--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should > > be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does > > not orbit a star. > > That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more > important to the definition of "planet" than the properties of the > body itself are.
I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define "planet" simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called "terrestrial planets" and "jovian planets." Meanwhile, there is a word for gravitationally-round objects, they are called "planemos." Planets are simply a usefull subset of planemos. I see no reason to objecting with the creation of a word that defines a usefull set of objects, simply because that subset is based in part upon that objects interaction with others. It seems like objecting between the difference between a lake and a bay, because a bay is simply a lake next to an ocean. JDG P.S. Another object defined by location is asteroid, meteor, and meteorite. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
