--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > jdiebremse wrote: > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" rceeberger@ > > 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?
So, I guess I don't understand your objection to the new definition of "planet" - other than semantics. Would you be happy if the IAU had adopted a definition of "planet" - as being an object of sufficient mass to become nearly spherical and a definition of "central planet of planetary system" as a planet that had cleared its orbit? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
