Robert G. Seeberger wrote: > > If a body has enough mass to reform itself into (roughly) > a sphere then it should be considered a planet. > Like the Moon or Ganimede? The orbit question is important!
> Let me make a prediction: > (and keep in mind how *I* would prefer to define a planet) > At some point in the future a body that is multiples of earth's mass > will be discovered that does not orbit any other body (excepting > perhaps the galactic center and even then it will not be a regular > orbit), it will resemble the terrestrial planets only colder. > > It will be called a planet. > 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. "Rogue planet" is IIRC the science-fictional term for those bodies [and "Rogue Star" is a star not bound to a Galaxy]. Of course, maybe we should also re-work the definition of _moon_, because there are moons that are bigger than planets, and moons that are just pieces of rock. Some moons are "proper" moons, and others are "asteroidal" moons. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
