In article ,
Willie R. Meghar wrote:
(Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article ,
Willie R. Meghar wrote:

(Paul Schlyter) wrote:

Based solely of the physical nature of the object itself, Titan would
be an obvious planet. Right?

Right, unless the limiting mass for a planet is reduced to a level
that would exclude Titan, in which case Mercury would not be a planet
either.

Willie R. Meghar

I think you mean "increased" rather than "reduced"..... :-)

Some suppositions were required in order to answer your initial
question. I used "reduced" based on the suppositions that mass was
used as "the" physical nature criteria, and there existed some minimum
mass less than or equal to the mass of Mercury that a body must have
in order to be called a planet. Without these suppositions (that I
thought were self-evident) it would not have been possible to answer
your question.

In this context, I believe "reduced" was the correct word to use.

You wrote "limiting mass for a planet is reduced", not "physical nature
criteria for a planet is reduced". Reducing a mass means making it smaller,
not larger. Right?

Anyway, no-one has seriously suggested THAT - right?

If by "THAT" you mean the classification of solar system bodies based
on mass without regard to orbital details,

No ... instead I meant creating a classification such that Mercury too
would have become a non-planet. Increasing the limiting mass sufficiently
could be a way to accomplish that.

then I reply that my
suggestion that this be done is a serious suggestion; but if by
"serious" you're asking if the IAU has considered it -- I don't know.

Willie R. Meghar


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/