remember my rant on the IAU (still on the front page of this category under "Friday Rant"). You all know that I consider the IAU to be very arbitrary and a joke to the scientific community. Those who don't, well you know now.
Let's leave it at that, please no debates on the IAU, I've got enough fodder against to qualify for the destructive power of an Atom Bomb.
Instead of arguing, I want help in creating a far more consistent, far less arbitrary, far more scientific formulaic definition of PLANET!
WHAT IS A PLANET!
Now the biggest problem the IAU apparently has, is they can't seem to come to terms with the idea that Planets are literally some of the most common celestial bodies in the universe. Therefore, instead of "declassifying" arbitrarily, I want to create a class system.
Star Trek's class system was more or less arbitrary from what we saw on screen. So I want something far more accurate, without being exclusive.
Things such as "degrees of rotation" are arbitrary decisions, and not actual class structures.
Therefore, I want to apply the same method to classification as is done in the animal world. Taking largely common aspects, and thusly working our way through a scientific classification tree. By scientific I mean quantifiable boundaries (like how some insects are separated by number of legs, etc..).
Like all trees, we need to decide which branches are on what level. i.e. which should be considered master aspects (the root classification), leading down to minor aspects.
This is what I've got so far:
Orbital (i.e. a planet with a clear planar orbit, despite the orbital shape)
Rogue (a planet which despite personal movement, is not bound to any singular object such as an orbital or cluster planet)
Complete Rogue (a planet which isn't linked to a galaxy (let alone a solar system) - or should the rogues also be a sub-class to orbital and cluster?)
Cluster (a planet which despite personal movement or uniformity, is more of member of a group, i.e. clearly bound to multiple celestial entities, but this binding isn't as planar as an Orbital planet).
Solar (a planet which orbits a solar entity within a radius in such that it directly affects the gravity/orbit of more than one other Solar Object or the Sun itself. i.e. this would be a main System Planet)
Non-Solar (a planet which falls outside of the solar definition)
Planetary (a planet which orbits another planet - this would actually qualify Io as a planet. Current debates on Titan as well)
Complimentary (a planet which says nice things about you. haha ok just kidding. A planet which essentially affects only one other solar planet, but in a non destructive fashion - sub category maybe?)
Contrary (a planet which has a direct negative/conflicting effect on another planetary object - a sub category maybe?)
Living Planet (a planet which is active in one of the following ways: core, rotation, shifting plates. This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)
Dead Planet (a planet which is completely inactive in means of core, plates, rotation, etc... This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)
Dormant (a dead planet which can through minimal means be brought from a seemingly dead status, or near dead status, to a fully active status. This definition has no link to actual living organisms or orbital nature)
Nature:
Stable Orbit (a planet with a stable orbit is one which repeats its orbit with predictability, regardless of the shape or length of orbit)
Instable Orbit (a planet which orbit changes erratically or otherwise routinely alters its path outside of a simple repetitive predictability. A planet which does a figure 8 would be stable, but a planet which does all sorts of shifts in speed and direction is instable)
Stable Rotation (a planet with a consistent smooth rotational speed and axis, regardless of whether or not it speeds up or slows down over an extended period of time, or flips axis)
Instable Rotation (a planet whose rotation and axis will speed up, slow down, and change position without cause, in an irrational, instable manner that causes internal damage or otherwise severe and drastic changes in conditions which cannot be compensated by the planets natural structure).
I'm sure some of you have ideas on what to add, modify, or organize these classifications. I am interested in hearing and listening yours.
PS: yes, should I publish my books (which I plan on doing in the next year or more), I will give you dedications ;D
^_^