Re: Planet Definition revised

In article <1156318353.296230.103970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
steve <stephen.colbourne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
See:-

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060819_new_proposal.html


It is proposed that part of the planet definition should be a
requirement that :-

(a) is by far the largest object in its local population[1],
[1] The local population is the collection of objects that cross or
close approach the orbit of the body in consideration.


I can see that Pluto would by this lose its right to being a planet due
to Neptune.

Pluto never gets closer to Neptune than about 20 AU.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Planet Definition revised
    ... It is proposed that part of the planet definition should be a ... Pluto never gets closer to Neptune than about 20 AU. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Planet Definition revised
    ... It is proposed that part of the planet definition should be a ... Pluto never gets closer to Neptune than about 20 AU. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Planet Definition revised
    ... It is proposed that part of the planet definition should be a ... Pluto never gets closer to Neptune than about 20 AU. ...
    (sci.space.policy)