Re: Planet Definition revised
- From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <cosmic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:26:54 -0500
steve wrote:
To bring some commonsense to this argument and keep the number of
planets down to a managable number, I propose :-
1)Minimum size should be radius of 2 440km or mass of 3.302 × 1023 kg
(bigger than Mercury) This is an arbitary number but is required for
our definition. I favour working by mass.
I favor working by natural criteria rather than arbitrary criteria.
Roundness is not arbitrary, it takes a certain amount of mass and composition to do it properly.
2)Does not and has not produced substantial energy naturally by any
nuclear fusion mechanism (not a star)
3) Is in orbit around a star
4) Local system is defined as Planet and moon if COG outside of
planet. Planet and planet if COG outside of both planets if all above
rules are obeyed.
If we want to keep Pluto change the minimum diameter to 1 151km or mass
of 1.25 × 1022 kg
Pluto is roughly round, so arbitrary mass criteria are unnecessary.
Pluto is easily a planet.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
.
- References:
- Planet Definition revised
- From: steve
- Re: Planet Definition revised
- From: steve
- Planet Definition revised
- Prev by Date: Re: Planet Definition revised
- Next by Date: Re: Difference bewteen planet and planetoid?
- Previous by thread: Re: Planet Definition revised
- Next by thread: Re: Planet Definition revised
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|