[meteorite-list] 2003 UB313 Reignites a Planet-Sized Debate

[Chris Peterson]

My preferred definition is entirely unscientific:

Any of the nine planetary bodies orbiting the Sun that have been 
traditionally called "planets". This includes usage in mythology, 
literature, and scientific publications.

This leaves the IAU free to define any number of new terms to describe 
bodies orbiting a star. These definitions can take into account size, shape, 
orbital plane, composition, origin, and anything else that is 
_scientifically_ relevant. It takes "planet" off the table completely as a 
formal term, doesn't create confusion by redefining a term that is already 
in common usage, and pretty much should eliminate controversy.

I expect that the reality is, no matter how the IAU defines "planet", the 
vast majority of the lay public will continue to use the term as I defined 
it above, meaning that when scientists use the term outside their 
disciplines, they will need to add qualifications.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matson, Robert" <ROBERT.D.MATSON at saic.com>
To: "Sterling K. Webb" <sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net>; "Meteorite Mailing 
List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] 2003 UB313 Reignites a Planet-Sized Debate


> The definition of a planet that I've encountered that I like
> best is pretty scientifically concise and simple:
>
> Any natural body orbiting a star that has a mass greater than the
> sum of the masses of all other objects in a similar orbit.