ext_336637 ([identity profile] astra-nomer.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] astra_nomer 2006-08-16 08:00 pm (UTC)

So, is there a non-arbitrary definition that'd include the 8 and exclude the rest?

See, that's the trouble, it's a false dichotomy, really. There are all these objects that orbit the sun and they have a wide range of sizes and compositions and orbital parameters.

It would make sense to impose some kind of mass threshold, but even that would be arbitrary.

There are all sorts of interesting objects to study in the solar system. Arguing about what to call them seems kind of stupid.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting