Re: Planet Definition Revisited
- From: "Richard Jarnagin" <rjarnagin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:07:42 GMT
Arbitrary? Not really. There is nothing arbitrary about the mass of Pluto.
Only the choice is arbitrary, and even then, there is method to my madness.
It would serve to define an aesthetically pleasing Solar System (isn't
beauty important to all of us, subjective as it may be), and also be useful
in classifying unseen bodies in other stellar systems as instruments become
more advanced.
RJ
"Brian Tung" <brian@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ec5s6h$6a6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Richard Jarnagin wrote:the
Planet definition -- Just use mass with Pluto as the standard. Throw in
barycenter stipulation to define satellites. Simple?
Simple yet arbitrary. Of course, I also feel that way about the
proposed IAU definition, except that that one is a bit less simple, and
also less arbitrary.
--
Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Planet Definition Revisited
- From: Brian Tung
- Re: Planet Definition Revisited
- References:
- Planet Definition Revisited
- From: Richard Jarnagin
- Re: Planet Definition Revisited
- From: Brian Tung
- Planet Definition Revisited
- Prev by Date: Re: Not quite a star, but almost
- Next by Date: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
- Previous by thread: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
- Next by thread: Re: Planet Definition Revisited
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|