David Knisely wrote:
I don't see it as a "done deal" by any means, but quite frankly, it is
probably the direction that things need to go. It is certainly less
arbitrary than just setting a minimum diameter for no apparent reason.

I think we agreed on that the last time.

Using a density/radius curve for a diameter "cutoff" as Stern and
Levison have done seems a logical way to decide whether an object might
be classified as a planet rather than just an asteroid. Clear skies to you.

Well, I agree it's more logical than just setting a minimum diameter.
But so far, I don't think you've contradicted my initial statement,
which was merely that I was unsatisfied with this definition because it
couldn't be made (or at least hasn't yet) both precise and non-
arbitrary. (Yes, I realize those aren't absolute terms, but there's
still a significant component of each as it stands.)

--
Brian Tung
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