3X Jupiter Planet found Orbiting Pollux

Dear Double-A et al:

I submit that the elitist card carrying members of the French IAU who
claim to have discovered these 200 extra solar "planets" have actually so
far discovered exactly zero extra-solar planets.
I also submit that the closest know planets to Pollux are Neptune or Pluto,
depending on the time and/or the French IAU's planet definition for this
week.

Why?

Because

1. The French IAU is the Supreme and only governing body
of the Universe vested with the power to determine what is and is not a
planet of planetary systems.

2. The French IAU has decreed from on high that there
are only 8 planets in the Universe (see Resolution 5A note 1 below).

3. None of these alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are claimed to be orbiting the Sun (see Resolution 5A(1)(a), plus
note 1 below).

4. There has been no claim or data put forth that these
alleged extra-solar star wobble causing masses have sufficient mass for
their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a
hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, partly or wholly because the
IAU has no definition of what is "sufficient mass" (see Resolution 5A(1)(b)
below.

5. No peer review data, nor even "bragging rights" news
releases have been forthcoming showing that these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses have cleared the neighbourhood around their orbits,
mostly because they have no data, and partly because the IAU has provided no
definition of the words "cleared", nor "neighbourhood", as used in
Resolution 5A(1)(c).

6. The claimed masses of these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses is based on an unproved assumption that the
gravitational constant is the same at their locations as it is on Earth.
Einstein made no such claim.




Further, I submit that these 200 extra-solar "planets" are not even dwarf
planets

Because
1. The French IAU is the Supreme and only governing body
of the Universe vested with the power to determine what is and is not a
dwarf planet of planetary systems.

2. None of these alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are claimed to be orbiting the Sun (see Resolution 5A(2)(a)).

3. There has been no claim or data put forth that these
alleged extra-solar star wobble causing masses have sufficient mass for
their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a
hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, partly or wholly because the
IAU has no definition of what is "sufficient mass" (see Resolution 5A(2)(b)
below.

4. No peer review data, nor even "bragging rights" news
releases have been forthcoming showing that these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses have not cleared the neighbourhood around their
orbits, mostly because they have no data, and partly because the IAU has
provided no definition of the words "cleared", nor "neighbourhood", as used
in Resolution 5A(2)(c).

5. The claimed masses of these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses is based on an unproved assumption that the
gravitational constant is the same at their locations as it is on Earth.
Einstein made no such claim.

6. The IAU has yet to provide a process for determining
if borderline objects are either dwarf planets or "other" objects (see
Resolution 5A note 2 below).




Further, I submit that theses alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are in fact Small Solar-System Bodies (sub category TNOs or "other
small bodies), by the process of elimination and Resolution 5A Section (3)
and note 3, as proclaimed by the Universally Esteemed IAU.

If I have erred in my logic, please let me know where!



This discourse has caused me to ponder

How many Frenchmen can't be wrong (Groucho Marx)?

A. 50 million

B. None


Why does the IAU spell neighborhood neighbourhood?

A. They're French

B. They have diminished language skills

C. They can't come to grips with the fact that English is the Universal
language


Which is the most rigorous educational regimen?

A. Astronomy PhD

B. Education PhD

C. Antarctic Anthropology PhD

D. 11th grade Calculus



Are all Astronomers Law School drop-outs, as evidenced by the logic and
writing skills exhibited by Resolution 5A?



Do all Astronomers get their PhDs on-line from the University of Phoenix?



Why is the size of one's paycheck such an accurate indicator of the
combination of society's value of their vocation and their innate abilities?


Wayne


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IAU Resolution: Definition of a Planet in the Solar System
Contemporary observations are changing our understanding of planetary
systems, and it is important that our nomenclature for objects reflect our
current understanding. This applies, in particular, to the designation
"planets". The word "planet" originally described "wanderers" that were
known only as moving lights in the sky. Recent discoveries lead us to create
a new definition, which we can make using currently available scientific
information.

RESOLUTION 5A
The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar
System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the
following way:

(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b)
has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so
that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has
cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the
Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body
forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2 ,
(c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a
satellite.

(3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred
to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

1The eight "planets" a Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune.
2An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either
dwarf planet and other categories.
3These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most
Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...

"A new planet with nearly three times the mass of Jupiter has been
detected orbiting the bright star, Pollux, one of the Gemini twins.

While the 200 extra-solar planets discovered so far have been around
fairly inconspicuous stars, Pollux is the 16th brightest star in the
sky and can be easily seen from all places on Earth.

The discovery of planets orbiting stars other than the Sun continues at
the rate of nearly one a week. The planet discovered around Pollux has
the mass of 2.9 Jupiters and orbits the star in 590 days.

The discovery was made independently by two teams of astronomers using
the so-called Doppler method, a method of detecting the tiny wobble in
the motion of the parent star caused by the planet.

The Doppler method is the most successful planet detection method but
because larger planets cause a bigger wobble, the method tends to find
large planets in orbits relatively close to their stars. These systems
may not be typical.

Doppler observations need to be carried out on many stars over a period
of years with a large telescope. The technology needed to measure such
small stellar motions was only developed 15 years ago."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/stor...ectid=10399882

Double-A

Wayne L wrote:
Dear Double-A et al:

I submit that the elitist card carrying members of the French IAU

The IAU is international.

I also submit that the closest know planets to Pollux are Neptune or Pluto,

Correct because:

3. None of these alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are claimed to be orbiting the Sun (see Resolution 5A(1)(a), plus
note 1 below).

....

This discourse has caused me to ponder
....
Why does the IAU spell neighborhood neighbourhood?

A. They're French

B. They have diminished language skills

C. They can't come to grips with the fact that English is the Universal
language

The answer is "None of the above." The correct spelling
in the English language is "neighbourhood", although
"neighborhood" is a commonly seen variant in the USA.

George

In sci.astro Wayne L wrote:
Dear Double-A et al:

I submit that the elitist card carrying members of the French IAU who
claim to have discovered these 200 extra solar "planets" have actually so
far discovered exactly zero extra-solar planets.

Hello, there, Wayne, and while I agree with the likely purport of your
statement that IAU Resolution 5A might receive some refinement and
revision, I would emphasize that the IAU is an international organization
in which astronomers from many nations, including the USA, participate.

Also, I recognize that some humor may be intended, but will try to
answer some of your points since they can lead to a better understanding
of the issues.

I also submit that the closest know planets to Pollux are Neptune or Pluto,
depending on the time and/or the French IAU's planet definition for this
week.

An interesting question, which has come up in other threads, is how the
current Resolution 5A should be read in terms of extrasolar planets. One
position I've seen suggested is that an earlier IAU document regarding
extrasolar planets (2001 or so? -- actually, last revision, 2003) might
still apply.

Thus see:

http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html

For a list of candidate extrasolar planets, interestingly dated
28 August 2006, or four days after the adoption of Resolution 5A,
see:

http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/planets.html

Why?

Because

1. The French IAU is the Supreme and only governing body
of the Universe vested with the power to determine what is and is not a
planet of planetary systems.

Actually I'd say that they're merely establishing some official definitions,
however perfectly or otherwise, for use on Planet Earth -- and that we're
free to propose other usages, or revisions of the current IAU definitions.
Again, I'm not sure how France plays a special role in this -- more below.

2. The French IAU has decreed from on high that there
are only 8 planets in the Universe (see Resolution 5A note 1 below).

I agree that Resolution 5A could have been written better and could use some
revision (the next IAU General Assembly meets in Rio in 2009). However,
much of the wording was borrowed from the work of astronomers in the U.S.A.,
for example the "has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit" test for
what could have and should have been more expressly defined as a _major_
"planet."

Again, the earlier definition of extrasolar planets and the pages for I
give URL's above suggest that indeed there may be more than eight planets --
"major planets," that is -- in the universe at large.

3. None of these alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are claimed to be orbiting the Sun (see Resolution 5A(1)(a), plus
note 1 below).

Try, of course, and George Dishman and I have been having a lively debate
on just whether and how Resolution 5A might effect extrasolar planets.
I tend myself to assume that the earlier document expressly on these
planets might still more or less hold.


4. There has been no claim or data put forth that these
alleged extra-solar star wobble causing masses have sufficient mass for
their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a
hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, partly or wholly because the
IAU has no definition of what is "sufficient mass" (see Resolution 5A(1)(b)
below.

Well, depending on composition, it might be around 800 km diameter for a planet
like Ceres (which evidently meets the test at around 960 km) -- and a planet
with a mass of 3 jupiters, sustained by degenerate electron pressure, is
rather clearly going to meet it also.

5. No peer review data, nor even "bragging rights" news
releases have been forthcoming showing that these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses have cleared the neighbourhood around their orbits,
mostly because they have no data, and partly because the IAU has provided no
definition of the words "cleared", nor "neighbourhood", as used in
Resolution 5A(1)(c).

However, papers by astronomers such as Stern and Levison (2002), Basri and
Brown (2006), and Soter -- most if not all located in the USA, if I'm right --
have given the concept of "neighborhood clearing" a fairly well-understood
meaning, so that it has become a "term of art," to use a legal phrase.

I'd suspect that while this is a "circumstantial" test -- it depends on the
location of the planet as well as absolute mass -- a superplanet with a
mass of 3 jupiters is likely to meet it over a wide range of cases.

6. The claimed masses of these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses is based on an unproved assumption that the
gravitational constant is the same at their locations as it is on Earth.
Einstein made no such claim.

At times, as I understand, observations can indicate a _minimum_ mass only,
so that sometimes one needs to ask, "Is this actually a planet, or possibly
a brown dwarf at 13 or more jupiters?" More time might be required to refine
one's sense of the orbit, and thus the mass.

Isn't the gravitational constant assumed to follow the Cosmological Principle
that certain natural laws apply uniformly in different parts of the universe?
Cosmologists, is this still a reasonable assumption?

Further, I submit that these 200 extra-solar "planets" are not even dwarf
planets

Because
1. The French IAU is the Supreme and only governing body
of the Universe vested with the power to determine what is and is not a
dwarf planet of planetary systems.

2. None of these alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are claimed to be orbiting the Sun (see Resolution 5A(2)(a)).

What I might suspect is that the extrasolar planet definitions might be the
relevant ones, because any such planet likely to be detected is going to
have enough mass for self-gravity to constrain it to a spheroid shape
reflecting hydrostatic equilibrium.

3. There has been no claim or data put forth that these
alleged extra-solar star wobble causing masses have sufficient mass for
their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a
hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, partly or wholly because the
IAU has no definition of what is "sufficient mass" (see Resolution 5A(2)(b)
below.

See above -- 3 jupiters should be more than sufficient (an interesting
exercise -- by how many orders of magnitude?).


4. No peer review data, nor even "bragging rights" news
releases have been forthcoming showing that these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses have not cleared the neighbourhood around their
orbits, mostly because they have no data, and partly because the IAU has
provided no definition of the words "cleared", nor "neighbourhood", as used
in Resolution 5A(2)(c).

Actually, I'd say that 3 jupiters would likely make it a major planet rather
than a dwarf planet -- Soter sees the concept as applicable to extrasolar
planets, and discusses some possible questions that might arise.


5. The claimed masses of these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses is based on an unproved assumption that the
gravitational constant is the same at their locations as it is on Earth.
Einstein made no such claim.

6. The IAU has yet to provide a process for determining
if borderline objects are either dwarf planets or "other" objects (see
Resolution 5A note 2 below).

Again, this would only apply to objects of a mass _much_ smaller than
three jupiters.

Further, I submit that theses alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are in fact Small Solar-System Bodies (sub category TNOs or "other
small bodies), by the process of elimination and Resolution 5A Section (3)
and note 3, as proclaimed by the Universally Esteemed IAU.


Since they aren't part of our Solar System, the scope of Resolution 5A,
I'd say that some other classification would apply.

Why does the IAU spell neighborhood neighbourhood?

A. They're French

B. They have diminished language skills

C. They can't come to grips with the fact that English is the Universal
language

Actually, "neighbourhood" is a standard British spelling, the Queen's
orthography, as it were. From this viewpoint, my own usage, "neighbhorhood,"
might be taken as a kind of provincialism.

Again, this is not to say that IAU Resolution 5A is flawless -- only that
it reflects the position of a significant group of astronomers, not least
those of the U.S.A. (e.g. Brown and Soter).

Your comments do point to one revision I strongly advocate: making it clear
that the category "planet" in fact means "major planet," with the other two
categories also defining types of planets ("dwarf planets" and Small Solar
System Bodies also known as the smaller "minor planets" -- with comets, in
a persuasive current view, also included as "minor planets").

Also, yes, we could use a definition applying to all planets, solar or
extrasolar.

"Margo Schulter" wrote in message
...
....
I also submit that the closest know planets to Pollux are Neptune or
Pluto,
depending on the time and/or the French IAU's planet definition for this
week.

An interesting question, which has come up in other threads, is how the
current Resolution 5A should be read in terms of extrasolar planets. One
position I've seen suggested is that an earlier IAU document regarding
extrasolar planets (2001 or so? -- actually, last revision, 2003) might
still apply.

Thus see:

http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html

Curious, that means a planet ejected from a binary
system ceases to be a planet and becomes a
"sub-brown dwarf". Calling it a planet and
qualifying that as "free-floating" would seem more
logical. That said, my own suggestion (below) has
the same effect.

For a list of candidate extrasolar planets, interestingly dated
28 August 2006, or four days after the adoption of Resolution 5A,
see:

http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/planets.html

....

Try, of course, and George Dishman and I have been having a lively debate
on just whether and how Resolution 5A might effect extrasolar planets.
I tend myself to assume that the earlier document expressly on these
planets might still more or less hold.

I have now drafted an attempt at a more general
classification scheme. I first tried to draw the
current IAU version for reference though the
situation of satellites is a little tricky when
using the literal wording. Anyway this is what I
produced:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/IAU.png

I then tried to adjust that minimally to add the
extra-solar possibilities but it ended up with
quite a bit different. I have substituted two
names, "planetesimal" instead of "dwarf planet"
to remove the linguistic difficulty and "asteroid
or comet" instead of "small solar-system body". In
hind sight it would have been better to say just
"asteroid" as the intention is that is be expanded
by footnote to include various types such as TNOs
KBOs, QB1'os, comets, etc.. Basically everything
smaller than a dwarf planet but larger than dust.
Anyway, here it is:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/astronomy/GAD.png

I would appreciate your comments. I foresee possibly
contentious areas (other than name selection which
I consider unimportant compared to the criteria)
being the inclusion of brown dwarfs as a type of star
and the use of "planemo" (which you prompted) whether
the object is in orbit or not. I have restricted the
use of planet to those with a stable orbit to comply
with the IAU suggestion that it should have cleared
its neighbourhood since that cannot be determined in
say a chaotic ternary system or if the object is
free-floating.

best regards
George

Wayne L wrote:
Dear Double-A et al:

I submit that the elitist card carrying members--

I _started_ reading your article, and got this far before I clicked
away.

;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland

Wayne L wrote:
--snip--

Why does the IAU spell neighborhood neighbourhood?

A. They're French


That would be "voisinage."

Do all Astronomers get their PhDs on-line from the University of Phoenix?

Here's a bio of Guy Consolmagno, the President of the IAU Physical
Study of Planets & Satellites commission. I see Harvard and MIT in
there. He's also the author of Turn Left At Orion.
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R10...nsolmagno.html

His notes about the IAU conference and the Pluto decision:
http://homepage.mac.com/brother_guy/.Public/Br%20Guy's%20Pluto%20Opinion.pdf

Greg

In article .com,
George Dishman wrote:

Wayne L wrote:

I also submit that the closest know planets to Pollux are Neptune or Pluto,

Correct because:

No, it's incorrect!

Currently the Earth is closer to Pollux than either of Neptune or Pluto. In
a century the situation will be different, but right now that's how it is.

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

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
George Dishman wrote:

Wayne L wrote:

I also submit that the closest know planets to Pollux are
Neptune or Pluto,

Correct because:

No, it's incorrect!

Currently the Earth is closer to Pollux than either of Neptune or Pluto.

Thanks for the correction Paul, I should have
been more cautious.

In a century the situation will be different, but right
now that's how it is.

In a few months I suspect even Mercury will be closer
than Earth but which is closest is another question.

Thanks.

George

Margo Schulter wrote:

In sci.astro Wayne L wrote:
Dear Double-A et al:

I submit that the elitist card carrying members of the French IAU who
claim to have discovered these 200 extra solar "planets" have actually so
far discovered exactly zero extra-solar planets.

Hello, there, Wayne, and while I agree with the likely purport of your
statement that IAU Resolution 5A might receive some refinement and
revision, I would emphasize that the IAU is an international organization
in which astronomers from many nations, including the USA, participate.

Also, I recognize that some humor may be intended, but will try to
answer some of your points since they can lead to a better understanding
of the issues.

I also submit that the closest know planets to Pollux are Neptune or Pluto,
depending on the time and/or the French IAU's planet definition for this
week.

An interesting question, which has come up in other threads, is how the
current Resolution 5A should be read in terms of extrasolar planets. One
position I've seen suggested is that an earlier IAU document regarding
extrasolar planets (2001 or so? -- actually, last revision, 2003) might
still apply.

Thus see:

http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html

For a list of candidate extrasolar planets, interestingly dated
28 August 2006, or four days after the adoption of Resolution 5A,
see:

http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/planets.html

Why?

Because

1. The French IAU is the Supreme and only governing body
of the Universe vested with the power to determine what is and is not a
planet of planetary systems.

Actually I'd say that they're merely establishing some official definitions,
however perfectly or otherwise, for use on Planet Earth -- and that we're
free to propose other usages, or revisions of the current IAU definitions.
Again, I'm not sure how France plays a special role in this -- more below.

2. The French IAU has decreed from on high that there
are only 8 planets in the Universe (see Resolution 5A note 1 below).

I agree that Resolution 5A could have been written better and could use some
revision (the next IAU General Assembly meets in Rio in 2009). However,
much of the wording was borrowed from the work of astronomers in the U.S.A.,
for example the "has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit" test for
what could have and should have been more expressly defined as a _major_
"planet."

Again, the earlier definition of extrasolar planets and the pages for I
give URL's above suggest that indeed there may be more than eight planets --
"major planets," that is -- in the universe at large.

3. None of these alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are claimed to be orbiting the Sun (see Resolution 5A(1)(a), plus
note 1 below).

Try, of course, and George Dishman and I have been having a lively debate
on just whether and how Resolution 5A might effect extrasolar planets.
I tend myself to assume that the earlier document expressly on these
planets might still more or less hold.


4. There has been no claim or data put forth that these
alleged extra-solar star wobble causing masses have sufficient mass for
their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a
hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, partly or wholly because the
IAU has no definition of what is "sufficient mass" (see Resolution 5A(1)(b)
below.

Well, depending on composition, it might be around 800 km diameter for a planet
like Ceres (which evidently meets the test at around 960 km) -- and a planet
with a mass of 3 jupiters, sustained by degenerate electron pressure, is
rather clearly going to meet it also.

5. No peer review data, nor even "bragging rights" news
releases have been forthcoming showing that these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses have cleared the neighbourhood around their orbits,
mostly because they have no data, and partly because the IAU has provided no
definition of the words "cleared", nor "neighbourhood", as used in
Resolution 5A(1)(c).

However, papers by astronomers such as Stern and Levison (2002), Basri and
Brown (2006), and Soter -- most if not all located in the USA, if I'm right --
have given the concept of "neighborhood clearing" a fairly well-understood
meaning, so that it has become a "term of art," to use a legal phrase.

I'd suspect that while this is a "circumstantial" test -- it depends on the
location of the planet as well as absolute mass -- a superplanet with a
mass of 3 jupiters is likely to meet it over a wide range of cases.

6. The claimed masses of these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses is based on an unproved assumption that the
gravitational constant is the same at their locations as it is on Earth.
Einstein made no such claim.

At times, as I understand, observations can indicate a _minimum_ mass only,
so that sometimes one needs to ask, "Is this actually a planet, or possibly
a brown dwarf at 13 or more jupiters?" More time might be required to refine
one's sense of the orbit, and thus the mass.

Isn't the gravitational constant assumed to follow the Cosmological Principle
that certain natural laws apply uniformly in different parts of the universe?
Cosmologists, is this still a reasonable assumption?

Further, I submit that these 200 extra-solar "planets" are not even dwarf
planets

Because
1. The French IAU is the Supreme and only governing body
of the Universe vested with the power to determine what is and is not a
dwarf planet of planetary systems.

2. None of these alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are claimed to be orbiting the Sun (see Resolution 5A(2)(a)).

What I might suspect is that the extrasolar planet definitions might be the
relevant ones, because any such planet likely to be detected is going to
have enough mass for self-gravity to constrain it to a spheroid shape
reflecting hydrostatic equilibrium.

3. There has been no claim or data put forth that these
alleged extra-solar star wobble causing masses have sufficient mass for
their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a
hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, partly or wholly because the
IAU has no definition of what is "sufficient mass" (see Resolution 5A(2)(b)
below.

See above -- 3 jupiters should be more than sufficient (an interesting
exercise -- by how many orders of magnitude?).


4. No peer review data, nor even "bragging rights" news
releases have been forthcoming showing that these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses have not cleared the neighbourhood around their
orbits, mostly because they have no data, and partly because the IAU has
provided no definition of the words "cleared", nor "neighbourhood", as used
in Resolution 5A(2)(c).

Actually, I'd say that 3 jupiters would likely make it a major planet rather
than a dwarf planet -- Soter sees the concept as applicable to extrasolar
planets, and discusses some possible questions that might arise.


5. The claimed masses of these alleged extra-solar star
wobble causing masses is based on an unproved assumption that the
gravitational constant is the same at their locations as it is on Earth.
Einstein made no such claim.

6. The IAU has yet to provide a process for determining
if borderline objects are either dwarf planets or "other" objects (see
Resolution 5A note 2 below).

Again, this would only apply to objects of a mass _much_ smaller than
three jupiters.

Further, I submit that theses alleged extra-solar star wobble causing
masses are in fact Small Solar-System Bodies (sub category TNOs or "other
small bodies), by the process of elimination and Resolution 5A Section (3)
and note 3, as proclaimed by the Universally Esteemed IAU.


Since they aren't part of our Solar System, the scope of Resolution 5A,
I'd say that some other classification would apply.

Why does the IAU spell neighborhood neighbourhood?

A. They're French

B. They have diminished language skills

C. They can't come to grips with the fact that English is the Universal
language

Actually, "neighbourhood" is a standard British spelling, the Queen's
orthography, as it were. From this viewpoint, my own usage, "neighbhorhood,"
might be taken as a kind of provincialism.

Again, this is not to say that IAU Resolution 5A is flawless -- only that
it reflects the position of a significant group of astronomers, not least
those of the U.S.A. (e.g. Brown and Soter).

Your comments do point to one revision I strongly advocate: making it clear
that the category "planet" in fact means "major planet," with the other two
categories also defining types of planets ("dwarf planets" and Small Solar
System Bodies also known as the smaller "minor planets" -- with comets, in
a persuasive current view, also included as "minor planets").

Also, yes, we could use a definition applying to all planets, solar or
extrasolar.

ayyes! 5A iff 3B9V iff P=4.594/2C [x........ P]. The Gold Dust room in Reno
would be the place to settle this once and for all.

"WL" == Wayne L writes:

WL I submit that the elitist card carrying members of the French IAU
WL who claim to have discovered these 200 extra solar "planets" have
WL actually so far discovered exactly zero extra-solar planets. I
WL also submit that the closest know planets to Pollux are Neptune or
WL Pluto, depending on the time and/or the French IAU's planet
WL definition for this week.

Wow. I'm not sure whether to be impressed or amused that somebody
goes to so much trouble to get themselves annoyed.

In any event, ...

WL Why?

WL Because

WL 1. The French IAU is the Supreme and only
WL governing body of the Universe vested with the power to determine
WL what is and is not a planet of planetary systems.

WL 2. The French IAU has decreed from on high
WL that there are only 8 planets in the Universe (see Resolution 5A
WL note 1 below).

This topic came up in the discussions at the IAU. There was
considerable concern about how this definition applied to extrasolar
planets. During the week, the resolution was changed to insert the
words "in the Solar System" to make it clear that this definition
applies *only* to objects within the solar system. There is another
IAU committee still working on the definition of an extrasolar planet.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html