In other Plutonian news: Pluto's newest moons get names: Nix, Hydra.
Hey, Pluto! Don't let the door hit Uranus on the way out!
Another criterion for calling a body a planet would be that it's primary should be the Sun. This would keep Titan, the Moon, and other natural satellites from being called planets.
Here's the thing to do: determine if the celestial body has a function in the astrological charts. If it does it is a planet, the moon, or the sun. If not, it is an asteroid, a moon (not the moon), or a comet. This would make everything beyond Saturn a non-planet unless an astrologer (Persian or Indian) of some repute has a use for it.
I have some arbitrary standards of my own
1. is the satellite's primary a star?
if no: it ain't a planet
if yes to 1 and 2:
2. Is the body essentially spherical?
if no: it ain't a planet
if yes:
3. does the body in question have sufficient gravity to maintain the stable orbit(s) of natural satellite(s) of its own?
if no: it ain't a planet
if yest to all the above: it IS a planet
I'll bet the citizens of Pluto are plenty angry. I sure would be if Earth lost its' status!
I fear though that this may be the democrats new voter base, disillusioned Plutonians who consider planetary status their right and entitlement.
Shove Pelosi onto a rocketship and let her do some advanced study on this.
In a Constitutional Republic Pluto would be entitled to 2 Senators and one Representative. That would qualify it for red state status.
Why do all the other planet's moons get to have names, but Earth's moon does not?
Change the defintion to exlude smaller bodies and grandfather in Pluto.
I like the idea of eight major planets and any number of minor planets that would include Pluto. You can choose where the dividing line goes between "not a planet" and a "minor planet." But leave the eight fixed major planets.
Pluto Might Have Rings
Space.com | 22 February 2006 | Ker Than
Posted on 02/23/2006 1:16:50 PM EST by nickcarraway
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584209/posts
Pluto Has Three Moons, Hubble Images Show
ap on Yahoo | 10/31/05 | Alex Dominguez - ap
Posted on 10/31/2005 9:22:32 PM EST by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513000/posts
Rethinking the Planets
Popular Science | January 2006 issue (I believe) | Michael Stroh
Posted on 12/28/2005 5:36:18 PM EST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1548344/posts
10 Planets? Why Not 11?
NY Times | August 23, 2005 | KENNETH CHANG
Posted on 08/23/2005 7:39:11 PM EDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1469281/posts
and just for fun:
2012: the piano-sized ‘New Horizons’ probe of NASA nears Pluto (will it find ET there?)
India Daily | Jan. 6, 2006
Posted on 01/10/2006 11:29:19 AM EST by presidio9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555353/posts
 |
"To Pluto And Far Beyond" By David H. Levy, Parade, January 15, 2006 -- We don't have a dictionary definition yet that includes all the contingencies. In the wake of the new discovery, however, the International Astronomical Union has set up a group to develop a workable definition of planet. For our part, in consultation with several experienced planetary astronomers, Parade offers this definition: A planet is a body large enough that, when it formed, it condensed under its own gravity to be shaped like a sphere. It orbits a star directly and is not a moon of another planet. |
I think that we might consider designating Massachusetts as the new "ninth planet" in the case that we do lose Pluto!