Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: "K_h" <KHolmes@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:18:26 -0700
"David M. Palmer" <dmpalmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:200720082158484697%dmpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <bRmzWNFB32gIFwZt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dr J
R Stockton <jrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science message <gKydnf5iLJilDhzVnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@comcast
.com>, Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:09:36, K_h <KHolmes@xxxxxxxxx> posted:
Look again at the phrase used "(nearly round) shape". It is clearly
restricting the object to be nearly spherical in shape (from webster's
definition of round).
The "nearly round" criterion should be taken to require an axis of
rotational symmetry, not an infinite number of such axes. Remember,
Mesklin is and should be a planet.
Actually, a planet spinning fast enough will be triaxial. Spin it
more, and it goes pear-shaped.
http://www.josleys.com/show_gallery.php?galid=313
But anyway, by the IAU definition, Mesklin is not a planet, because it
does not orbit the Sun.
The IAU seems to be be stuck in the heliocentric era: they also defined
the North pole of all astronomical objects, throughout the Universe, by
reference to the solar system's invariable plane, instead of the
correct definition of being the counterclockwise pole.
--
David M. Palmer dmpalmer@xxxxxxxxx (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Thank you very much for this information; I was unaware of this work. In
light of this, I believe a good definition of planet should avoid any
mention of "round", "spherical" and "spheroidal" and simply use the phrase
"hydrostatic equilibrium". So my own example definition is flawed in this
regard and it should be altered to remove the phrase "is nearly spherical or
nearly spheroidal in shape". So the corrected example definitions are
listed below for anyone who is still interested in them. The IAU will
someday break out of its heliocentric rut.
Thanks again for the pointer.
k
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A star is a celestial body that sustains, has sustained, or is capable of
sustaining nuclear fusion.
A brown dwarf is a star that is only capable of fusing deuterium and/or
lithium even if neither is present.
A celestial body that has its barycenter continuously inside the body of
another celestial body is a satellite of that celestial body.
A planetary body is a celestial body that is not a star and has sufficient
mass for its self gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a
hydrostatic equilibrium.
A planet is a planetary body that is not the satellite of another planetary
body.
A moon is a satellite of a planet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: Dr J R Stockton
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- References:
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: Brett Paul Dunbar
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: K_h
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: Bryan Derksen
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: K_h
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: Bryan Derksen
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: K_h
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: Michael Ash
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: K_h
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: Michael Ash
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: K_h
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: Michael Ash
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: K_h
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: Dr J R Stockton
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- From: David M. Palmer
- Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- Prev by Date: Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- Next by Date: Re: Absorption of gravity waves
- Previous by thread: Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- Next by thread: Re: "Pluto Now Called a Plutoid"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|