In article ,
(quilty) writes:
|
| Maybe I was just reading between the lines, but I got the impression
| that he was going on the principal that planets orbit a star and moons
| orbit a planet which orbits said star. That would leave out all of the
| moons that you listed.

That still leaves the problem of the asteroids, Pluto, etc.
Remember when the asteroids were called the minor planets? There
wouldn't be a problem if that usage was restored.

| Since you seem violently against such criteria, what would you suggest
| as a criteria for determining whether an object is a planet?

Because I say so. Who elected me dictator? I did, of course :-)

Realistically, the determination of what is a planet is common
usage. Pluto is, but the asteroids aren't, for no very good
reason; whether Sedna is or is not will depend on what the public
start to call it. And, yes, journalists and television presentors
will have more influence than astronomers. That is life!

I can't see that it makes any difference to astronomy, considered
as a science, which objects are called planets and which aren't.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.