[meteorite-list] Astronomers to Decide What Makes a Planet

From: Dawn & Gerald Flaherty <grf2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Aug 2 21:42:47 2005
Message-ID: <02a201c597cc$9e8efa20$6502a8c0_at_GerryLaptop>

Hola all the way Darren! Jerry
PS I liked the Stern's definition in Ron Blaake's post. Three unremarkable
features.
"Round"
In it's "own" orbit of a star
Without nuclear fireworks[brown dwarfism ok?]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Garrison" <cynapse_at_charter.net>
To: "Dawn & Gerald Flaherty" <grf2_at_verizon.net>
Cc: "Meteorite Mailing List" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Astronomers to Decide What Makes a Planet


On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:47:39 -0400, "Dawn & Gerald Flaherty"
<grf2_at_verizon.net> wrote:

>A thought provoking concept Darren.
>Analagous to seventeenth century religiousity which refused to accept the
>Copernican revolutionary thought?
>Kinda "don't rock the boat cause its too damned complicated and might cause
>a 'panic' for joe sixpac"[that's me by the way before my doctor screwed
that
>up] Jerry

Yeah, by the same "give up on defining a planet because a planet is what the
general public says it
is" logic, we might as well start calling meteorites meteors, because the
general public tends to
call meteorites meteors. Or we should accept that apes are monkeys, because
the general public
calls them monkeys. Or that pterasaurs are flying dinosaurs, because the
general public calls them
flying dinosaurs.

I say come up with a reasonable definition, and if that disagrees with what
the "general public"
thinks, then tell the general public to go sit on a bunsen burner.
Received on Tue 02 Aug 2005 09:42:32 PM PDT