Demotion of Pluto as a planet

[Jonathan Post]

*http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060831_planet_definition.html

Pluto: Down But Maybe Not Out *
*By Robert Roy Britt <http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/robbritt>*
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 31 August 2006
02:38 pm ET

If you did not like Pluto's demotion, don't give up hope.

Arguments over the newly approved definition for "planet" are likely to
continue at least until 2009, and astronomers say there is much that remains
to be clarified and refined.

While it is entirely unclear if the
definition<http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060824_planet_definition.html>could
ever be altered enough to reinstate
Pluto <http://www.space.com/pluto/> as a planet<http://www.space.com/planets/>,
astronomers clearly expect some changes...


On 8/31/06, Lßbos ElemÚr <Labos at ana.sote.hu> wrote:
>
> On 29 Aug 2006, at 14:38, cino hilliard wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: Antti Karttunen <antti.karttunen at gmail.com>
> > To: seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr
> > Subject: Re: Demotion of Pluto as a planet
> > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:47:15 +0300
> >
> > Antti Karttunen wrote:
> >
> > >Lßbos ElemÚr wrote:
> > >
> > >>How astrologists react to the loss of planet status of Pluto?
> >
> > Take a look at encarta definition of planet.
> >
> > Planet, any major celestial body that orbits a star and does not emit
> > visible light of its own but instead shines by reflected light.
> >
> > What about volcanos, A-bombs, radiowaves, astroid impacts etc. Even if
> we
> > can't see the light,
> > it is still emitted. According to this, the earth is not a planet.
> >
> > Planet, any major celestial body that orbits a star would have been
> > sufficient.
> >
> > Defining is a tough nut to crack.
> Omnis determinatio est negatio...............
> Consequently it is necessary to list allűthose
> entities which  are non-planet [.... voila a new
> NP problem]..
> Themost nice generated dilemma: is the Earth a planet or not<?
>
> A question: is a part or some parts of a planet planet itself
> or not?
>
> Yours
> Labos
>
> PS1: be sure that I am not a planet , at least I
>        cannot prove this...
> PS2: is somebody among us a  planet;
>        No doubt njas is the Sun...
>
>
>
> > http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577741/Planet.html
> >
> > I pose this incident because after all the good discussion and mention
> of
> > specific sequences and
> > the opinions brought forth, I still do not know exactly what a "base"
> > sequence is.
> >
> > Cino
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20060901/413d0ed3/attachment-0001.htm>