Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv

Interesting article. Isn’t there still some question as to whether Pluto should even be considered a planet?


11 posted on 02/18/2009 4:54:34 PM PST by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child
I omitted that from the excerpt, because I don't accept that goofy crap from 2006, in which the foolish term "dwarf planet" was introduced.
To Pluto -- And Far Beyond "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.

17 posted on 02/18/2009 5:00:27 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson