Definition of Planet to be Announced in September.

Re-naming the word "star" to "fusor" is exactly the sort of linguistic codswallop one expects from parts of California.

Basri's definitions are worthy only of derision:

FUSOR - an object that achieves core fusion during its lifetime.
PLANEMO - a round non-fusor.
PLANET - a planemo orbiting a fusor.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Geologists don't go around making fools of themselves by trying to tell us at what exact height a hill becomes a mountain.

This debate is about over-defining a perfectly good "general" word, it is about language,not the planets.

"A rose by any other name...etc." Shakespeare.

The new definition will tell us NOTHING new about the planets.

Re-naming the word "star" to "fusor" is exactly the sort of linguistic codswallop one expects from parts of California.

Basri's definitions are worthy only of derision:

FUSOR - an object that achieves core fusion during its lifetime.
PLANEMO - a round non-fusor.
PLANET - a planemo orbiting a fusor.

Hmm - seems you have 'issues' about folks on the western coast of the USA... And I'm sure Mr. Basri would love the opportunity to discuss with you why you feel his article is worthy only of derision. You seem to have no love lost for a lot of people - care to elaborate why?

Given the fact that you have quoted a web dictionary definition of 'planet', are you satisfied that there are only seven planets in the Solar System? Or do you have another definition that would include all nine as accepted (currenly) by the IAU?. Or do you prefer the definition of a planet couched in terms of astrology? How many planets are there? What's your definition?

And I agree with your asserion that the definition, by itself, will tell us nothing *new* about the planets (whatever they are) but it will at least formally set the boundaries about what is a planet and what isn't.

And of course, you may choose to subscribe to the new definition or not - its a free country!

Dave

Re-naming the word "star" to "fusor" is exactly the sort of linguistic codswallop one expects from parts of California.

Basri's definitions are worthy only of derision:

FUSOR - an object that achieves core fusion during its lifetime.
PLANEMO - a round non-fusor.
PLANET - a planemo orbiting a fusor.

I really like them. They are simple and suscinct.

ATM it is not possible to answer the question "how many planets are there our solar system" that is an insane state of afairs for Astronomy!

Re-naming the stars as "fusors"????

Every non-astronomer in the world,and most astronomers, would fall about laughing if we tried that.

I love Californians but sometimes they sure do come up with things which seem removed from this planet.

Somehow the words : "I see the Fusors in your eyes" just wouldnt sound right in a love song.

Re-naming the stars as "fusors"????

Every non-astronomer in the world,and most astronomers, would fall about laughing if we tried that.

I love Californians but sometimes they sure do come up with things which seem removed from this planet.

Somehow the words : "I see the Fusors in your eyes" just wouldnt sound right in a love song.

If you had bothered to read his article at all you would realise that "fusor" is not a new word for star. Fusors are anything that powers it self with nuclear fusion. All stars are fusors, all fusors are not stars!

The guy is making perfect sense, he has plain and simple definitions that work. What's the best you can come up with? (appart from random insults to people)