defining planets; Pluto a planet and UB313; How the Atom Totality theory defines planets

In the news tonight was the issue of scientists defining what a planet
is. And it appears that a group of astronomers are in favor of Mr.
Binzel's proposal that gravity forming a "gravitational spherical
shaped object" would be the crux of the definition.

Some who object to this definition cite the lack of origin and
evolution of the astro body and they would claim a planet is only those
formed from the Solar Nebular Dust Cloud. And Pluto would not be a
planet in this scheme.

Let me offer my definition of a planet according to the Atom Totality
theory. Which says that solar systems are formed from the accretion of
cosmic ray particles shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality. So the
Nebular Dust Cloud is a fake theory. Our Sun and Earth grew from
constant accretion of what Dirac called "new radioactivity" in his book
Directions in Physics.

With that in mind, the proper definition of a PLANET is as follows:

Definition of Planet: we take Titius Bode spacings. Each solar system
may have similar or different spacings. Recall Titius Bode spacings are
like harmonic spacing, or like spectral lines writ on the size of astro
bodies. So, then, once we know what the Titius Bode spacing of our
Solar System is approximate to, then we look to see if a astro object
occupies that spacing. Any astro body that is not in that spacing is
not a planet.

Caveat: to the above definition. In that the mechanics of solar systems
is one of a forming of binary stars and so some planets will begin to
wander off their course of the Titius Bode spacings and eventually
rendezous in a collision with Jupiter to form a binary star.

Every solar system in the Cosmos will have a spacing of its planets,
some different from our solar system, and the definition of a planet is
a object which fits into a spacing.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
In the news tonight was the issue of scientists defining what a planet
is. And it appears that a group of astronomers are in favor of Mr.
Binzel's proposal that gravity forming a "gravitational spherical
shaped object" would be the crux of the definition.

Some who object to this definition cite the lack of origin and
evolution of the astro body and they would claim a planet is only those
formed from the Solar Nebular Dust Cloud. And Pluto would not be a
planet in this scheme.

Let me offer my definition of a planet according to the Atom Totality
theory. Which says that solar systems are formed from the accretion of
cosmic ray particles shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality. So the
Nebular Dust Cloud is a fake theory. Our Sun and Earth grew from
constant accretion of what Dirac called "new radioactivity" in his book
Directions in Physics.

With that in mind, the proper definition of a PLANET is as follows:

Definition of Planet: we take Titius Bode spacings. Each solar system
may have similar or different spacings. Recall Titius Bode spacings are
like harmonic spacing, or like spectral lines writ on the size of astro
bodies. So, then, once we know what the Titius Bode spacing of our
Solar System is approximate to, then we look to see if a astro object
occupies that spacing. Any astro body that is not in that spacing is
not a planet.

Caveat: to the above definition. In that the mechanics of solar systems
is one of a forming of binary stars and so some planets will begin to
wander off their course of the Titius Bode spacings and eventually
rendezous in a collision with Jupiter to form a binary star.

Every solar system in the Cosmos will have a spacing of its planets,
some different from our solar system, and the definition of a planet is
a object which fits into a spacing.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

What's in a name?