[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 3/15/2004 8:31:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Is there some real consideration that planetoid will officially be > > considered a planet, or was it just newspaper cluelessness? > > > > -bryon > > > > > > In the full article I read, the new definition of a planet, as defined by the > finders of the object is this: > > A planet is any body in an orbit where the object's mass is greater than the > combined mass of all the other bodies occuping the same general orbit. > > Making Pluto a planetoid. > > As to newspaper cluelessness, even the local TV news was calling Sedna a > planet. > > And this is Tucson, damn it! > > William Taylor
A competing definition of a planet is "a body whose shape is determined by its own gravity", or something to that effect, which would make both Sedna and Pluto planets, but would leave asteroids, etc. off the list. They might get classified as minor planets, making the big'uns major planets... This should be an interesting debate to watch over the next several years. -- Matt _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
