jdiebremse wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >>> No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should >>> be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does >>> not orbit a star. >> >> That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more >> important to the definition of "planet" than the properties of the >> body itself are. > > I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to > define "planet" simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I > would think that one would develop separate terms for what are > currently called "terrestrial planets" and "jovian planets."
Heh! Those are exactly the terms used. Where you been dude? > > > Meanwhile, there is a word for gravitationally-round objects, they > are called "planemos." Planets are simply a usefull subset of > planemos. The term Planemo is only 3 years old and is a bit of cruft that does not simplify anything. It is just a measure taken to allow people to think in the same old lazy ways. Consider: If you were to visit the only other terrestrial planet with moons you would not be very impressed with them, tiny dots moving across the sky. Our moon dominates our sky in large part because it is another planet. We are a double planet system. Consider: How is our Moon different than all the other satellites in the Sol System? > I see no reason to objecting with the creation of a > word that defines a usefull set of objects, simply because that > subset is based in part upon that objects interaction with > others. With Pluto in mind, if some disaster were to occur changing Mars' orbit so that it flew inside Earths orbit and/or outside Jupiters orbit for a portion of its year, would it cease to be a planet? (Only if it falls into the Sun, Ronn! <G>) > It seems like objecting between the difference between a > lake and a bay, because a bay is simply a lake next to an ocean. If you think about it, that is my argument!<G> To make a similarly silly analogy, Rhode Island is a state just as much as Texas or Alaska. > > JDG > > P.S. Another object defined by location is asteroid, meteor, and > meteorite. Well........I live on Clear Lake, part of Galveston Bay, part of the Gulf Of Mexico, part of the Altantic, part of the oceans. It is all a body of salty water. But you wouldn't say that a meteorite killed the dinosaurs, now would you? xponent Planetex Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
