"lal_truckee" wrote in message...
.com...

Brian Tung wrote:

I'm unable to grasp why you won't tell me how spherical an object,
naturally formed under the influence of gravity, must be before it will
be considered a planet by this definition. Instead, you give cases
that no thinking human being could possibly be confused about, and
which obviously need no precise definition.

He's talking strength of materials, you're talking geometry. You are
talking past each other. . . .

And yet, aren't the two supposed to go together? If an
object has the strength of materials to form a sphere, then
why can't the scientific precision applied to the strength of
materials also be applied to the spherical shape?

David seems to be implying that a celestial object may be
spherical by some *other* means than its strength of
materials that would, if of sufficient strength, make it more
spherical. So an object that is spherical might not be a
true major planet unless it is determined that it also meets
the strength of materials parameter.

I would like to know if science actually knows of some
other natural means by which a celestial object may happen
to become spherical without also having the material strength
to make it so?

And where does this leave the Moon in this regard? Does
Selene, our Moon, meet Stern's and Levinson's Bulk Density
criteria? (Since we already know that Selene is in its own
orbit around the Sun which is at least as "independent" as the
orbit of Earth.)

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Painius