(no subject)
So the controversy of the day is 'what makes a planet'? There's some kind of new criteria that has been proposed that could boost the number of planets from 9 up to.. 53! Astronomy-inclined (and especially dis-inclined) school kids may soon be in for hell remembering all the planets if that takes effect... although in the near-near future it looks like just a max of 12.
I seem to remember the thought of Pluto possibly being demoted because it was too small, but now suddenly the opposite idea is being pursued. They want to make the asteroid Ceres a planet, it's less than half of pluto's diamter... It's like anything round and in orbit around the sun may get to be a planet soon. Say we launch a tennis ball into space? planet!
too much. I would propose this--make the diameter of pluto the smallest size that a planet can be... anything in orbit HAS to be at least as large as pluto in order to reach 'planet' designation.... i think that will make most people happy.
that would qualify 'Xena', but not Ceres, and not pluto's quasi-moon charon, that dances with pluto along a common center of gravity.
Does anyone really want to insert Ceres? really? then jupiter would suddenly be the 6th planet from the sun. Saturn the 7th, and so on.
And with pluto and charon both being planets, which would be the 10th planet? pluto or charon? confusing!
And doesn't this completely ruin astrology? Has Ceres and the asteroid belt ever been taken into account, not to mention Xena....